The more friendly topic about the forum in The Forum.

[Eighthours]

Though he's right about the poll not being a good idea - Petercrisp himself has apologised for multiple times.

That's very big of him.

Especially since tnman started it

I meant tnny.

[Cuttooth]

If like Garth says, and he isn't going to lie, all the good points that were made in the good long posts in this thread are being genuinely considered by the Admins/Mods then I don't see much point in this thread being open as it's descending into the same old pointless forum politics again.

[Eighthours]

Eighthours, in my honest opinion, trying to muddle though this with "it's Steve, it's what makes him lovable" won't cut it if you want to change the face of this community.

It's what I've been saying all along - change starts at the top.

Yeah, good luck with that! You do know Steve, right?

Read my and Tiarny's big posts yet?

*Sigh*

Not yet. They're big and stuff.

[That]

P.S. I am NOT posting this to be abrasive, it is just yet another example of why a more perhaps humble attitude and definitely a more transparent process will make trust and respect levels skyrocket.

I don't get the first part, I really don't. Aside from King Steve (and, when cornered, Citizen Gandalf), nobody's got this attitude you keep going on about.

For one, you do.

Sorry, dude, but being utterly frank and not wishing to offend, yadda yadda ... you're really one hell of a smug bastard sometimes.

[Eighthours]

P.S. I am NOT posting this to be abrasive, it is just yet another example of why a more perhaps humble attitude and definitely a more transparent process will make trust and respect levels skyrocket.

I don't get the first part, I really don't. Aside from King Steve (and, when cornered, Citizen Gandalf), nobody's got this attitude you keep going on about.

For one, you do.

Sorry, dude, but being utterly frank and not wishing to offend, yadda yadda ... you're really one hell of a smug bastard sometimes.

I really don't consider myself "above" ordinary forumites, which seems to be the thought here. I'm sure I can come across as a smug bastard at times, though. Whoops.

I think I'm smarter than some of you, but that's got nothing to do with forum politics or the way I'll treat you, just that I'll... say... give various weights to different opinions about games or politics or whatever amusing discussion we're all having.

I don't think I'm "above" anyone in status, unless it's someone constantly acting like a complete dickhead - and in that scenario then, yes, of course I think I'm better than the dickhead, because if you don't think you're better than someone who's acting like that, then what does that say about what kind of person you think you are?

[That]

Progress! Mate, I like you, but you need to tone yourself down on some occasions.

It's one of a load of changes the Squad need to make, some big, some small. Please don't feel I'm singling you out, but again your poll is a good example of a lack of transparency and what some users might see as a contempt for your memberbase, and your (occasional and unintentional?) smugness is still offputting. It's not just you, it's not just anyone, it's the system that needs changing more than anything.

I hope all of this is being debated in the Mod Room.

Read the big post!

[SEP]

OK, lets get back to the real issues. First thing first, improving the forum. One thing we can ALL help with is by being a little more civil with each other. God knows I'm trying to make a start myself (please forgive any temporary lapses for the time being, though. Rome wasn't built in a day after all). That would considerably improve the atmosphere.

Rules don't need to change. They're fine the way they are, and the moderators and admin are doing a much better job of upholding them these days. The only thing I'd add is to use TCRT to its full potential, and if anyone feels the urge to talk about wiping their arse or something, do it in there, away from the rest of the forum. As I recall, the original concept of TCRT in its first incarnation was to channel all that away. We don't need to stop talking about all that, we just need to do it in the appropriate place.

Section mods are a good idea, and would, IMO, lighten the burden of responsibility on individual moderators. It doesn't need to happen immediately, though, and can be considered whenever Garth and Steve feel like it.

It is impossible to prove either way what happened with Eighty's mod promotion, so banging on about it is a pointless exercise that will never achieve anything, and brings the forum down.

This place is not a democracy, but in my experience, we are listened to, so it is hardly a dictatorship. Garth and Steve are providing us with a forum and a community that we don't have to pay a penny for. The least we could do is treat it nicely.

[That]

OK, lets get back to the real issues

Right!

Here you go, Peter!

Karlprof Post 1

As a resident troublemaker, I would say with honesty that a more transparent and more humble moderating process would do much better at reigning me in than what we have now.

