| |
Official: Archived: ATRL HQ (2012-2013)
Member Since: 6/25/2011
Posts: 28,853
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2011
Posts: 9,573
|
Quote:
Originally posted by SixWholeYears
|
BUMP.
Where are the mods? 
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 11/14/2008
Posts: 24,988
|
Quote:
Originally posted by b3dro
Well I guess i got the wrong idea because of your posts in the Britney Singles Rates thread that Duca did.
-
Maybe you guys can reverse Halien's last point and give her a reminder instead?.  I really want her to be her when X's single gets released.
 |
Only to warn them for the other three flamebait posts? Not happening! They were at 9 points when they received that WP.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 11/14/2008
Posts: 24,988
|
How would members feel about nicknames in Base? Just fishing for feedback. Do you think if we allowed it in Base, but no other parts, people would still use them heavily outside of Base threads? 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/14/2011
Posts: 21,274
|
Quote:
Originally posted by foxaylove
How would members feel about nicknames in Base? Just fishing for feedback. Do you think if we allowed it in Base, but no other parts, people would still use them heavily outside of Base threads? |
Yesyesyesyesyesyes
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 11/14/2008
Posts: 24,988
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Muggwa
Yesyesyesyesyesyes |
Do you think people would forget that they weren't in a Base thread and use them in Charts, Music News, Celebria, etc?
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 6/15/2011
Posts: 6,134
|
Quote:
Originally posted by foxaylove
Only to warn them for the other three flamebait posts? Not happening! They were at 9 points when they received that WP.
|
Oh! Cant wait for her return then.
-
Using nicknames in Base would be a cute idea.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/17/2011
Posts: 52,363
|
Quote:
Originally posted by foxaylove
How would members feel about nicknames in Base? Just fishing for feedback. Do you think if we allowed it in Base, but no other parts, people would still use them heavily outside of Base threads? |
I like this idea...as long as its only for the artist that the base is dedicated to
No nicknames for other artist...then WP
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/30/2009
Posts: 79,408
|
InsureTer
Banned
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/16/2011
Posts: 60,893
|
Quote:
Originally posted by foxaylove
Only to warn them for the other three flamebait posts? Not happening! They were at 9 points when they received that WP.
|
Foxay 
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 11/14/2008
Posts: 24,988
|
Quote:
Originally posted by castrobabytiger
I like this idea...as long as its only for the artist that the base is dedicated to
No nicknames for other artist...then WP
|
Well the obvious negative nicknames would be the exception (unless in SYG). Could we really trust ATRLers to only use them in Base and not trickle to other sections? We've discussed lifting the ban before, but concerns were expressed about the confusion it would cause some with knowing where they can and can't use them at.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/30/2009
Posts: 79,408
|
I personally find stan nicknames stupid and use only the negative nicknames in SYG.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/17/2011
Posts: 52,363
|
Quote:
Originally posted by foxaylove
Well the obvious negative nicknames would be the exception (unless in SYG). Could we really trust ATRLers to only use them in Base and not trickle to other sections? We've discussed lifting the ban before, but concerns were expressed about the confusion it would cause some with knowing where they can and can't use them at.
|
just make an official announcement
Then after a week or 2...if there are ppl going into other bases reporting them, give the reporter a WP
Or if it caries outside the base...give a wp to the poster
I mean...mods would know how to handle them accordingly
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/8/2011
Posts: 14,458
|
The nicknames are uneccessary 
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 12/29/2003
Posts: 6,311
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MrPeanut
So how many warnings would you hand out in a thread like this for example?
This is pretty much par for course for any of those threads in the Charts section, and not any of those posts are warned (with good reason - that would be ridiculous). So yeah, if I saw those posts go unwarned routinely and one of my posts that was in a similar vein got warned then I would be miffed as well due to the alarming inconsistency of its application.
And I've not really heard any other mods refer short or single-word posts (e.g., "lol," "omg, "wow, etc.) as being warn-worthy. Is that a sentiment shared by all the mods or something to which you subscribe?
I understand that some people do complain about every little thing, even in instances where they were warned for blatantly trolling and they knew it, but there is a bit of a debatable gray area on some warnings (such as flamebait) where I don't blame posters for wanting to discuss it in here.
Some of the mods seem to have a different understanding of what constitutes "flamebait" as opposed to others. That's understandable to a degree because the mods are individual people all with their own judgment, but I feel like it's getting a bit ridiculous in some instances where posts are getting warned that are less provocative than things posted by moderators themselves on a regular basis in the past.
This was one post of mine that was warned for "flamebait" even though the purpose was to pursue a line of discussion rather than instigate a mindless flame war:
http://atrl.net/forums/showthread.ph...86815#10086815
That is substantive charts discussion made in the charts section and it was on-topic with what was already being discussed. You talked before about it being annoying when posters report things that they just disagree with expecting it to be warned, and yet this was not a heated post made with the attempt to instigate a flame war, it was a post that some stan didn't like, and yet it was warned as "flamebait" as if it had said "Britney's sales are pathetic tbh."
