|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 12, 2009 0:32:24 GMT -5
I understand everything you've said. I rarely read the mainpage, seldom comment. I do my forum duty and approve/delete quotes, and am actually very picky. Sometimes I take a day or two off from it, because they can get repetitive. You can only read "it's only a theory" or "Obama is the antichrist" so many times in a week. It affects your brain. I apologize if I came across as paranoid, but when it comes to this site, I've got a real soft spot. It is an escape from the humdrum, a free exchange of thought and ideas, and so I get kind of protective when I perceive a threat to that absolute freedom, to even be a total ass if I chose. I know that I'd be called out for it, as it should be. That stuff is self regulating. Also, one of the mods should pick a "police officer Cartman" as their avatar, ala "You've got to respect my authoritay". I think Bluefinger or Napoleon...
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Mar 12, 2009 1:39:47 GMT -5
Although I agree with the guidelines, I'm wondering about the list of Poes. Unless it's someone we're 100% sure of (like Landover). Then again, what if there's some idiot in Landover's mail bag? As for individuals, almost every post on the boards has someone saying "This is a Poe", so unless we track the person down physically, how can we be sure?
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Mar 12, 2009 2:22:07 GMT -5
This is why I would like the list to be a list of KNOWN poes, like Landover and another site that was discovered recently that looks like it's by the same people. There are probably other poe sites out there that we don't know about yet, but they are bound to crop up eventually.
Additionally, if we can confirm that a specific username on a certain popular quote source site (like say YouTube) is a chronic poe, then we would list that person as well, and some of these people CAN be proven as chronic poe (for example Edward Current).
As I said, only PROVEN poes would be on this list.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Mar 14, 2009 11:08:40 GMT -5
New rule handed down to me by Distind. Everyone should check it out. It's in the Other Guidelines section.
|
|
|
Post by ausador on Mar 14, 2009 17:18:01 GMT -5
Lady Renae I think you might want to try to restrain your compulsion for enforced order just a bit. This site has existed for a long time without rules, protocols, guidelines, moderator 'enforced' suggestions, and any other type of order. (besides common sense)
How freaking hard is it to hit the delete button? No instead you want to control and limit the input for submissions so that you will not be "bothered" by poor ones. I have to say that personally I think that goes against everything this site is supposed to stand for. Who died and left you as the God of what we should be allowed to vote on?
I have seen some of the quotes I have voted to delete be approved and then get swamped with replies on the main page. I may not have liked the quote or thought it was a POE but the posters apparently felt differently. My personal judgement cannot supplant that of the majority, neither should yours. I too have complained in the forum when certain things got approved but I have never suggested banning certain submissions or limiting them. I figured simply crying foul and making people think before they voted might be enough, it always was in the past.
Distind has limited those who can vote quite a bit, why not trust to their judgement?
I do not mean this as a personal attack per se...but you seem to have a need for order that is counter to what is probably good for this site. People come here for fun and an easy carefree laugh...not for rules and guidelines. Let them submit whatever they wish, I'll vote on it, hopefully between all those allowed to vote only the best stuff will get through. How about giving the new limited public admin access a chance to produce results before adding further layers of regulation?
Edit:
I wont be voting in your poll either, I hate the entire idea behind it.
|
|
|
Post by ausador on Mar 14, 2009 17:38:25 GMT -5
To me it would be much more in the spirit of the site if there was just a link on the submittal page to a page called "Suggestions for making good submittals" or something like that. There we can try to pass on our experience about what makes a good fundie quote and what doesn't. Add suggestions about editing down long quotes, warn about editorilizing quotes, etc, etc...
Note that my suggestion does not try to define and limit what may be submitted, does not preach or set rules, it merely relates experience. I think that maybe people would appreciate that rather than resent it. Yes it is basically kinda the same thing, but it is the approach to the reader that matters.
[Edited to add bold to text.]
|
|
|
Post by crazalus on Mar 14, 2009 18:05:54 GMT -5
Lady Renae I think you might want to try to restrain your compulsion for enforced order just a bit. This site has existed for a long time without rules, protocols, guidelines, moderator 'enforced' suggestions, and any other type of order. (besides common sense) And look just how much crap got approved... I think you'll find that some kind of standards would be a good thing... or would you really like this site to be nothing more than "attack anyone who believes differently" which is how it was starting to go? I don't know about you, but if this place turns into the Atheist equivelent of Rapture Ready, I'm out of here!
|
|
|
Post by ausador on Mar 14, 2009 18:20:10 GMT -5
Hmmm...so what is the definition of a multiple quote that is now banned?
Is it any quote with more than one poster named?...because I can think of several that needed the back and forth between two posters for context that were hilariously funny. Oh well, guess that is over now...