Nowadays if someone gets into an argument with someone abrasive but immune (Hugo is a prime example) you can expect the Mods to come down hard on you if you so much as show frustration at his bizzare behaviour. Yet, to my knowledge, he has never so much have been warned. The process the Mods go by to reach this course of action is a mystery to me, and if I were to complain about it Eighthours (and it is always Eighthours) would close the thread with a witty put-down. Amusing, I'm sure, but not terribly helpful.

If, overnight, the bias in the Mod squad disappeared, the Mods opened up their decision-making process a bit, and certain Greenhats started seeing themselves as servants of the community rather than our overlords, I would treat this place with a lot more respect.

(As an aside, do you think I'd call Hugo on being a bad poster [and he is] if the Mods told him, and made it known that they'd told him, that his style is unacceptable? No, because I wouldn't have to. Do you think I'd adopt the beat-them-into-submission style of debate in GGC if there was a rule against it which applied to everyone, even people the moderators like? No, because I wouldn't have to. Honestly, why can Hugo do it and not me?)

This will surprise everyone, I'm sure, but I've been a moderator on a site that got more users in a day than this place gets in a year, and I'm telling you with complete honestly, without any spite or mal-intention, that the Mod squad are really going about things the wrong way. I'm sure they're trying their best with the structure and way of thinking they have in place, but some kind of reform is needed if I am going to take this community seriously, and if this community is going to take itself seriously.

That's my interpretation of what's wrong with this place. Here's what I'd do to fix it:

Firstly, an attitude change is needed. A big one. In a scenario in which you have banned someone (yes, I am at least partially talking about myself here, but see the following caveat) and there is an upcry, unban that person. You're servants of the community, and until you manage to create a community which rejects, say, threads titled "HERO", or calling Hugo a banana split, you have to serve the community you've got. Sorry, guys, but anything else breeds resentment.

But here's the thing (aforementioned caveat time): If this community was one which respected itself, I would be emotionally invested enough in this forum to care if I was banned. As it is, I'm vaguely aware that HoC is trying to get me banned right now. Yet I don't care, and I think this post sums up why.

Secondly, you need to tailor the Mods to the forums you're moderating. How many people on the Mod squad can look at themselves and say, "yeah, I'm a regular and valued contributor to Ask The Forum"? None. So please, just make GreenGecko an ATF Mod already. I may not agree with him at all times, but at least he understands how it works. I'm not just saying that for ATF, either. We need a couple of dedicated Mods per forum, and they shouldn't necessarily be picked out of the current bunch either. "Global Mods" is a silly concept, frankly, and going through the trouble of setting up forum-specific Mods would go a long way towards addressing a lot of the problems I and others have with these boards. Trust me. There'd be logistics involved, sure, but it'd be worth it.

And thirdly, here's something you can take from my own experience with internet projects I actually contributed to seriously: Don't force, catalyse. Users are human beings. If they're acting up, there's a reason why. If you're opening a PM with "I'm warning you for ..." and ending it with "You'll be banned if you do it again.", you're doing it wrong. Find out why they're doing it and address the problem as best you can, while still setting a boundary which falls within the confines of what you want from this community. You can still warn, you can still ban, but when it's the only thing you're doing, it's a problem.

Note: to have something fall within the confines of what you want from the community, you have to know what you want from the community. I am assuming you want this place to be a Neogaf-lite -- which is fine! -- but once again I don't know because there's no way for me to tell. Again, more transparency needed.

Atreyu is right, by the way: we'll have people posting threads about wanking for however long it takes for Steve to stop posting threads about wanking. I actually like Steve, I think he's a level-headed fella, and he's a perfect poster-boy for the community we currently have, but if we want change then it has to start at the top and he has to start being a better role-model.

So, yeah, it really does all come down to the Mods.

I'm sorry if that post wandered a bit, as it was pretty much written from the stream of conciousness. I am aware that this won't be taken seriously, but this is a serious post. I would hope that at some point somewhere one of the Mods -- I am tempted to refer to you as "leaders" which only goes to show, really -- will actually consider this rather than laughing at it, mocking it, or trying to refute this.

Yeah, don't argue with this. It's pointless. As soon as I hit submit, I'm gone, I'm out, I'm back in GGC being a PC Supremacist. Just read, and think.

I'll leave a closing thought. I and many others are here to have a laugh and extract some fun, forcibly or nay. That is what we see this site as: a pissabout. Changing the image of the site starts with changing the image of the administration. No amount of cracking down, y'all Greens and Blues, will make a damn bit of difference if you can't convince us to care about those actions.

