Changes: Post Count, Policy Updates, TNZ and a New mod

Discussion in 'Announcements' started by Trekaholic, Oct 16, 2001.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ed629

    ed629 Rear Admiral

    Apr 6, 2001
    This bites the pus filled bag big time.

    And goes to show that rank does actually mean something. So is there a way to remove the post counts from everyone from past posts in these forums?

    - "I prefer to describe my profession as that of a "Contemporary Anthropological Interactive Observer" because it has just the right amount of flair. Besides, "stalker" is such an ugly word.
  2. Guest

    Guest Guest

    back to the new rules..they are horrible.

    Katie and jethro will now get warnings for half of their posts in misc....

    and as mentioned above, we can't even say LOL anymore. These rules are rediculous. I do agree that now you are discriminating against new members.

    And this post count is sooooo stupid...I am now feeling this all or nothing..which I think is your plan all have decided to make the post count / rank thing SO rediculous that THE ENTIRE BOARD would rather have it gone than what we have now.

    I don't hang out in the TNZ but I sympothesize with those who do, although I understand your rule for not allowing people with under 50 posts to post there since people have been known to create new accounts just to post bad stuff there.

    All and all I don't like alot of these changes...too bad my opinion doens't count..or else there would be hell to pay!

    "Lawrence what would you do if you had a million dollars?"
    "I'll tell you what i'd do man, two chicks at the same time man"

    Former member of the Morn the Lorian Fan Club
    Proud member of the United States of America
  3. label

    label Vice Admiral Admiral

    Apr 7, 2000

    You don't have to have 'any' self-worth defined in this place to feel insulted. I don't define my "social status' in life by what occurs on this board....good lord, I'm married with two kids and have an active life off this board.

    However, I have invested alot of free time over the last couple years hear, building relationships, investing in building this board to the point where I now volunteer my time to moderate several forums and program for the members of this board and the Mods/Admins with the Warning utility.

    Suffice to say, I feel like I've invested of myself in the board, and in particular the TNZ. (I know, saying "The The Nuetral Zone" doesn't make sense [​IMG])

    I've been one of the most active participants in that forum longer than just about every person on this board and probably 85-90% of my total posts were in the TNZ. I've had many invalueable conversations that stimulated me to think about things differently and sometimes even change my views on topics and now out of the blue my forum is being singled out as being "worthless"??

    Now, while I don't define my status by what happens here on the board and I'm quite sure I'll sleep quite nicely no matter what happens....after investing that much time and effort into any thing, you care about that thing.

    In the case of the TNZ I feel like our forum is being officially given the finger and told that were just a bunch of mindless spammers because there are several other forums where posts do count.

    I reiterate.....spamming is not an issue in the TNZ. People, by and large, who post there usually have a point or they will be ridiculed by the other members who have worked to make that a special forum with intelligent discourse between Star Trek fans. So what if we don't always talk about Star Trek.....does that make our conversations worthless?

    I don't buy that for a couple reasons. If we get spammers in that forum, we are merciless to them. The regulars there do not tolerate spam or pointless posts for the most part and anyone trying to spam their way to the top in the TNZ will be in for a rude awakening.

    Secondly, now that we have 2 moderators...2 moderators whom I know and trust to get rid of the garbage in that forum, spam will simply not occur in that forum....period.

    Don't get me wrong Josh, I understand what your saying, but as someone who has spent a lot of time investing in that forum, this is a huge slap in the face for me.

    "If God dropped acid, would he see people?"

    "If I melt dry ice, can I take a bath without getting wet?"
  4. Katie_543

    Katie_543 Admiral Admiral

    Jan 14, 2001
    Akron, Ohio
    You don't read the stuff I post do you? Everything I say deals with something brought up in the thread. I don't post just a smiley or "LOL" to get a post in. I read the threads (the WHOLE thread, unlike some people) and I reply to things people talk about. When was the last time you've seen me post something in a thread that didn't have anything to do with that thread? Can't think of any examples? That's because there are none.

