A set of changes/proposals

[Guest]

I'll say this much... I can't see many reasons for these changes (although combing TNZ for stuff that doesn't belong there is LONG overdue), and it seems like the vast majority of it - including what's been done to the chatroom, which sports NO moderators during most of my day, thus rendering communication in the room difficult - is merely being done for the benefit of one or two recurring trolls.

Where I come from, you don't make communities tick by inconveniencing the majority. Sure, posts in TNZ not counting is a legitimate point, but if you want to stop people registering a nick just to start a flame war, it IS possible to IP-ban people from a UBB as well as IRC. That'd take care of the multiple nicks.

It seems that, gauging from the response in here and in the chatroom (when people are able to speak), these ideas are pretty unpopular, and implementing them en masse isn't exactly making them any more warmly received.

To sum up:
Individually, mostly good points, albeit mostly without readily apparent cause. However, presentation and implementation appear to be a communal bugbear.

------------------
"Who can go the distance? We'll find out in the long run"
- The Eagles

 

[Guest]

Originally posted by Christian:
In addition, we will be implementing several technical measures:

2. Users with less than 100 posts will be prevented from posting more than once every three minutes, and possibly also from posting new threads. Input on this would be appreciated.

I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something here. Prevented from posting new threads? Are you telling me that until I reach the magic number of 100 posts, my opinions are not worthy of starting a discussion on? I lurked in this forum for quite some time before I decided to join. I was/am looking for a place to discuss trek. So here I am. Now that I am, I hold back from attacking others opinions, hold back from riduculing others, and in general put some thought into what I am going to reply to, or attempt to start a discussion on. By not allowing those with under 100 posts to start new discussions, will you not only be encouraging those to reach 100 posts, by whatever means? I mean, could I not double post everything I write, reply uselessly, or just a reply with a smiley, all in order to accumulate post totals? Would you not rather see a thoughtful response, instead of one intended to gain post totals? I thought the ranks were only indiciative of the number of posts, not an indication of the worth of my post.

Sorry if I rambeled, but I wanted someplace to put my ideas forth. I'll stay, but I won't like having to wait to get that right back, but I will, because I will not change the thought that I put into posting here.

 

[Christian]

wraitheleven:

I've never doubted that you visit the larger forums and check on things, much as I do on the board I administer, but the thing is, sometimes it takes a visible presence to assure people that you care and are concerned with the welfare of the board. The predominant feeling around here has been you don't care and in fact you care more about the SlipstreamBBS than this one. For that perception to change, you most likely will need to post here more frequently and take a more active role.

It's amusing that you should mention the Slipstream BBS, because until about two months ignore I went through a period where I didn't pay nearly enough attention to that board. It's only been since relatively recently that I've been more visible there. It's certainly not the case that I care for the Slipstream BBS less or more than this place - I care about all parts of the site equally.

I agree, but those individuals need to be given the authority to make larger decisions without having to run every little thing by you. I don't pretend to know everything that goes on behind the scenes (I don't have any "inside sources"), but from what I've observed, this seems to be the case here.

Oh, IMHO that really isn't the case here. If I were to insist on having every little thing run by me that would be a very, very bad thing, and luckily that isn't the case - moderators and administrators are very well able to take action. The general idea is that mods and admins can do things on their own that stay withing policy - things that change policy, are outisde it or are near the border area need to be talked about with other admins. But I don't think that happens more than a few times per month.

Captain Bitter:

I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something here. Prevented from posting new threads?

This is an idea that likely will not be going through, because of the many (very valid) objections that have been raised.


[This message has been edited by Christian (edited October 09, 2001).]

 

[Guest]

Originally posted by Reno:
Are you trying to re-write history again? You didn't resign, you were sacked.

That's what I always heard...

 

[Guest]

Originally posted by Christian:
3. Posts in the Officer's Lounges and TNZ will no longer count towards post count, under the rationale that this is a Star Trek discussion board.

Until these measures are implemented, registration will remain off.

Any idea when these measures will be implemented? I need to know how long I need to hold off posting so I can finish my scene in the Captain's Lounge without getting promoted out.

Josh

------------------
Director - The Captains' Lounge Players
Now playing: Hamlet

'...this is the most high brow spam I've seen...' - Demiurge

 

[Teelie]

Originally posted by Reno:
Are you trying to re-write history again? You didn't resign, you were sacked.

