First proposal of amended rules - please vote

It's easy to say it but it's even harder to do it

I like the idea, but I would prefer to approach then nominate candidates rather than accept applications, though that's not say I wouldn't consider people who are interested if I think they're suitable. I'm all for community input, but I think that I should be making some decisions.

I see that most people have voted in favour of these rules, but at the time of writing five have voted against them. Would anyone care to elaborate on what's wrong with the rules, and suggest further changes or additions? In my experience, I'm going to have to side with majority meaning not 100% of the community will be 100% satisfied with the new rules, but I'd like to hear suggestions so that I can amend the rules to satisfy as many people as possible.

i don't really think we need anymore mods in here... we already have qweet, dahl, and james etc ... they all have the ability to lock posts etc (i think...) ... and they just don't because maybe there wasn't any real need to.... the flaming in general talks is sometimes really not that big a deal... hell, people even become friends after a good flame...

same here

I don't have any objections, but I don't generally have problems with anyone either.

My only suggestion would be to simplify things:

1)Everybody should respect everybody (mods included).
2)No unnecessary flamming.
3)Don't post links to Porn and illegal shit.
4)Keep spam in the general section.
5)Post in the right section.
6)Have fun.

There ya go!

I didn't see anything wrong with those rules, although they are a long read as Stevan said. How much has been changed from the original rules? Both have made sense to me I think, although with the recent goings-on a change was obviously in need. If I think of anything else, I will post it here.

we already have qweet, dahl, and james etc ... they all have the ability to lock posts etc (i think...) .

We sure do - I've locked only one or two I think, and one of them was by request of the thread starter - I believe he had accidentally made two threads. The other one had nothing to do with 2004 announcements and there was some flaming/flaming potential going on - it was a good lock IMO. If the thread creator had a real announcement, another thread was needed anyway. Otherwise, I usually just post a calming message saying to get back on topic. If you want any more of my modding/member 'history', check this thread because I made long post about myself.

I think that as long as both moderators and regular members alike (although, both are equal in terms of community membership, mods just have a few extra tools ) actually follow these or any proposed rules, the forum will be a pleasant place to post and communicate. Otherwise, its just a burden. And yes, anyone who voted NO could you please elaborate?

I'm with Stevan

The rules seem to be improved too.

If I could help in any way, be it moderating or not, contact me Andrew.

Why do you want to be a moderator?

I'm all about bringing this community together man. There seems to be a need for moderation that is just, fair, and all that good stuff. And as a fellow NBA Liver, and gamer and overall sports nut I feel I am that person. I also relate very well to people, thus I would make an excellent choice.

To be honest..everyone says that...saying it wont cut it. Lead by example and be a model member of the forum.

Screw it, I just want to be one of the guys.

Sorry to go off topic but lmao Tales that sig is great, good to have you back

If I could help in any way, be it moderating or not, contact me Andrew.

This would be a great move imo. Tales is a very respected member, who understands the posting styles of veterans. Unlike a mod inparticular, he is open to ideas, and would be great for the job imho

All for Tales.

Last edited by Jackal on Thu Jul 08, 2004 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[J@3]

Tales would definitely make things interesting/fun

Last edited by J@3 on Thu Jul 08, 2004 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Put it to vote.

Actually no, too many weirdo's out there.

Nah I dont think this should be voted on. Similar reasons, and others.

Tales should probably be involved...

Last edited by Wall St. Peon on Thu Jul 08, 2004 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I hope Tales gets involved too

I don't believe we are in the need of any moderators right now.

In the future, who knows

I think that you guys are. Theres no way that egarret should be retained as a mod, and ive never seen andreas dahl or qweet mod. Ive seen you move some posts here and there, and andrew and yohance do a great job. Whats needed is a standup guy who is open and well known to all posters... Tales is a perfect fit. He's been a respected poster for so long... it's time.

I reckon Tales would make a good mod too, but he's on a vacation at the moment, I dunno if he'd have the time

I don't think we're in the need of any new mods...voting would only make it more complicated...so...let Andrew decide what we should do from here on out about this issue.

As I said before, I'd like to help, be it modding or not

I don't have any objections, but I don't generally have problems with anyone either.

My only suggestion would be to simplify things:

1)Everybody should respect everybody (mods included).
2)No unnecessary flamming.
3)Don't post links to Porn and illegal shit.
4)Keep spam in the general section.
5)Post in the right section.
6)Have fun.

There ya go!

yes! can we vote for Stevan's rules?

to tell the truth I couldn't be bothered reading all those rules and it all seemed the same as before.. so I just voted no..

to tell the truth I couldn't be bothered reading all those rules and it all seemed the same as before.. so I just voted no..

Wouldn't it be wiser to not vote at all if you didn't read them?

no.. like I said.. they seem the same as before.. there may be minor changes.. but I didn't like the rules before and nothing has really changed.. so why shouldn't I vote no?

Some of the rules are basically the same, I've dropped a few, reworded some, and basically changed the moderator procedure so that issues such as flames are dealth with a little differently ie. more warnings/requests to get back on topic, deleting posts so that the conversation can continue. Nothing groundbreaking, but possible ideas to make things fairer and friendlier, which is the whole point of amending the rules.

no.. like I said.. they seem the same as before.. there may be minor changes.. but I didn't like the rules before and nothing has really changed.. so why shouldn't I vote no?

I guess that's fair enough, but I was hoping that anyone who did not like the new proposal would suggest what exactly was wrong with it and what changes they would like to see. If I don't exactly what people dislike about the rules, it's difficult to know exactly what to change.

no.. like I said.. they seem the same as before.. there may be minor changes.. but I didn't like the rules before and nothing has really changed.. so why shouldn't I vote no?

There you go saying "seem" again...which means you don't know. If you don't read them, how do you know if there were just "minor" changes? It's uninformed voting...which is bad in anything, not just politics.

I'm just curious why you're even voting if you don't even care enough to say why you don't like the rules or to read the "new" rules even if the changes were, for the most part, minor. If you don't care, why screw up the voting stats? Just wondering...