188 replies to this topic

[pyke]

Backing juju on this one.

We haven't announced it. No need for people to be parading it around.

Backing juju on this one.

We haven't announced it. No need for people to be parading it around.

[juju]

Backing juju on this one.

We haven't announced it. No need for people to be parading it around.

Thank you Brandon. <3

[DudeOnline]

My post above yours is everyone's verbal warning. If you want me to start handing out warnings, I will gladly do so. Starting off with a bunch of new Moderators that are already leaking is not a good thing now, is it?

Um...sorry? I was replying to Laser Wave.

[Gen]

Brandon, you accidentally double posted
Oh, dudeonline, don't forget that we, as members, need to report, sometimes warns go unnoticed, but if we report they won't pass by

Edited by Banhammer, 23 December 2007 - 04:19 PM.

[juju]

Um...sorry? I was replying to Laser Wave.

Oh, my mistake . You didn't quote anyone so I didn't know for sure.

[Cory]

Backing juju on this one.

We haven't announced it. No need for people to be parading it around.

Backing juju on this one.

We haven't announced it. No need for people to be parading it around.

In b4 brandon edits his double post.

[DudeOnline]

Its a good idea, but somehow it would just end up like the Digg Comment System methinks. (referring to the auto-invisi system)

[Waser Lave]

Its a good idea, but somehow it would just end up like the Digg Comment System methinks. (referring to the auto-invisi system)

What's wrong with the Digg Comment System? (I don't use digg)

[pyke]

In b4 brandon edits his double post.

Pfft, I'll never edit it.

[Tetiel]

It would be dealt with when a member of staff comes online like I already said. The reports would stay on the moderator report centre, but the problem will have been dealt with without the need for staff to physically invisible the post.

*thumbs up* get crackin' tech team. Also we could have a problem with report abuse because of it but since report abuse is already a warnworthy offense it's not an issue.

[Waser Lave]

*thumbs up* get crackin' tech team. Also we could have a problem with report abuse because of it but since report abuse is already a warnworthy offense it's not an issue.

Keep it to legitimate members (e.g. Advanced+) and there's much less chance of any abuse.

*hides his Tech Team tag so people don't expect him to do any work*

[DudeOnline]

eh, mods are already lazy enough as it is! (j/k Dont tase me bro!! )

Edited by Dudeonline, 23 December 2007 - 04:29 PM.

[Hawk]

eh, mods are already lazy enough as it is! (j/k Dont tase me bro!! )

Don't say that. Mods appear to be on their period every time I say something like that.

You didn't answer why demoting those people and promoting new people would necessarily bring more activity. If people start to post more just because they've been promoted, then perhaps those aren't the best people to have been promoted in the first place.

Quoting because its fucking true. (Thats above regular true, just because I dropped the F-bomber)

And thats a good idea for the posts too.

[pyke]

Don't say that. Mods appear to be on their period every time I say something like that.
Quoting because its fucking true. (Thats above regular true, just because I dropped the F-bomber)

And thats a good idea for the posts too.

The F-bomb makes it undeniably true now?

[DudeOnline]

not necessarily posting more, LW, but promoting activity. I guess I cant really explain it. it may not make sense except for in my own head.

[Hawk]

The F-bomb makes it undeniably true now?

You better believe it.

[Grizzly]

My main concern is not about the quality of the new mods, but why we're actually promoting people when we're at our lowest ever activity levels (or at least the lowest since 2004).

It's not like there's too much work to do for our current mods/supermods at the moment.

I think its justified. Moderators are on the administrative team, which means they actually need to do work. Privates and Retired are more of ranks than anything, we don't have to actually do anything, we just have mere obligations. But if moderators are not doing their jobs and are inactive, they don't deserve their positions and should be demoted, and replaced by more suitable members.. and we always have eager members to fill that spot.. so why not?

Activity of the community doesn't have anything to do with it imo.

[Hawk]

not necessarily posting more, LW, but promoting activity. I guess I cant really explain it. it may not make sense except for in my own head.

It makes sense, but your choice of wording makes it difficult to understand. (The above post, its just hard to read because of your punctuation )

rivates and Retired are more of ranks than anything, we don't have to actually do anything, we just have mere obligations.

We're obligated to do what? Like I've said in the past, I can do almost whatever I want (Within reason) and not fear any repercussions.

[Cory]

Hai guys! I'm gonna post in this thread, k?

[Waser Lave]

not necessarily posting more, LW, but promoting activity. I guess I cant really explain it. it may not make sense except for in my own head.

From what I've noticed, people actually post less after they've been promoted. Even Brandon has admitted to not being able to saying what he wants sometimes because of his position, and Joe demoted himself because of it.

I think its justified. Moderators are on the administrative team, which means they actually need to do work. Privates and Retired are more of ranks than anything, we don't have to actually do anything, we just have mere obligations. But if moderators are not doing their jobs and are inactive, they don't deserve their positions and should be demoted, and replaced by more suitable members.. and we always have eager members to fill that spot.. so why not?

Activity of the community doesn't have anything to do with it imo.

Less activity should = less staff members, so by all means demote inactive staff members but don't promote people just for the sake of it (regardless of whether they're eager or not...). Unnecessary staff members just = extra security risks to me. There's more than one way to skin a cat so promotions aren't always the best way to go.

I guess admins have made their decision already though so this discussion is just academic.

Edited by Laser Wave, 23 December 2007 - 05:36 PM.

[DudeOnline]

It makes sense, but your choice of wording makes it difficult to understand. (The above post, its just hard to read because of your punctuation )
We're obligated to do what? Like I've said in the past, I can do almost whatever I want (Within reason) and not fear any repercussions.

I have been a bit...sedated for the last few days. Lortabs suck when you want to make sense

[Grizzly]

From what I've noticed, people actually post less after they've been promoted. Even Brandon has admitted to not being able to saying what he wants sometimes because of his position, and Joe demoted himself because of it.
Less activity should = less staff members, so by all means demote inactive staff members but don't promote people just for the sake of it (regardless of whether they're eager or not...). Unnecessary staff members just = extra security risks to me. There's more than one way to skin a cat so promotions aren't always the best way to go.

I guess admins have made their decision already though so this discussion is just academic.

I assumed we were just replacing the demoted members. Are we promoting a lot more? o.o

[nox]

True, because it is next week tomorrow.

it's been a day, lying to us again HUH??!??

tsk tsk tsk admins

[Hawk]

it's been a day, lying to us again HUH??!??

tsk tsk tsk admins

Like I said- The staff here are terrible when it comes to deadlines and following through with what they say.

[Sweeney]

Joe demoted himself because of it.

*wave*