I understand wanting to tighten up the standards of what appears on the main page and wanting quality over quantity, but absolutely banning content is not the answer. Not allowing any room for subjective decision will leave this site sterile and decrease it's following.
We DO NOT suddenly need to make it perfect (according to whom I don't know) overnight. On top of the site and board change we need to add more change?...step back and take a deep breath and let things shake out first howabout?
Sorry for the multiple posts and being redundant but this is something I feel strongly about...to attempt to micromanage this site will destroy it.
Thanks for the whitespace; ausador
|
|
|
Post by Sandafluffoid on Mar 14, 2009 18:30:00 GMT -5
Lady Renae I think you might want to try to restrain your compulsion for enforced order just a bit. This site has existed for a long time without rules, protocols, guidelines, moderator 'enforced' suggestions, and any other type of order. (besides common sense) I beg your pardon? Were you there the last few months? The entire place became a mess of sky baitign and troll attacks, FSTDT doesn't need to become auschwitz, but it seriously needs more proactive moderation. How freaking hard is it to hit the delete button? Tell that to gamefax And how is this a bad thing, it'll just make sure stupid submissions have even less chance of getting through. How does it go against making fun of fundies racists and conspiracy theorists exactly? It's not like this will stop you swearing at morons in the forums or posting staplers in thread killer (I'm glaring at you gotpwnt) I have seen some of the quotes I have voted to delete be approved and then get swamped with replies on the main page. I may not have liked the quote or thought it was a POE but the posters apparently felt differently. My personal judgement cannot supplant that of the majority, neither should yours. I too have complained in the forum when certain things got approved but I have never suggested banning certain submissions or limiting them. I figured simply crying foul and making people think before they voted might be enough, it always was in the past. FSTDT isn't a place for people to comment on things, its a place to store FUNNY quotes, people will comment whether its funny, fundy or stupid. Nubmer of comments != value. Because you're still getting people approving 90-95% of quotes going through, the people with access have proven that they canno be trusted. I do not mean this as a personal attack per se...but you seem to have a need for order that is counter to what is probably good for this site. People come here for fun and an easy carefree laugh...not for rules and guidelines. Let them submit whatever they wish, I'll vote on it, hopefully between all those allowed to vote only the best stuff will get through. How about giving the new limited public admin access a chance to produce results before adding further layers of regulation? FSTDT is a big site, and the last few months on the old forums shows what happens when it isn't properly moderated (no offense to the mod team, but even you guys were talking about how out of hand things got), it needs some guidelines, and the fact that t is beingreborn gives us a chance to actually gain some control over t. Do't tell me you like skyfire-baiting? I wont be voting in your poll either, I hate the entire idea behind it. Not only do you start with a big old rant about nothing in paticular, which appears to be based on unfounded fears of having nazi-like mods and then you just have to edit in this peurile little snipe? WHat did that edit add to your post, it wasn't useful, and it wasn't clever, it was just childish. It's this kind of thing that measn we need tougher moddng.
|
|
|
Post by ausador on Mar 14, 2009 18:30:37 GMT -5
Lady Renae I think you might want to try to restrain your compulsion for enforced order just a bit. This site has existed for a long time without rules, protocols, guidelines, moderator 'enforced' suggestions, and any other type of order. (besides common sense) And look just how much crap got approved... I think you'll find that some kind of standards would be a good thing... or would you really like this site to be nothing more than "attack anyone who believes differently" which is how it was starting to go? I don't know about you, but if this place turns into the Atheist equivelent of Rapture Ready, I'm out of here! That was before the pool of people approveing quotes was just severely limited, how about we see how that has worked? How about we talk about approvals and good and bad choices instead of making regulations? I have never approved quotes that were simply taking the piss on someone of faith. Just because the word God or Jesus appeared somewhere in the quote did not make me approve it. It had to have some decent 'fundie' content to get my vote. People who do not understand the difference need to be prevented from voting on submittals. You can make people go through reading five pages of rules and regulations for submittals before they can post them and they will still submit crap. It is the people voting on them that matter!