    And the only reason people think of me when they think of the word spam is because I was the most vocal about it. There are plenty of other people who are worse than I am but don't openly talk about it. So would you please lay off? I'm turning over a new leaf. I don't care about post count anymore.
  5. Guest

    Guest Guest

    This I understand. My 'home' in this BBS is in Misc and the Lounges. And you have a much deeper claim.

    I can see how TNZ's 'reputation' could be effected (it had a hard enough road to hoe as it was. [​IMG] )

    Not to me. I'd go crazy if they strapped me down and made me talk about trek and only trek for weeks (unless they were paying me or gave me creative control [​IMG] ).

    I still hold by my gut feeling that Christian et al were trying to think of a way to reign the BBS back into a size that the current server could handle. They came, they selected, they conquered. That's how it is in my mind. Any lesser motives and they were just being butts.

    I understand. I'm almost tickled we're debating. I've seen you in action in TNZ, and I'm honored to have a conflicting opinion with you for once so we could go a round. [​IMG]


    Mister Fleet Captain 2001

    Dead serious... they voted.
  6. Guest

    Guest Guest

    That's my greatest concern as well.
  7. Guest

    Guest Guest


    After almost a week of deliberation and discussion, several important changes have taken place on the board.

    Firstly, post count is no longer applicable to the off topic none Trek fora. Posting in the Lounges, Misc, QSF, Announcements, TNZ or the Briefing Room will no longer add to your total. Posts in Science Fiction & Fantasy will still add to your total, as that forum is more related to Star Trek in general.

    This measure will place the emphasis of the board firmly back on Star Trek and help calm a growing and worrying concern with rank. More importantly, this measure was put in place to stop trouble-makers from being able to quickly reach the minimum rank required to post images, in TNZ, or avoid flood control.

    To post in the Neutral Zone you now need to make 50 posts in a Trek-Forum. To start a new thread in the forum, you need 100 posts in a Trek-related forum.
    TNZ also now has moderators. Welcome to plm135! Also in the fray in TNZ will be LizardLaugh. They'll help keep the place a great place for discussion rather than a haven for trolls and spamming.
    The moderators have a strict set of guidelines to follow. The updated policy includes a list of the instances where they are able to take moderator action.

    Restrictions for New Members.
    Unfortunately, members with less than 100 posts will not be able to post images. They also have to wait 4 minutes in between posts.

    The Policy.
    The Rules and Regulations of the Board have also been edited. All members, administrators and moderators should take this opportunity to review it, but here's a summary of changes:

    - QSF: All admins have moderator powers in the forum.

    - Spamming: A sentence added to the spamming clause: 'Posts without real content or relevance to the discussion or forum may also be considered spam.'

    - Dual User names: For clarrification, this has been added: 'Deliberately trying to mislead people with two distinct 'identities' posting at the same time, will not be tolerated, and will lead to an immediate ban of the second username. Warnings for actions taken by the second username will be added to the original poster's warnings.'
    An added paragraph: 'If you feel someone is using more than one account or suspect the identity of another poster, do not post publicly about your suspicions. Speculation of this kind leads to witchunts and confusion. Instead, email your concerns and evidence to an administrator. Repeatedly making accusations of this nature in public may lead to an official warning.'
    The intention here is to cut down on the number of public accusations and 'withunting' which leads to a rather hostile atmosphere on the board - especially towards new members.

    - Signatures: New clause - 'Please, keep your signature to two or three lines of text. Images are not allowed in signatures. An overly long or offensive signature may lead to an official warning.'

    - Bans: Two paragraphs added here, one for clarity on a rather vague point of the policy, one a new addition. 'Eight warnings within three months will lead to a ban of one month and a day, ten warnings will lead to a ban of a month and a week, and so on. Warnings do not "disappear" after a ban - they will stay on your record for three months.
    'When an appropriate number of warnings is reached, one of the Administrators will start a thread in the Announcements forum announcing and explaining the ban. This thread will be closed after the initial announcement - discussion of administrative action should take place in the Questions, Suggestions & Feedback forum. Bans will be lifted at roughly the same time as they were imposed, by the administrator responsible for issuing the ban. Note that a ban from the board translates into a ban from the chat room.'