Karlprof Post 2

That's quite a way away from what we're actually saying, though. What we're saying is essentially this, though I feel that any 2-line summarisation of the issues here aren't going to do them justice, as there are many complexities (hence why I felt a very long post was appropriate): The community is always going to be a reflection of the site's self-image.

People are always going to act in accordance with what is considered acceptable within the community, and they are also going to naturally rebuff percieved injustices in their own way. In a community in which the "leaders" are unapproachable (because they put themselves on a pedestal, because they're unprofessional, because they're unhelpful and not understanding, or a mixture of all three). There are two parts to that, and I'll address the first first.

A community is always going to be a reflection of the principles on which it is run, and on a forum on which the moderaters are unaccountable and inconsistent and on which the admining process is completely opaque, the community is going to be disrespectful, fragmented, and err on the side of immature. This is exasperated when we don't know what we're trying to be. Are we Gamefaqs or are we Neogaf? Are we Something Awful GBS or are we Something Awful FYAD? Right now we've got the Mod squad complaining about obnoxiousness when the head Admin is spamming threads about who's a "wanker". That's not a complaint at either party, merely an observation.

To reiterate very clearly: Steve, if you read this, you're alright, dude.

Now that the average GRcadian has, and I think I'm not presumptious in saying this, somewhat lost faith in the Moderators, you're going to get people doing whatever, taking the piss, pushing boundaries because they don't give a gooseberry fool anymore; it's natural and it's expected and it's not something bannings or harshly worded stickies will change. What's needed is a change of attitude, and I think I've explained that well enough already in my previous post.

Please, I'm not trying to offend anyone, and God knows that after tonight I won't give a gooseberry fool anyway, but frankly ... at the moment, I feel sorry for the Moderators. I know you all just want what's best for the site, dudes, but you're doing it so, so wrong. All I ask is that you read the post and consider it rather than making reactionary comments such as cropolite's up there.

For the record, I think Peter's on the whole a pretty approachable Mod, he just has no idea about how to deal with disruptive people. He's not understanding in the least and I've always found him to be extremely condescending. I'm not going to be told what to do on a forum which holds no respect for me. It's cyclic and it's interlinked and something is going to need to change drastically for anything to change.

Getting where? We have one side thinking the rules should be stricter because we just can't be trusted with them and the other side thinking the whole thing needs a complete overhaul.

They're two sides of the same coin, in my opinion. If the Mod Squad can achieve the level of transparancy and professionalism needed for the forum to not consider itself to be a joke (and that is essentially the problem we're facing, isn't it?), then I'm in full support of stricter rules. Something Awful is stricter than this place, but it handles things so much better. It has a system which demands respect. It is utterly fair in all respects, yet actually quite harsh as well.

I really do think that with a few changes of policy this place could implement a system which works just as well.

Like I say, the change on this is, in my opinion, going to have to come from the top. Mere stricter rules won't cut it. Mere warnings won't cut it. What's needed is a change of how the community views itself, and while warnings and new rules and all that mallarky can certainly come into it, at the core has to be unbiased mods who know the forums they're moderating, who care about their users, who don't hold themselves higher than the average forumite, and who possibly most importantly have a transparent process for decision making.

Karlprof Post 3

On another subject, Karl, I got PM'd about your post from earlier (hadn't read it at the time) and the person's paraphrasing of it was this: "The mods should always bend to the will of the people. I've been a mod myself, on a forum I won't mention that was way, way bigger than this place, so I know what I'm talking about. Rather than PM people to tell them they're being warned or banned, you should be asking us why we're acting the way we are, and treating the root of the problem rather than the symptoms. That way you'll have finally earnt our valued respect."

Now, I will read the post in full and respond when I get a bit of time to do so, as it's a real long'un, but if that paraphrasing is representative of any of it, then it's missed the mark big-time.

No, that paraphrasal completely mis-interpets the tone of my post. I think that the amount of people saying "I agree with Karlprof" at least in part means that it deserves a reading, and since it's one of the very few times I've actually contributed seriously to anything on GamesRadar I think you'd do well to take it as what it is and not get all defensive just because it's me posting it. I'm aware that the Mod Squad don't like me -- hey, guess what, I don't like many of you either! Nor do a hell of a lot of people on here! That can change, but it has to start with you guys. I am being honest and I am being practical and I am being non-judgemental within these magical serious tags, so please try and take something away from it.

