I am confused by this wiki.
PD & GD
-
Where are the PD and GD Forums?!
-
They have been disabled temporarily-to-permanently and that is all that will be said about it for the time being.
-
Alright … :?
-
Boo….
-
That’s half the fun of this site :cry:
-
Then we must all encourage each other to play nice on the GD and PD forums.
Until then it’s shut down. Those forums will be back, it may be hours or days but they will be back.
-
I would also urge everyone to make a concerted effort to raise the level of discourse. Frankly, the PD forums have been in the gutter for quite a while. If all anyone can say is “damn __________” [<–------- fill in the blank, usually with the word “liberals”], then what the heck is the point in engaging in a discussion? Anyone call other people names, but what does that prove? (Other than extreme immaturity)
And after all, this place is first and foremost a gaming site. If people can’t keep their politics into perspective, they potentially ruin the site for everyone else.
-
Works for me, the level of idiocy on display in the PD has been astronomical for a long time. I think the entire system should be scrapped, or a better leader be appointed, IMHO. Someone who can be impartial and keep the forum from turning into an evil conservative/evil liberal slander fest. One who doesn’t go throwing around big words and accusations of crimes would be stellar.
Til then, I agree, the PD should be shut down indefinitely. Just my opinion. After all, I believe the forum was created when we all began arguing over the 2000 elections before it was confirmed who the President elect was. Seven years of discussion on it may be enough, no?
-
There are a few options:
(a) PD & GD never returns
(b) PD & GD come back as normal
© PD & GD become an unmoderated free-for-all
(d) PD & GD become a new, separate website -
There are a few options:
(a) PD & GD never returns
(b) PD & GD come back as normal
© PD & GD become an moderated free-for-all
(d) PD & GD become a new, separate websitea and d dont seem good to me
dont get c quite though, but i am for it, at least a slight change in the behaviour and the way we act of each of us
-
Works for me, the level of idiocy on display in the PD has been astronomical for a long time. I think the entire system should be scrapped, or a better leader be appointed, IMHO. Someone who can be impartial and keep the forum from turning into an evil conservative/evil liberal slander fest. One who doesn’t go throwing around big words and accusations of crimes would be stellar.
well, i assume this has connections with your ban from PD, and speaking of that, why didnt we received any true explanation why you were suspended
well i would like to( and many other people i think ) know why this happened, if you wish to tell us afcorse :)
-maybe we need someone on PD who want post there, just beam the discussion in the right direction when he sees it flows in the wrong one
and afcorse cutting all forms of rasicm and hatred towards other people, and all forms of pure insults in its rootwell, thats just one idea
-
I was suspended for arguing with a moderator on the public forums instead of privately.
Anyway, I vote for A or C, assuming C means all the moderators will moderate as they see fit when needed and no one moderator will be ultimately responsible for the entire forum. The reason i like that idea is because everyone one of us, including the moderators, have political opinions and I have not seen any one of us, including moderators, that can successfully suspend their political opinions and feelings and rule fairly. So, if we have all the moderators, some conservative, some liberal, some Republican, some Democrat, some Libertarian, some Green, some Communist, some Nazi, whatever, each moderating as they see fit, perhaps the rulings will be less partisan and allow for the forum to regress from slander and name calling and progress toward intellectual debate.
-
I was suspended for arguing with a moderator on the public forums instead of privately.
Anyway, I vote for A or C, assuming C means all the moderators will moderate as they see fit when needed and no one moderator will be ultimately responsible for the entire forum. The reason i like that idea is because everyone one of us, including the moderators, have political opinions and I have not seen any one of us, including moderators, that can successfully suspend their political opinions and feelings and rule fairly. So, if we have all the moderators, some conservative, some liberal, some Republican, some Democrat, some Libertarian, some Green, some Communist, some Nazi, whatever, each moderating as they see fit, perhaps the rulings will be less partisan and allow for the forum to regress from slander and name calling and progress toward intellectual debate.
well what we ve all tryin to say here
without insulting and provocationsi think we are able to do that :wink:
-
There are a few options:
(a) PD & GD never returns
(b) PD & GD come back as normal
© PD & GD become an moderated free-for-all
(d) PD & GD become a new, separate websiteWould that be © an unmoderated free-for-all? If it’s no holds barred, then why have any moderation? I think that sounds good, like a Battle Dome or something.
(b) Would be appreciative as an interim solution. I don’t know what making a separate website would accomplish. It seems people know where they want to be, and if they don’t like the PD & GD climate, they can avoid it.
-
:cry: :cry:
-
For © I meant unmoderated. Otherwise (b) and © are the same.
-
The problem with the committee style moderation is that sometimes something happens and somebody needs to act on it right away. Putting it to a committee each time slows things down. I guess you could act first and back pedal later. But since moderation is a somewhat time consuming task, whenever there is a question about something in the moderator forum, the stance is to side with whatever has already been done.
