Moderator Suggestion Box - Page 3

Lord Sephiroth · #31 03-21-2006, 07:25 AM

I didn't read all the suggestions because I don't have a lot of time right now so here's mine.

I would like to see the Mods read and consider a thread before they delete it based on a rule that is broken. You'd be hard pressed to find threads that don't break rules somewhere inside, so consider what the thread is talking about, consider the responses and see what may come of the thread before closing/deleting it.

Spark910 · #32 03-21-2006, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warcaptain

Also maybe do some filter that is something like "Mark thread as adult only" if you are concerned about children. And create some way of validating that sort of thing, (validating using a credit card is as secure as you need to really be thats what porn sites use and a little disclaimer when you select to be an 'adult' user that says YOU ARE AGREEING THAT YOU ARE 18 blah blah..) that way people that are 'mature' enough to handel conversations about homosexuality and abortion or even things like more adult violent pw's (would open the door to them) would be able to have a place to discuss things.. and youd be able to protect these unknown youngsters from ever knowing about the real world

This would be impossible to work as intended. Why? The majority of people who upgrade use credit/debit cards. When I borrowed my parents card to upgrade to Graal they let me do it, as they didn't know anything about the internet then - they didn't even watch me. I would imagine there are other parents who do the same. So, the problem? What would stop me entering in this validator, even though I'm not 18? Or what would stop me telling my parents to enter it also in another box, I could easily lie to them.

We can't have adult topics on this forum, period. But about your example of homosexuality and abortion, I don't class them as adult topics really - in the sense they can be discussed without being 18 (which is logic as there are plenty under 18s who are homosexual and have abortions). So I don't think we need this system of allowing adult threads, we just need to be able to discuss suitable topics (and discussion on homosexuality and abortion can be suitable) without excessive censorship.

Perhaps another forum could be made for this, though, maybe invite only (although I'm not so sure I would ever approve that), instead I think a public forum where rights to view it could be removed (so everyone starts on the same level, and is given a chance). Those who can't discuss such topics in a suitable manor, can be removed from having access. However, I am not so sure if this would be needed, and if it is what you could call the forum to define it as being different from NGRT forum.

I too agree the 'unixmad says' is overused. We need to lighten up a little here. I don't agree he should come here and say it, as he wont, and then the forums would just go into havock waiting for him to come and say things. The rules should be rewritten and enforced, but it shouldn't ever be 'unixmad says' it should be 'the rules state...'.

MysticX2X · #33 03-21-2006, 03:21 PM

Well moderators opinion on the rules are biased and i know it happened to me which ill leave out. I would like to see more firm opinion then thinking this is something against the rules when you think its not. Yes the rules are clearly stated, but it comes to opinion if its really bad or not. Also id like to see some more professional deletion comments unlike what Darlene does now.

Loriel · #34 03-21-2006, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warcaptain

I totally agree that no one should EVER say 'Unixmad says this' if Unixmad says something he should come and say it here.

Wait, is Unixmad being too busy for this not the single reason to have moderators?

Quote:

I always hear "Its inappropriate for children, which is what graal is geared towards" But how many children do you see on these forums?

Perhaps it is because the forums are not family-friendly enough right now!

Quote:

Also maybe do some filter that is something like "Mark thread as adult only" if you are concerned about children.

That is actually an awesome idea. Have two sets of rules, one that is about strictly disallowed things like hax0ring the interweb, and one that is about not making other people feel bad. Give people the option to still see threads that were pseudo-deleted for violating the second set of rules!

Loriel · #35 03-21-2006, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Sephiroth

I didn't read all the suggestions because I don't have a lot of time right now so here's mine.

make tl;dr bannable

Mark Sir Link · #36 03-21-2006, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spark910

This would be impossible to work as intended. Why? The majority of people who upgrade use credit/debit cards. When I borrowed my parents card to upgrade to Graal they let me do it, as they didn't know anything about the internet then - they didn't even watch me. I would imagine there are other parents who do the same. So, the problem? What would stop me entering in this validator, even though I'm not 18? Or what would stop me telling my parents to enter it also in another box, I could easily lie to them.

The main implementation wouldn't be to keep the kids who are under 18, it'd be to keep the people who don't WANT TO see it out. Enter at ones own risk, entering waives right to complaint.

excaliber7388 · #37 03-21-2006, 11:29 PM

I like the >= 18 rule, but I doubt anyone will do it

protagonist · #38 03-21-2006, 11:47 PM

Of course people would violate that rule, just as many people violate the "must be 13" rule as it is.

Fact is, GraalOnline has a responsibility to disregard those individuals when it comes to decisions regarding age policy.

Spark910 · #39 03-21-2006, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Sir Link

The main implementation wouldn't be to keep the kids who are under 18, it'd be to keep the people who don't WANT TO see it out. Enter at ones own risk, entering waives right to complaint.

But a child entering shouldn't, and wont, erode the parents right to complain.

Googi · #40 03-21-2006, 11:51 PM

Suggesting a >=18 rule is a big mistake, since it would give moderators justification to ban us from discussing those things in normal threads like we've always been able to do.

excaliber7388 · #41 03-22-2006, 12:51 AM

-bannings of all players who are under 12
-if no >= 18 rule, then at least allow free speech that doesn't involve things 12 yr olds should see

Damix2 · #42 03-24-2006, 02:29 AM

If we are not mature enough to talk about homosexuality, then we are not mature enough to talk about politics, but you guys don't seem to have a problem with that.

CidNight1142 · #43 03-24-2006, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loriel

But you do not get away with suing people for stuff like that. There is loads of "mature" content on the interweb that can be accessed without confirming that you are beyond 18.

I agree that the evidence would firmly be on Graalonline's side, obviously. But you can never really have too much ass coverage in this day and age.

excaliber7388 · #44 03-24-2006, 06:15 PM

Another suggestion, more than one super-mod, one with some different ideals, that way it's not so much like a dictatorship, at least there would be some compromise between the two.

Loriel · #45 03-24-2006, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by excaliber7388

Another suggestion, more than one super-mod, one with some different ideals, that way it's not so much like a dictatorship, at least there would be some compromise between the two.

Kamuii and Moonie are supermods, right?

Also, it does not work like that. The set of posts deleted will grow, not shrink, if you add more supermods.