Moderation (moved from zone) - Page 4

DustyPorViva · #46 10-14-2008, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jkool666

Rufus has had his questioned answered two or three times. This thread did not belong in the Zone section when he began to show that the point of his thread was to point out the lack of moderation in other sections of the forums.

I have never seen a thread closed because it was answered. Please, show me the rule that states that. Should I start reporting every single thread that has been answered? If it's in the wrong section then move it... I know you mods can do that.

Like I posted before, I don't understand why you're so hostile towards this thread. Are you scared you're gonna lose your moderation from a sudden realization of the higher-ups?

Anyways, back on the topic I agree with Rufus and co. I don't think there's a need for that many moderators. Hell, I doubt you need 5 moderators to moderate the whole Graal forums. It's just not that active. It's already stated that Vulcan is inactive, so why is he still a mod? I guess there is no harm in having that many moderators, but it seems like way more than is needed. Look at PW's. I'm sure if they had 15 GPs, or 15 ET's, or 15 FAQs everyone would be screaming as to why there are so many... I can't see the harm in it, can you? Nah... but it still sounds like a lot, right? Is there really a need for that many when 1/3 of that amount could cover the job?

Inverness · #47 10-14-2008, 07:36 PM

jkool666, stop repeating those quotes in every post, it's annoying.

It really annoys me when a moderator closes a thread because it has supposedly been "answered." Forums are for discussion and unless a thread is breaking rules somehow there isn't a need to close it. Answers are for discussion too.

Dante55555 · #48 10-14-2008, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

I have never seen a thread closed because it was answered. Please, show me the rule that states that. Should I start reporting every single thread that has been answered? If it's in the wrong section then move it... I know you mods can do that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inverness

It really annoys me when a moderator closes a thread because it has supposedly been "answered." Forums are for discussion and unless a thread is breaking rules somehow there isn't a need to close it. Answers are for discussion too.

Moderators can close a thread at their own discresion. They don't need your permission to do it.

If it's such a big problem then I'm sure a Forum PM to Darlene (or the moderator himself) explaining the situation is all it would take to get it reopened.

Well, USUALLY. It's unfortunate, but Admins and moderators don't always see things from your perspective. It's..difficult..to make them understand what you're trying to say sometimes.

Inverness · #49 10-14-2008, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante55555

Moderators can close a thread at their own discresion. They don't need your permission to do it.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Sam · #50 10-14-2008, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

I have never seen a thread closed because it was answered. Please, show me the rule that states that. Should I start reporting every single thread that has been answered? If it's in the wrong section then move it... I know you mods can do that.

Like I posted before, I don't understand why you're so hostile towards this thread. Are you scared you're gonna lose your moderation from a sudden realization of the higher-ups?

Anyways, back on the topic I agree with Rufus and co. I don't think there's a need for that many moderators. Hell, I doubt you need 5 moderators to moderate the whole Graal forums. It's just not that active. It's already stated that Vulcan is inactive, so why is he still a mod? I guess there is no harm in having that many moderators, but it seems like way more than is needed. Look at PW's. I'm sure if they had 15 GPs, or 15 ET's, or 15 FAQs everyone would be screaming as to why there are so many... I can't see the harm in it, can you? Nah... but it still sounds like a lot, right? Is there really a need for that many when 1/3 of that amount could cover the job?

I've seen threads closed when they were answered. I also don't think it's needed, except we decide the topic should not discussed or spammed anymore. In this case (thread) I wanted to post my opinion (which I also can when it is closed, I know) and give other users also a chance to discuss it.

My experience is, not every staff/mod is online around the clock but users/posters are able to post all the time. Having more mods makes sure that threads can be better controlled. Zone is not over moderated in relation to the rest.

Darlene159 · #51 10-14-2008, 07:59 PM

The Admins on Zone, and GK forum PM me who to add/remove as moderators since I dont play either one, and have no idea who staff are.
If they dont do their job, or dont do it correctly, they can be removed.
The zone forums seem to, a lot of times, have heated discussions that can quickly turn into very insulting fights.