Like I said, I realize the mods are going to be using individual discretion, but these things are frustrating and the process should be a bit more objective than having the likelihood of whether you'll be warned for a post or not differ drastically depending on which mod is first to process the report. |
Well it depends on the thread, really. If the thread is just about numbers and not something a member did, then I am more likely to not care about such posts, however if it's a YTT thread and the owner feels offended/annoyed, then, yeah. In most of the threads where I have warned pointless posts, they are usually concerning a topic where more can be said and yet the person decided to post a flamebait or a pointless image or even just one word. The worst is when someone is just quoted and nothing is added. Either way, it is up to each moderator's discretion.
The one-word thing depends on the mod, yes. I know a couple of other mods but I am not one to talk about other moderators unless they feel comfortable. I am mostly saying everything from my own point of view and mine only. I have no right to talk about other moderators here, since we have the general "There's no point to your post, or you're only using an unrelated image/GIF as your reply" reason. I may find that there is no point to your post because you said one-word. Another moderator may find no point in your post because you are purely posting to troll. Honestly, it depends. I just know it's not just me but you're right, I am not going to go spend time warning a whole thread if it's not reported. I mean, how else are you going to make something more objective? Everything depends. Everything has context. We're all humans.
As for your post, I would not warn that as flamebait because I feel most discussions, in order to be discussions, will have some disagreeing opinions, but this is what I mean by how people tend to report anything they don't like. While I cannot guarantee consistency with all the moderators, we do pay attention to reports. So, why not try to convince people to stop reporting opinionated posts? We cannot all agree on something because then we'd have to define every few words and not all of us have that time or energy. Plus, you may come up with a rule but then 30 other members will end up disagreeing with you.
Quote:
Originally posted by Vin
I applaud your efforts, Peanut. I agree with some of your statements, however, again, I feel it's important that both the moderator and the member have equal responsibility. It only takes one "pointless" warning point from a post with only a gif or smiley to know that users can be warned for it. If the user decides to role the dice and do it again, then that is on them. And although, most likely, unintentional, there is a subtle undercurrent of "It's all the mods fault. Fix it!" in your last statements about the issue at hand. One cannot put more blame on moderators than on members or vice versa, or expect the report and warning system to be lock tight -- there will inevitably be gray areas like any system of rules and practices. One also cannot blame the moderators for at least trying to implement a rule that may create more posts with depth. Attempting to do something about it, is better than doing nothing about it. Before, members would complain about relentless "cosigns" and smileys and now members complain about their smileys and gifs being warned. It's not going to be 100%, either way.
By the same token, moderators cannot expect members to completely cease replying with only gifs or smileys. Arguably, one of the biggest appeals to ATRL is the use of animated gifs, and if that was crippled in a major way, a large piece of the entertainment factor of the forum could suffer, so that should be taken into account. Furthermore, members like when they know that they've made other members laugh; members like when they know they've entertained other members with their post. An instant smiley is a way to receive that gratification and expression -- from the member posting the smiley to express their reaction, to the member who made the post that enjoys the fact that they've entertained someone else. So, this should also be taken into account. The same thought is applied to gifs. If an animated gif fully expresses a reaction or response, in relation to the quoted post, then perhaps a warning will/should be bypassed. For example, disagreeing with a member by solely using the following gif should be acceptable, despite whether it's reported or not:
To type out "That is false" on top of posting the gif that reads the same, is redundant. The gif alone is fully expressive and, in my opinion, acceptable as a sole post. The bottom line is that once you know it's a rule, just play by it, and play around it -- have fun with the game. If you know a simple "lol" next to a smiley will keep your post from being warned, then do it. It's not that big of a deal. It only becomes a big deal when someone who is upset their smiley or gif post got warned has a meltdown, and goes back into the forum and starts warning every single smiley or gif post to feel better about their warning point.
And, lastly, the bottom line to the bottom line is that the less subjective rules and warnings
are on ATRL, the better it will be for the members, the forum, and the image of the moderators.
(Meaning, abolish "Annoying.")
...Vin |
I can understand the appeal but if the topic is Linkin Park just parked a car or something (I'm not creative), what's the point of just sharing a picture of someone parking and failing, just because it will get a laugh? Not only is it off-topic but it's not contributing to the topic of Linkin Park Parking or whatever. Granted, the topic is silly, but half of the threads we have are silly. In addition to the graphic being pointless, people tend to have "lol" or "laughing" graphics in response to the graphic, creating this endless chatroom feel when it's not a chatroom. This forum was not built as a chatroom where you just keep scrolling through the endless pointless behavior. I mean, why not just make a chatroom if all you're gonna do is share links/images and laugh and share some more links?
As for the moderator's responsibility, we've all discussed how hard it is to be objective and stick with more clear rules because even with the censoring, people tend to try to find a way to circumvent such means because they simply don't agree, even though it is a clear rule.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2012
Posts: 8,030
|
Kworb, it is possible to request a list of the permanently banned members, since you seem to be the one who do all of the list? I am interested in seeing how many people have been given the one way ticket.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/1/2011
Posts: 15,684
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Energy
Kworb, it is possible to request a list of the permanently banned members, since you seem to be the one who do all of the list? I am interested in seeing how many people have been given the one way ticket.
|
I asked the same, I don't recall getting an answer
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/20/2012
Posts: 6,167
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/1/2012
Posts: 6,899
|
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 11/14/2008
Posts: 24,988
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Energy
Kworb, it is possible to request a list of the permanently banned members, since you seem to be the one who do all of the list? I am interested in seeing how many people have been given the one way ticket.
|
No way! That list is PAGES long! 
But if he does it, power to him. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