I'm going to address Cal's PM (and I'm assuming it was Cal because only he could be so reactionary while sucking up to you so much -- sorry, buddy, I like you, but I call it how I see it) section-by-section because it is mildly concerning that I've managed to seemingly offend him so much:

"The mods should always bend to the will of the people."

No, the Mods need to serve the community that they've created. If you're not biased, you're at least percieved to be, and that's because of a totally untransparent decision-making process and because, IMO, a lot of Mods aren't even big presences in the forums they're moderating. There is room to change this community, to turn it around, to make it into the Neogaf-lite that I assume you desire, but that starts with the top and I think that while you do have a community which you don't like, it'd be a nice gesture of faith to actually enact while we think, at least during the transition period. We'll respond positively. It's how people work.

"I've been a mod myself, on a forum I won't mention that was way, way bigger than this place"

I was a staffer for around a year on Freenode, the biggest tech-themed IRC network on the internet. The staffer team there would often be managing 50,000+ users at once. It should be unnecessary to bring this up as in theory you should give me the benefit of the doubt because I'm trying to help you, but perhaps it needs to be said so as to give you some indication that I do actually know what I'm talking about.

"Rather than PM people to tell them they're being warned or banned, you should be asking us why we're acting the way we are, and treating the root of the problem rather than the symptoms. "

Again, this misses the point somewhat. By adopting such an abrasive process you're not going to earn anyone's respect -- you're just going to breed resentment. Most people troll because they're unhappy with some aspect of how the institution is run. I troll because you guys give people complete immunity based on all manner of silly personal things, like which console they like or that lovable Hugo, he's so silly isn't he, bless. The only way to win an argument in GGC, as someone who isn't part of the automatically-right clique, is to bludgeon your opponant to death. This is partly because of certain trolls not being dealt with fairly, and partly because people feel self-entitled because of how the Moderators behave.

"That way you'll have finally earnt our valued respect."

The sarcasm here says it all. "earnt ... valued"; guys, this is appalling. If you don't respect us enough to want us to respect you ... why would we respect you anyway? Because your names are green? This is exactly what's wrong with this place.

Now this is a very angry-sounding post, and it's not intended that way at all, but it's hard to respond to such a snide and sarcastic passage without coming across as a little annoyed.

Like I said: there's room to turn this place around. There's even room to turn posters like me into posters like -- I dunno, who's cool nowadays, Rik? I like Rik, let's go with Rik -- posters like Rik. But it has to start at the top.

More transparency would be good. A clearer view of where this forum 'should' be going, and fairly enforced rules based upon that, would be good. A shake-up of the Mods to get us small teams of two or so people who set the tone of only the forum they moderate while understanding the intricacies of that forum? That'd be pretty good.

All three would be a great step towards this place starting to respect itself. That's what this is all about -- you guys want this place to not consider itself to be a joke.

It's achievable but it starts with you.

A sidenote: Peter mentioned earlier (I lied, I did skim his post) that this is all pretty rich coming from the dastardly likes of me, how dare I, etc. That's exactly why I'm posting this. Don't get me wrong -- I like how the forum is now. I am fine with being a PC Supremacist. But if you want to change the face of this community it's people like me (and it's not just me -- It's the Goats, the LewisDs, the Winckles and the Silvas as well) that are going to have to follow suit, and I think that the amount of support I've gotten so far from people like that means that my posts are at least worth considering.

I would change tomorrow if the face of the community changed, if how the community viewed itself changed, but I guess that's down to you. A really nice gesture towards this would be giving Hugo an official and public warning.

Shake things up, or put up with how things are.

Karlprof Post 4

But, really, Hugo is just a part of a bigger problem. I'd like it if I could get some actual responses to the points I've raised in the big posts as while discussing Hugo is probably very gratifying, I think we've demonstrated now what we want to be done, and funnily enough it fits in with what I raised: treat everyone equally and as part of a transparent process and people will kick up less and there will be fewer problems.

Karlprof Post 5

Karlprof, I'm interested. Are you suggesting you'll stop insulting anyone you want to? I have a problem with that behaviour.

Well I can only speak as myself at the end of the day, but I don't like to be seen as egocentric. What I'll do isn't really important -- we're talking about a block transition of everyone's opinion of this place into something "better", more serious in tone, more like Neogaf I guess. I'm trying to tailor my posts towards that goal, rather than what will make me shut up, but they're obviously linked, not just because I clearly am me, but because I would imagine the moment I stop trolling would be a small victory for the Mods in and of in itself.