    - TNZ: The whole section on TNZ has been revised. Of particular note is the list of when moderation is applicable in the forum:
    'Illegal Content (pornography, threats, copyright infringement, etc.)
    Excessive Spamming
    Threads devoted solely to trolling or flaming
    Discussions or conduct that so transcend normal patterns of behaviour in the TNZ community that they fundamentally offend or endanger the TrekBBS
    Rare cases outside these criteria

    - The Lounges: There's a whole new section on the Officers Lounges, which details their purpose and rules. Please read it before posting there.

    The additions to the policy were made after contributions from members, admins and moderators - past present and future: a host of people too numerous to list. To all of you: Thank you.

    Inspector Kashyk Stole My Sig.
    The J Team
  8. Teelie

    Teelie Vice Admiral Admiral

    May 1, 1999
    Yes, pretending they are mad over posts in TNZ or QSF or whatever doesn't change the fact people are whining over their post count.
    I'll repeat what I said in the Admiral's Lounge:
  9. Guest

    Guest Guest

    There does seem to be a contradiction regarding TNZ, and I agree with previous posts: If TNZ is not "important" enough to count towards count totals, then why bother to moderate it if trolling in that forum will no longer affect counts?

    As for what are considered "illegal" topics in TNZ, I thought that the whole point of TNZ is that anything goes, aside from spamming and direct attacks or threats on individuals. I agree that posts should be monitored for those types of violations, but are you now going to censor the one area that was open to any type of topic?

    I also agree that some of the best discussions (in terms of content, entertainment value, etc.) have taken place in TNZ (or even Miscellaneous). Let's face it, many of the topics in the more "pure" Trek areas are no more valuable than some in TNZ. How much perspective has the 100th "What's your favorite starship class?" posting brought to the table? For members who have been around while, those are not topics we're going to be entering again.

    I agree with the limit on signature lengths because some have truly become ridiculous. I would much rather read a short, pithy humorous statement than an entire paragraph that attempts to make some grand point.

    But overall, I'm disappointed. While the administrators claim to have given this much thought, I don't think it was considered as well as it should have been. The purpose of this BBS should be to provide value to the members. After all, BBS communities often define themselves. I appreciate wanting to keep the focus on Star Trek topics, but clearly members want to be able to use this well-designed BBS to discuss other topics and have those posts count.

    Otherwise, kill the whole rank system altogether. I mean, who cares about rank in a discussion? Just because someone just joined the BBS, that doesn't mean he/she has a less valid or relevant opinion than someone with 2,000 posts. Some 16-year-old kid may have racked up his totals to become a Captain in a couple months, meanwhile a Trek fan of 30 years may have just discovered the BBS and is only a Cadet. It just doesn't matter.

    "I haven't seen anything like this since the Anita Bryant concert."
  10. Guest

    Guest Guest

    As long as you don't kill the classic "Star Trek: The Porn Collection" thread, we will see you as a friend and not a foe. [​IMG]

    "I haven't seen anything like this since the Anita Bryant concert."
  11. Candlelight

    Candlelight Admiral Admiral

    Apr 12, 2000
    New Zealand
    Question: I post on the BBS as Year of Hell but I chat as Orac. Is this allowed/alright as people there have never complained and i'm such a nice guy???
  12. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I also don't like seeing TNZ deprecated. I see no benefit to the board of adopting the attitude of "you really should be talking about Star Trek." To me, TNZ is far more interesting than any other forum, and I would probably stop visiting TrekBBS if TNZ weren't here.

    It's also very unfortunate that the combined policies of selectively deactivating post counts and establishing a minimum (Trek only) post count before newbies can even participate in a TNZ thread will essentially prohibit people like me from joining TrekBBS anymore. I probably don't even have 100 posts in "Trek" forums yet.

    If people feel like they're not wanted, they'll go somewhere else, and that would be TrekBBS's loss.

    [This message has been edited by melchyor (edited October 17, 2001).]
  13. biotech

    biotech Vice Admiral Admiral

    Apr 3, 2001
    Hull, Yorkshire, England
    I used to be one of the people that thought rank didnt matter, in a way I still do, if there were no post counts anywhere and the dissalution of the lounges I would have been ok with it.

