voting for future moderators (?) - Page 3

Darlene159 · #31 02-06-2009, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rufus

Just take the person with the least amount of votes. That's what happened the last two times right?

To my knowledge, there was no voting.

Rufus · #32 02-06-2009, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darlene159

To my knowledge, there was no voting.

Crono · #33 02-06-2009, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xXziroXx

Voting for moderators? No. Last thing we need is for this place to be ruled by a popularity contest.

How is this necessarily a bad thing?

LoneAngelIbesu · #34 02-06-2009, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crono

How is this necessarily a bad thing?

Well, for one, the 'popular' people would be those that are constantly raging against moderators and the rules they uphold.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizabeth

a 'cool, popular person' would follow the rules, but wouldn't treat the rules as if it's holy.

I don't understand where certain people get the idea that Darlene and company treat the rules as 'holy'. Rules are rules, and are made to followed and upheld. It only makes sense that Unixmad would want to select supermoderators based on how well they uphold the rules (whether or not those rules are agreeable), not how well they'd revolt against them.

Loriel is right. The problem, if there is one, is not with the moderators, but the rules themselves. If you want to fix the problem, then convince Unixmad to change the rules. However, almost all of you have burnt that bridge, and effectively guaranteed that changes are unlikely to be made.

Ravenblade1979 · #35 02-06-2009, 07:04 PM

Agreed.

James · #36 02-06-2009, 07:08 PM

The only rule I think that is rediculous is having to have links approved. If parents didn't want their children looking at certain websites there are content filters that can be purchased or even downloaded for free and maybe parents should consider the fact that the internet is the internet, it is definitely not a safe-haven for young children in the first place. Almost every website these days have meta-tags to ensure content filters work.

It would be nice if there was another private forum we could have where anything goes (accept for obvious things such as warez, pr0n, etc., that could cause legal issues for Cyberjoueurs). I figure the chances of that happening are very very slim though.

Darlene159 · #37 02-06-2009, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoneAngelIbesu

If you want to fix the problem, then convince Unixmad to change the rules. However, almost all of you have burnt that bridge, and effectively guaranteed that changes are unlikely to be made.

I agree.

xXziroXx · #38 02-06-2009, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James

The only rule I think that is rediculous is having to have links approved. If parents didn't want their children looking at certain websites there are content filters that can be purchased or even downloaded for free and maybe parents should consider the fact that the internet is the internet, it is definitely not a safe-haven for young children in the first place. Almost every website these days have meta-tags to ensure content filters work.

It would be nice if there was another private forum we could have where anything goes (accept for obvious things such as warez, pr0n, etc., that could cause legal issues for Cyberjoueurs). I figure the chances of that happening are very very slim though.

The best solution would really be to add a confirmation page that comes up every time you click on an external link, asking if you really want to go to it and disclaimer saying that Cyberjoueurs is not responsible for it blah blah blah.

Darlene159 · #39 02-06-2009, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xXziroXx

The best solution would really be to add a confirmation page that comes up every time you click on an external link, asking if you really want to go to it and disclaimer saying that Cyberjoueurs is not responsible for it blah blah blah.

I think the link rule was mostly added because unixmad didnt want links other than Graal related ones on the main forum.

xXziroXx · #40 02-06-2009, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darlene159

I think the link rule was mostly added because unixmad didnt want links other than Graal related ones on the main forum.

If so, I find it extremely stupid.

James · #41 02-06-2009, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xXziroXx

If so, I find it extremely stupid.

unixmad has always had a problem taking customers constructive criticism. This is a small community, and honestly, I believe if you can't listen to this size of a community, it's never going to grow into a bigger one again. Players (paying or not paying) are the most important part of a games growth. If you don't listen to the majority of them why will they bother to keep playing when their opinions don't seem to matter to management?

Edit: I just wanted to add when these forums first started, when Graal2001 first came out, these forums were fun. The rules were a lot more relaxed, people never complained, the administrators and moderators were active players that knew how to deal with people that did act out of line.

We acted as a real community, and back then our opinions actually mattered here. The MMORPG rule has been around since the dawn of the forums, but that was about the only rule we had, other then don't be a ***** and you won't be banned. I know now isn't then, but the forums were in great shape.

Edit 2: You can't say *****? Unbelievable.