But with regards to me, personally? This thread has caught my eye, it's awakened a little helpful sod that cares, but for that to carry over to the rest of the boards ... lead by example, guys. I'm waiting. Yes, I'd stop posting abrasively if I percieved that I was getting the same treatment as everyone else, but unfortunately -- and I mean this with no offense to you, sir, it's merely the way I see it -- people like you are often immune while people like me get a disproportionately hard time.

Obviously I could end it by putting the effort in to be serious in every one of my posts -- but I don't care enough, frankly; I'd rather extract fun out of this place because that's all I see this community as. The change of perception starts at the top.

More transparency, more fairness, and a re-organisation of the Mod squad would be an absolutely delightful start. I have more suggestions (lots more!) but I'll leave them for when (or if) those foundations are laid.

And I've still yet to see evidence of me doing anything against the rules...I'm all for a fair, honest and open lot of mods, I don't see how what we've got now isn't that, but then I don't have any real dealings with them in an official capacity.

Also trolling. Its not just disagreement, right?

It's the way you do it, sir. Everyone likes debate, and everyone likes a nutter with odd opinions too: it makes things interesting! But you're utterly unmoving in your arguments, you won't make even the slightest concessions and while you may not outright call people names very often, you always post as if you're completely thinking it. It's very much a tone thing and that can be mis-interpreted, sure... but doesn't the sheer number of people telling you that you rile them up count for anything at all? You clearly are causing problems and you should be warned for it and until you are it's just complete proof of how unwilling to serve us the Mods actually are.

To serve doesn't necessarily mean to be subserviant, but fairness, transparency, personification, mutual respect and a willingness to listen would go along way.

Really though I think a lot of the time resentment aimed at you is misplaced resentment at the Mods for doing nothing to sort you out.

Why didn't KP just post that he didn't agree and leave it at that? There was absolutely no need to post the way he did.

Because I've gotten into enough "discussions" with you to realise that you wouldn't budge through civil debate. People (not just me!) tell you to leave the thread because they're frustrated that nothing they say makes an impact on your opinion.

In your mind you are always right. The possibility of you being wrong, or even being only somewhat right, doesn't even register, does it?

I am sorry if this seems harsh, I'm just trying to explain. No offence was intended in this post, and well, see the next paragraph ...

AN IMPORTANT NOTE It's not just Hugo. Even if Hugo didn't exist we would still need some kind of reform at this stage if the Mod squad are going to advance the community into something more fitting into what they think this place should be.

TAP Post 1

I do think that Karlprof's forum specific mods might be a good idea, but only if it came with a new meaning of what a mod is. There should be an almost callous nature from both Steve and Garth over who gets to be a mod. They should be role-model members, who will answer questions and generally improve the forum. If they don't want to go the extra mile to help people, then they shouldn't get the buttons. If they stop posting regularly, then they should just be replaced. Garth is always a great one for responding like this:

hey do you no when Assasssin's Creed 2 comes out?

Ubisoft have said it's out on the 24th of November, you can check out our official thread for it here. Welcome to the forum!

Even when it's a member who's been here for ages, if you ask a question you'll normally see Garth post a nice, quick, concise reply. The mods should be the backbone of the forum, not just its police force, and splitting the mods up into areas would be a great way of achieving that. People like Suzz make threads all the time in GGC, and they're really nice. He also knows the regulars in GGC, and he knows a lot about games. He's perfect for introducing new members, and keeping regular members under control as he knows them, gets along with them, and posts often. He's a proper member of the community and you see him about every day, you also get to know him and his gaming tastes. It makes him approachable, and likeable. Perfect GGC mod material.

Denster is a similar person for Off Topic (which, in fairness, isn't a place I go to *that* often, so I could be really off the mark), as he knows all the OT regulars so if he tells them to reel it in they're far more likely to listen to him, and he can tell them in an almost jolly, banter-ish way, rather than a strongly worded PM, a simple "Wise up, guys." would be enough in most cases.

I very, very rarely see Denster in GGC, for instance, so if I was to PM him about something wrong in GGC there is a chance he could come in and, not fulling understanding the situation from just a single PM, make a wrong call, so limiting him to Off Topic means he isn't bothered by GGC stuff that doesn't interest him and he never makes a "mod-mistake" by accident either. Suzz, as the GGC mod, wouldn't do this as he'd be actively around and there to know the situation.