Other forums dont need as many moderators, and if I see the need for them, I will handle it.

DustyPorViva · #52 10-14-2008, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante55555

Moderators can close a thread at their own discresion. They don't need your permission to do it.

If it's such a big problem then I'm sure a Forum PM to Darlene (or the moderator himself) explaining the situation is all it would take to get it reopened.

Well, USUALLY. It's unfortunate, but Admins and moderators don't always see things from your perspective. It's..difficult..to make them understand what you're trying to say sometimes.

Like Inverness said. Just because they can doesn't make it right. They can start closing random threads if they wanted, but do you think that's a very smart thing to do?

And since Darlene already posted and was seemingly annoyed at this thread(for whatever reason, I don't know!), she of course didn't want to reopen it. Regardless of it being against the rules, she didn't want to do so because she didn't like the thread. And yes, it was attempted. This is the same with most appeals around here, they don't like undoing their decisions. You know, makes them look wrong. Can't have that!

The only reason this thread is back open is because Sam had an interest in it.

Darlene159 · #53 10-14-2008, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

The only reason this thread is back open is because Sam had an interest in it.

I didnt close the thread

Inverness · #54 10-14-2008, 08:06 PM

Jkool originally closed the thread.

Perhaps Sam unlocked the thread because he simply thought it shouldn't have been closed, not that he had any interest in it. That is what I think.

In the end it doesn't matter if there are 5 moderators, as long as they don't cause problems.

Darlene159 · #55 10-14-2008, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inverness

Jkool originally closed the thread.

Perhaps Sam unlocked the thread because he simply thought it shouldn't have been closed, not that he had any interest in it. That is what I think.

He reopened it to give his input, and to hear others input.
I would have probably closed it, or would be closing it soon.
Threads like these become repetitive because some people cannot accept other peoples answers. When the same things are said over and over, and no one budges, it's time to drop it.
I hate repeating myself. It's a pet peeve.

Sam · #56 10-14-2008, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

The only reason this thread is back open is because Sam had an interest in it.

Perhaps you know Darlene's views and explain them to us, but I don't need a spokesman. I've opened it because:
1. there was no need to close it
2. to give you and the other users also a chance to reply

As stated before: forums are to communicate and discuss and as long as it's going in the sense of the rules it's ok.

Inverness · #57 10-14-2008, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darlene159

He reopened it to give his input, and to hear others input.
I would have probably closed it, or would be closing it soon.
Threads like these become repetitive because some people cannot accept other peoples answers. When the same things are said over and over, and no one budges, it's time to drop it.
I hate repeating myself. It's a pet peeve.

So if people want to argue over it then let them. Why should you interfere and close it just because you're annoyed with it? Having long threads is not against the rules. I don't want you or anyone else deciding when I need to drop something.

xAzerothx · #58 10-14-2008, 08:16 PM

Darlene always closes threads she's offended by...

Darlene159 · #59 10-14-2008, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inverness

So if people want to argue over it then let them. Why should you interfere and close it just because you're annoyed with it? Having long threads is not against the rules.

You know, if I closed everything that annoyed me, there would barely be any threads open. I'm not trying to be mean, but that's the truth. I can be annoyed, and still be reasonable.

I have no intention of continually explaining my actions, and arguing about them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xAzerothx

Darlene always closes threads she's offended by...

Wrong, I also close/delete threads that offend others. There is no need to be offensive towards people, although some members love to do it.

DustyPorViva · #60 10-14-2008, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

Perhaps you know Darlene's views and explain them to us, but I don't need a spokesman. I've opened it because:
1. there was no need to close it
2. to give you and the other users also a chance to reply

As stated before: forums are to communicate and discuss and as long as it's going in the sense of the rules it's ok.

Come on, man, be honest. I think if you had no interest in this thread that it would still be closed right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darlene159

I didnt close the thread

When did I ever say you did?