Not anymore than you are. Reno you know exactly shit about what reallly happened so go back to where you were hiding and stop playing antagonist for once.

 

[EEMeltonIV]

I like most of the ideas. Definitely add Miscellaneous to that list . . . (I still only come here for Trek discussion; haven't been in Miscellaneous or TNZ in a long time, and gloss over stuff in QSF and BR).

I think it's bad to prevent people with <X posts to make new topics. I can appreciate the desire to keep folks from bitching about the BBS after their first day -- but, I'd much rather have a few superfluous threads in QSF coupled with solid new threads in the Trek-related than neither of them.

 

[Guest]

Agreed.
I can live with those proposals.

I trust a formal announcement will be made when they are implemented?

------------------
Counsellor to the Captains's Lounge

old enough to know better...

 

[Mutai Sho-Rin]

3. The Neutral Zone will be changed to a forum with a minimum amount of moderation.
A reasonable move


4. In order to not stimulate an atmosphere where having alternate usernames is a normal thing, ....please contact all admins personally - we will decide whether to act or not.
Also a reasonable move, as long as vigilance is maintained


5. ....a ban from the Trek BBS should also mean a ban from the chat room.
Indeed!

6. The moderators will be creating templates to be used when warning users in order to make the process less emotionally-charged.
Indignation is a reasonable emotion toward those who willfully flaut the rules.

7. Slarus and Che Guevara will receive a one-month ban, leading to their unbanishment on the 11th of November.
BIG MISTAKE: scum wins, integrity loses.

In addition, we will be implementing several technical measures:

1. People with less than X posts will not be allowed to post in the Neutral Zone.
Fair enough, X = 250

2. Users with less than 100 posts will be prevented from posting more than once every three minutes, and possibly also from posting new threads. Input on this would be appreciated.
Why not a 3-minute for everybody? Don't like the "new threads" restriction, how about a mandatory check-box on readin g the FAQ prior to starting a first thread?

3. Posts in the Officer's Lounges and TNZ will no longer count towards post count, under the rationale that this is a Star Trek discussion board.
And maybe include Misc. Furthermore, why not remove the Officers ranking and just show the post count in that space. Infopop supports this.



------------------
"I'm not saying what I'm thinking. I'm not even thinking what I'm thinking." John Sheridan

Woo-HOO?? Lennier

 

[Yu Wanker]

Christian.

As an outsider looking in all I see is chaos. There is serious dissention not just between posters, but mod’s and Admin. It is clear, even in this thread. This board is hemorrhaging good people. DEA is gone, which I find almost unbelievable. The Mod’s are not happy, that’s why they are posting the things being said in the BR in public. You need to look at the way this place is going. Yes you have a great number of posters but how many of them are mlti-id’s or dead namesm, how many will be here in another month? Your losing the people who stay and post regularly.

You need to get the people who run this place in order before you implement these changes, because from the place I’m sitting it doesn’t look like there’s a lot of faith or good will going on with the staff here. Perhaps some of them have a point. People will/are vote/ing with there feet, you may have a thriving board, but the quality will be gone. People need to be able to respect the decision makers, and those who enforce the policy. I think this and other recent events have dramatically eroded the respect people had. I understand that this is your board and you make the rules, but can so many people who you gave responsibilities to all be wrong?

 

[Further]

Well in my opinion this is a stupid atempt at over administration. It will only end up driving people away from the BBS. If that's what you people want, which I think you do then fine. But I don't even see what the problem is in the first place. If you people didnt bitch and complain about stupid meaningless things then there wouldnt be a problem in the first place.

 

[Guest]

7. Slarus and Che Guevara will receive a one-month ban, leading to their unbanishment on the 11th of November.

Normally, I don't get involved with the politics of this or any other BBS. Been there elsewhere, done that, got the t-shirt, yadda yadad. That leads to a big...

BUT, the amount of disruption in the forums I frequent caused by Slarusand remains unforgiveable. In one childish tantrum (and several virtually identical posts, threads and identities), he single-handedly brought a forum to a standstill, as T'Bonz will testify. Letting this individual back in after a one-month ban is simply sending the wrong message to the trolls, and I urge you Christian to reconsider this situation. I don't know Slarus personally. I've never addressed any of his posts as far as I remember. But his behavior a few weeks ago was beyond anything I've ever witnessed anywhere else, and that behavior must be punished. A one-month ban is simply not sufficient, in my opinion. The life-time ban originally proposed may seem too severe, but it would've been far more appropriate than a one month ban.