Mods who are, in a sense, just "one of the lads" would be the best at keeping this place under control as they'd have everyone's respect, they'd be likeable, and people would listen to them. They'd also know the forum really well and people aren't as likely to cause such a fuss if they explain why they warned or banned someone. When they lock a thread, they should spend a moment or two explaining why, same when they give someone a warning or ban. If they don't bother, or can't be bothered, then they shouldn't be a mod. If you get tired of it, or frustrated, then you should just step down. Mods shouldn't just sit with the buttons, getting more annoyed and frustrated. There is more than enough people around to replace them, I'm sure.

Really, at the moment, once you become a mod you basically will be one forever. Even when we came over from the old GR, the old mods were all given badges without a moment's thought. I don't think that is the best system, as a lot of the mods at the moment just seem to be as frustrated as everyone else.

Maybe that idea sucks, maybe it's too long to even bother reading, but a two week trial of it over the summer couldn't hurt that much, could it? We could even make it into a forum game, for a laugh, to get everyone on board.

TAP Post 2

Mods who are, in a sense, just "one of the lads" would be the best at keeping this place under control ...

No. They just turn in'jun. Things go to hell. Boundaries become blurred out of recognition. Loyalties become confused.

We're already in hell, boundaries are already blurred out of recognition and nobody has loyalty to anyone except, apparently, Stu. We're bleeding members left right and centre, so we might as well try something to kick it into gear.

GGC is a clusterfuck of "NO! FUKING LISTEN TO MY RIGHTNESS" and Off Topic has become a seedy brothel for under 12s. I was going to post a topic pointing out something about a PSP game, but I didn't because I just knew that it would degrade into a digital distribustion clusterfuck of uuuuuugh. That means there is a serious problem with the forum, if you ask me.

Suzzopher modding GGC would not make that worse, it would do the exact opposite.

(That's an exaggerated form of events, but then so was your tin-hatted response too, so it seemed apt.)

I feel weird sticking my own stuff up there, but a good few people agreed with what I said so I thought I'd include there. There was a ton of other comments made by individuals in here too, which should be really read if you've got time.

And just before I posted this, Karlprof sent me this as Peter was asking for people to provide points on a list. He took the time to write out a few things the Mods might find interesting so I've included them here at the end.

The List

If you want some kind of manifesto (and I've said since Page 5 that in attempting to refine the issue you lose some of the complexities and end up with a less satisfactory discussion, but hey ho), I would suggest that this is a good starting point:

1. Greater transparency.

a. Decisions should be explained. This doesn't have to be a drastic change -- but if someone is banned, there should automatically be a thread to explain why. If a thread is locked, the closing post should be a paragraph on why and which rules it breaches rather than a witticism. Some Mods already do this.
b. Strict rules on warnings and bans -- public ones. People need to be aware of exactly what they're up against if they break a rule.

i. I would actually suggest probations instead of warnings and bans. We can start off with an hour's cooldown for being a twat, a day's probation for a major rule-break, a week's probation for more consistent fuck-ups. SA does this and it works. (But this will only work if you enact all of the changes here, else people will just hate you. That's a shitter, eh?)
c. Refine the rules. There are many people here calling out for a rules change, and try and take some of that on board. Perhaps all nudity should be totally banned, if we're trying to head up-market. The important thing here is that you decide, publically, on what you want the forum to be. Neogaf-lite is fine, but put that in writing.
2. Greater professionalism.

a. Serve your community. This doesn't mean be subserviant, it just means be respectful and try to enact what your members tell you is best, rather than what you think is best for the members.

i. Listen to your members! If you ban someone and there's an uproar, reduce the ban length. If someone is stirring gooseberry fool up, as well as setting the appropriate boundaries in an appropriate way, try and approach them as a human being and perhaps see why they're doing it.
b. Forum-specific moderators. People respond better to Moderator influence when they feel they can relate to the person ordering them around. GreenGecko reigning me in in ATF will work a whole lot better than Peter Crisp, just to give a wild example.

i. Don't necessarily choose these from the people who are already Mods or Bluehats. There are a fair few people on those lists that shouldn't be. I'll let you figure out who I mean.
c. Lead by example! Nothing will change while Steve makes threads calling people "wankers", while Gandalf is making lists of people he thinks are "twats", while Eighthours constantly wears his smug face.
3. Be fair!

a. Seriously. This deserves its own point because I think it's a big issue. People like Hugo do not deserve diplomatic immunity just because they're "mental" and treating them that way breeds nothing but resentment.
4. Make a proper main site.

a. Bring in fresh blood. It's a good thing.
b. Set the tone of the board. The forum's self-image will become tied to the main site's self-image very quickly and if you can make an A* first site, that'll filter down.
5. And remember ... respect the forum and the forum will respect itself.

a. At the end of the day, the difference between this and the Gaf is that the Gaf takes itself seriously. We'll only see real change when the membership don't consider the community to be a joke, and that starts at the top.