|
|
|
Post by crazalus on Mar 14, 2009 18:32:48 GMT -5
Hmmm...so what is the definition of a multiple quote that is now banned? Is it any quote with more than one poster named?...because I can think of several that needed the back and forth between two posters for context that were hilariously funny. Oh well, guess that is over now... Not at all... Multiple quote is all about the same damned quote being submitted over and over again. Sure, there's a few changes in each submission... sometimes a bit more from before, a bit more from after... but in essence, the exact same quote submitted yet again. Do we allow that? Do we really want the site to be repetitious quotes? Or do we want some kind of standards? What do you think the voting system is for?? Seriously, if it's Poe, it gets tossed... because it's not what a FUNDIE is saying. (which is what the site is about, yes?) If it's Satire, it gets tossed... again because it's not what a FUNDIE is saying. If it's just plain boring (and a lot of submissions have been "I believe in God" and nothing else) it gets tossed, because it's not DARNDEST... which is what the site is about, yes? Certain things do not fit with this site, Winace NEVER let that kind of stuff in, so how about we get back to the intention of this site? Yeah... God forbid we do something about the stench of garbage that's been stinking up the place for months now... And making it perfect? What makes anyone think they're trying to make it perfect? Or why should we avoid making desperately needed changes while we're in the process of making changes anyway? If we leave this issue, let it ferment, it'll be HARDER to make any changes further down the line. You think this is micromanaging??? This is about getting some fucking standards in place so we don't end up with a small group all patting each other on the back because they've taught that Theist a lesson for daring to be a Theist! Again, if there are no standards, the way the site was going will just carry on, and this site will lose all pretenses of being about detailing the Darndest Fundie quotes and simply become the Atheist version of Rapture Ready... a place where only the most Anti-Theist people will come. I don't know about you, but I think that would seriously decrease it's following...
|
|
|
Post by ausador on Mar 14, 2009 18:33:32 GMT -5
@ Sandafluffoid This thread has absolutely nothing to do with the forums...it is about submittals and only about submittals. WTF does flaming Skyfire in the forum have to do with submittals to the mainpage?...perhaps you can enlighten me?
|
|
|
Post by crazalus on Mar 14, 2009 18:40:53 GMT -5
That was before the pool of people approveing quotes was just severely limited, how about we see how that has worked? How about we talk about approvals and good and bad choices instead of making regulations? It's been a month... and guess what's happened? Yep, even with it being limited, the same old crap keeps getting through! Even limiting the number of voters hasn't solved it... and if there are no standards, there is nothing to hold people to, no base-line for people to use when deciding whether to approve or not. How hard is that to understand? Then you are in the minority... congratulations. But, just because you vote like that, doesn't mean the majority will... and the kind of quotes getting approved shows the majority isn't. With the standards in place, it's very easy to say... "Look, if you keep approving stuff that's not up to standard, you lose your voting ability." It's a very good way of weeding out those who are incapable of voting sensibly... and might give them enough pointers that they'll see where they are going wrong. I see it like this... you forgo standards, and the site becomes a faded, useless repository of Theist-bashing shite. Don't say it wouldn't happen, because that is EXACTLY what was happening in the last few months! We sort it out, or the site dies... understand?
|
|
|
Post by Sandafluffoid on Mar 14, 2009 18:42:49 GMT -5
@ Sandafluffoid This thread has absolutely nothing to do with the forums...it is about submittals and only about submittals. WTF does flaming Skyfire in the forum have to do with submittals to the mainpage?...perhaps you can enlighten me? I was reffering to your general attack on the idea of tighter regulations for the site. Simply having people make sure they only submit sensible quotes and having a bot or something to limit the nubmer of known and proven poes getting through isn't goign to hurt anyone at all, as far as I can tell you are more opposed to the concept of tighter moderation than the effects, which would naturally encompass the forums. Furthermore, since I largely avoid the mainpage becuase it is too aggressive for me, I naturally think of sky-baiting as an example of the increasing aggressiveness of this site. DIAF anti-theist comments on the main page are probably more relevant, so if it makes you sleep any easier substtute in a reference to mainpage commetns whenever I mentioned the forums, my points still stand.
|
|
|
Post by ausador on Mar 14, 2009 19:00:48 GMT -5
That was before the pool of people approveing quotes was just severely limited, how about we see how that has worked? How about we talk about approvals and good and bad choices instead of making regulations? It's been a month... and guess what's happened? Yep, even with it being limited, the same old crap keeps getting through! Even limiting the number of voters hasn't solved it... and if there are no standards, there is nothing to hold people to, no base-line for people to use when deciding whether to approve or not. How hard is that to understand? Then you are in the minority... congratulations. But, just because you vote like that, doesn't mean the majority will... and the kind of quotes getting approved shows the majority isn't. With the standards in place, it's very easy to say... "Look, if you keep approving stuff that's not up to standard, you lose your voting ability." It's a very good way of weeding out those who are incapable of voting sensibly... and might give them enough pointers that they'll see where they are going wrong. I see it like this... you forgo standards, and the site becomes a faded, useless repository of Theist-bashing shite. Don't say it wouldn't happen, because that is EXACTLY what was happening in the last few months! We sort it out, or the site dies... understand? Here we can agree perfectly and 100%, you fail to understand what I am criticizeing, which is this approach to solveing the problem. The solution lies with the voters and not with the submitters, expending effort to produce a matrix of rules for submittals is futile and limiting. Educating the voters and allowing only educated voters input is the only solution to this. (and btw it has been one day less than two weeks since the new site came up and public admin took another fours days before it worked. So it has only been slightly more than a week that people could vote.)
|
|