Your board, though, and it's up to you. I frankly just don't agree with your decision in regards to Slarus.

Thank you for your reconsideration.

------------------
Randy
Orion Press
For Excellence in Star Trek Fanzines
http://www.fastcopyinc.com/orionpress

 

[Hbomb]

Originally posted by Hbomb:


Finally, if the Mods are going to be judge, jury and executioner, maybe you should enforce some standards on THEM that would cause them to act in a manner that at least puts on the pretense of impartiality and raises the standard of their responsibility so as to act in a way that will set a GOOD example for members.... example) - Removed if they get drunk and hurl profanities at members, example) - No quibbling with other posters or each other.

I feel that if you want the responsibility of power, you give up the freedom to have petty arguments with others, otherwise it demeans their credibility. This is probably the reason they get so much flack. Instead of making clear concise decisions, they feel they must make snide comments back to those they are punishing who are, most of the time, being punished for making snide comments.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Oh yeah, add revealing a private discussion to the board and being allowed to weasel back in to my list of proposed "no-no's" for Mods.

------------------
I stayed up all night playing poker with Tarot cards. I got a full house and four people died!

 

[Jeriko]

If Slarus is allowed back in a month then all rules and policies of this BBS are a complete joke. There will be no incentive to follow them - as we've seen Slarus just activates new accounts when he's banned and continues to post.

Everyone else will just do the same. There will be no real penalty for violating the rules.

If anyone deserves a permanant ban, it is Slarus. Frankly I see no reason I shouldn't continue to belittle him in the future, seeing as there can be no real punishment. Happy days are a comin', right?

-J

 

[armalyte]

I don't want to be rude but I'd like to have an answer to my question above. I'll quote it again:

Originally posted by armalyte:

---------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Christian:

4. In order to not stimulate an atmosphere where having alternate usernames is a normal thing, we have to stop continually attracting so much attention to that. Therefore, we would like to ask you to not accuse people of being another user posting under an alternate username anymore - this is one of the reasons for some of the paranoia which we have also witnessed. If you really feel someone is posting under an alternate username, please contact all admins personally - we will decide whether to act or not.

---------------------------------------------

All right, Christian, so let us get this straight. Is it a punishable offense on this board to accuse someone of using alternate usernames without proof? Will this lead to warnings and eventually bans?[/B]

Respectfully,

-a.

 

[Guest]

I only agree with the first option, a posting threshold. This is something I've advocated before. But to impose time restrictions between posts and/or the ability to make new threads is just too convoluted and restrictive.

But the kicker has got to be number three. Okay, I agree about the lounges not contributing to post count as they really have no reason for existence other than to promote spamming (in fact, they should be removed), but to penalize TNZ in the same way? I cannot go along with that. Why should TNZ be singled out like this - and I don't buy the 'nothing to do with Trek' rationalization. You can say the same for Misc, QSF, SFF, Announcements, etc.

If you're going to stick with the post count based ranking system, then it should continue to be applied equally for all fora (I don't include the lounges as 'fora'). I'm against this on principle and will no longer post in TNZ if this arbitrary rule is adopted.

 

[Q-Less]

3. Posts in the Officer's Lounges and TNZ will no longer count towards post count, under the rationale that this is a Star Trek discussion board.

If this particular segment of the proposed policy is implemented, will it cancel out all previous post that the user has gained in those forums? I don't like the sound of that.

 

[Teelie]

No it won't cancel any previous posts out, only ones after the change is implemented.

 

[Guest]

I think it's stupid that posts will only count towards post count in certain fora. All or nothing, says I. Either get rid of post count altogether or keep things the way they are right now.

------------------
Observe my wackiness!
Wackiness is a dish best served cold.

 

[Kathryn Janeway 47]

Oh wow, I think the changes in the policy are really good this time!!! I know there has been a lot of trouble with spamming of late. It's really sad that DEA is stepping down as admin/mod.

But congrats to Christian for these changes!!! Congrats to Barcode on her new adminship too!