Not everyone will agree with all of that, of course, but it's my thoughts and it fits in (loosely...) with what I was saying on pages 5-10.

Read! Now!

[Peter Crisp]

Though he's right about the poll not being a good idea - Petercrisp himself has apologised for multiple times.

That's very big of him.

Especially since tnman started it

I meant tnny.

You've just got used to me cocking up and saying sorry so it's an understandable mistake to make.

[Irene Demova]

To be fair mods aren't really in charge. All they do is enforce the forum rules laid out by the admin? The admin are in charge.

The problem is the inconsistency, which has been brought up by myself in the distant past. Different moderators treat different people in different ways, and the severeity of punishment seems to stem soley from whether the moderator in question likes you or not, instead of being based on the severity of the crime.

Can you actually get banned unless you mass troll or post (gay) porn?

People who con$istently act like dickheads don't get warned or temp banned.

Says the man who posted goatse

[Peter Crisp]

To be fair to FE it was a mistake that he quickly rectified and apologised for.

[Dual]

The rebellion manifesto is really good. 9/10.

[Fatal Exception]

To be fair mods aren't really in charge. All they do is enforce the forum rules laid out by the admin? The admin are in charge.

The problem is the inconsistency, which has been brought up by myself in the distant past. Different moderators treat different people in different ways, and the severeity of punishment seems to stem soley from whether the moderator in question likes you or not, instead of being based on the severity of the crime.

Can you actually get banned unless you mass troll or post (gay) porn?

People who con$istently act like dickheads don't get warned or temp banned.

Says the man who posted goatse

It was a different image. Hotlinking from that site turns stuff to goatse.

Either way, if I'd had a temp ban it would have been justified. I removed it before any mods saw it so meh.

[Irene Demova]

To be fair mods aren't really in charge. All they do is enforce the forum rules laid out by the admin? The admin are in charge.

The problem is the inconsistency, which has been brought up by myself in the distant past. Different moderators treat different people in different ways, and the severeity of punishment seems to stem soley from whether the moderator in question likes you or not, instead of being based on the severity of the crime.

Can you actually get banned unless you mass troll or post (gay) porn?

People who con$istently act like dickheads don't get warned or temp banned.

Says the man who posted goatse

It was a different image. Hotlinking from that site turns stuff to goatse.

Either way, if I'd had a temp ban it would have been justified. I removed it before any mods saw it so meh.

Just not before it came up on my pc with my 10 year old brother in the background

[Fatal Exception]

[Rik]

Just at the whole thread.

We're only really here to talk about videogames, follow the rules or strawberry float off, simple.

That is all I have to say on the matter.

[Corazon de Leon]

If I left would that make things better?

Damn right.

[LewisD]

Had a really long day without much net access and come home to this mess?

WTF guys? What happened to the united legions of gamers against future?!
I'd be interested to find out who it was that sent me that pm full of mod room screenshots. What a strawberry floating mess they've started...

[RetroBait]

That reads like a setting up an alibi post.


no accusation intended by z ways

[Eighthours]

To be fair mods aren't really in charge. All they do is enforce the forum rules laid out by the admin? The admin are in charge.

The problem is the inconsistency, which has been brought up by myself in the distant past. Different moderators treat different people in different ways, and the severeity of punishment seems to stem soley from whether the moderator in question likes you or not, instead of being based on the severity of the crime.

Can you actually get banned unless you mass troll or post (gay) porn?

People who con$istently act like dickheads don't get warned or temp banned.

Says the man who posted goatse

It was a different image. Hotlinking from that site turns stuff to goatse.

Either way, if I'd had a temp ban it would have been justified. I removed it before any mods saw it so meh.

Just not before it came up on my pc with my 10 year old brother in the background

Your brother's in the Goatse pic?

Not really something to advertise, mate.