    But to keep the lounges and to only have post counting in certain forums, thats just wrong.

    To me it looks like the slippery slide towards getting rid of misc and TNZ altogether.
  14. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Actually, Christian and Co were looking for a way to make getting up to 100 posts a more difficult task, to stop trouble makers being able to bypass the extended flood control, posting in TNZ and other restrictions on new members.

    This was not about punishing people, downsizing the BBS or anythign like that - it was about curbing the number of hit and run trolls.

    Post count and rank does not matter. It is simply a tool - the only tool recognised by the BBS scripts and thus the only way we have of controlling this - to identify who has been on the board for a length of time; and thus to stop trouble makers.

    Though I know that explanation does not go anywhere to addressing the concerns of some, let me assure you that those were the reasonings used to reach this state. There's always antoher angle to look at things from.
  15. Ardra

    Ardra Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Jul 5, 2001
    I agree completely. In fact I started a Trek related thread in the TNZ the other day beacause I actually wanted to discuss the topic, something which is almost impossible to do in the Enterprise forum these days.

    I have no problem with the TNZ being loosely moderated but I think that any measures aimed at controlling trolls should aply equally across the BBS or they will be ineffective. They're everywhere not just the TNZ. They also should aply to all members since many of the trolls we already have have more than 100 posts.
  16. Neroon

    Neroon Mod of Balance Moderator

    Oct 31, 2000
    On my ship the Rocinante
    Actually, that comment referred more to the mods & admins than anyone else. It doesn't matter what is done, we're crucified either way.

    This is exactly what I am talking about.

    [This message has been edited by Neroon (edited October 17, 2001).]
  17. Reaperman

    Reaperman Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Mar 17, 2001
    Moving volcanoes
    The latter point is irrelevant, as Moderatorship has never been linked with post count. However, I do agree that it is a change for the bettter, as it's alot easier to see who has authority on this board.

    The point I was attempting to make (as well you know) is that post count does matter for some people, for a variety of reasons. The only reason I felt it was important is because I wanted to keep up with my friends in the lounges. Alas some of those are now in different areas to my self, and will be for some time.

    Going back to the point I was making about the Administration reducing their post count, why are you being so defensive? You say you don't care about post count, and I belive you. However, you and the other Admins/Mods do have a duty to the rest of the board, and should lead by example. Reduce your post count, or rescind the new policy.

    I find it most amusing that you pick up on the one aspect of my original post that you don't really care about. I wonder why, when some of the other elements were actually constructive?

    "Spelling should be pensioned off... it terrorises human beings from birth." - Gabriel Garcia Marquez

    Trek Talk.
  18. Jethro Elvis

    Jethro Elvis Admiral Admiral

    Mar 21, 2001
    Jethro's House, Minnesota
    It seems that the large, large majority of people saying, "rank doesn't matter" are people who already have a high rank.

    The signal this sends to lower ranking members, whether intentional or not, is "we have our rank. Now we have a policy to keep you from getting to where we are."
  19. Teelie

    Teelie Vice Admiral Admiral

    May 1, 1999
    Most of those with high rank have been here long enough to see how deterimental rank is. You and a few others obviously have not. Rank never mattered and those same people who keep saying it doesn't matter have always said it, since they were cadets or in some cases since it started.
    Rank doesn't matter. It's a damned decoration for the board for gods sake.
  20. LizardLaugh

    LizardLaugh Vice Admiral Admiral

    Jun 12, 2001
    Greenhouse Three
    *leads by example*

    Reaperman... I will reduce my post count. I am an admin. If you will look, I am pretty high up there on the Top 50 List. I am the only Admin that high up. I did not get those posts posting exclusively in the Trek Forums. I got most of them debating in TNZ. If only Trek posts counted, my post count would be only around 500 or so.

    So... I accept your challege. Christian will be reducing my post count to 500 shortly. IT won't be given back. If some day I leave the administration, I am stuck with what I got. The posts I made in the Trek forums and a rank of Captain.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.