In general, moderation should be a fun hobby not a tedious job. Although, the moderators won’t say so to me, I bet moderating GD & PD seems more like a tedious job than fun hobby. Among other things, the shut down is to give the moderators a break.
I was suspended for arguing with a moderator on the public forums instead of privately.
Anyway, I vote for A or C, assuming C means all the moderators will moderate as they see fit when needed and no one moderator will be ultimately responsible for the entire forum. The reason i like that idea is because everyone one of us, including the moderators, have political opinions and I have not seen any one of us, including moderators, that can successfully suspend their political opinions and feelings and rule fairly. So, if we have all the moderators, some conservative, some liberal, some Republican, some Democrat, some Libertarian, some Green, some Communist, some Nazi, whatever, each moderating as they see fit, perhaps the rulings will be less partisan and allow for the forum to regress from slander and name calling and progress toward intellectual debate.
-
I added a poll. Please vote. You can vote for more than one option but try not to contradict yourself too much.
-
I’ll respond to these in turn:
(a) PD & GD never returns
While this may be the most practical and easiest solution , albeit the sole decision of the site owner, I don’t quite believe that it would be the correct way to solve the problem. The forums themselves aren’t the problem, it is the lack of members’ respect for the rules and for eachother. This is a line all of us have crossed at one point or another. Perhaps one of the solutions would be to lock the GD & PD intermittently to give members time to swallow their ego and calm down a bit. For the most part I believe this sort of method works quite well, provided that moderators continue to moderate appropriatly (as they have so far).
So my proposed solutions are these:
-Lay down or repeat concrete rules that members must abide by while in the PD & GD to make sure everyone understande what the boundaries are.
-Establish a minimum of credibility in any debate. Sources, wherever the source is or acquired from, must be true and factual in all accounts in the debate. (For example, stating that Einstein is a Nazi and bringing up a token website to “prove it” isn’t valid. All of us know that Einstein wasn’t a Nazi and have more than enough ample and reliable sources to use to prove it). Making a sticky of reliable sources (not “approved” by any single moderator in the sense of ones’ political leanings) is a good start of this. After thorough examination a group of moderators (at least 3) may approve and sticky a website as a reliable source (ie. Wikipedia, Dictionary.com) and posting a second sticky citing known unreliable sources (ie. BBC and Reuters) or posting fair warning that said sources aren’t 100% “balanced” (excuse me while I try to stifle my laughter). This will help reduce/eliminate accusations that a weblink a member posts to is merely “BS”. (I know I just opened a can of worms but please play along for a bit right now).
-Aggressive moderation of outright flaming (Evil Libs/ Evil Conservatives/ Stupid Lazy no good [insert member name]) and notification to all other members of why so-and-so was spanked for X reason. There doesn’t need to be a moderator name associated with who did the spanking. However, this style of moderation stops where facts are concerned, and a more careful approach will be needed when the situation calls for it (possibly a committee of moderators to handle the problem by blacking out a post and then reversing that act once a decision has been made on the nature of the post in question). For example, it is well known that the majority of terrorists that are being fought are followers of the religion of Islam. This isn’t slandering Islam, and it is a fact that should not be silenced in order to be politically correct. If the facts hold water and is not considered hate speech (as per the laws of the U.S. where the host server is based) then the post should be allowed to stand unfiltered and unaltered in order to maintain the integrity of both member and moderator. If the post does NOT hold water however (ie. saying that gravity doesn’t exist because a consensus of scientists said so or X religion/lifestyle is evil but states no factual support as to why that opinion is held), then moderators would be obliged to insert the proper rebuttal (in red text) to that individuals’ post and remind the member that nonsensical/nonfactual/Trolling/Baiting posts aren’t appreciated and ask them to refrain from doing so in the future.
-In the event that the GD & PD forums become so tiresome of moderating and babysitting and spanking for the mods, that the forums be locked temporarily (a couple days or a week if need be) in order to give the moderators some peace of mind from the field day members are having with eachother.
-I also encourage the moderators to participate in the GD & PD topics with members a bit more. Part of good moderating is knowing how members express themselves, so as not to misunderstand what a member means when they post something the moderator thinks is offensive. It’s also nice to get to know the moderators on a personal or at least friendly basis, it’s not as if the position of moderators are free from personal ideals or influences. The better members know the moderators, the less the protests will be when a controversial decision is made and the reasons as to why. And if decisions over a post is moderated by at least 3 moderators, there is some guarantee of balanced partiality from all sides. Providing that one of each of the moderators promise to vote Democrat, Republican, and Independent this coming election (just kidding).
-Members need to be a little more patient with eachother and actually post facts for their argument (they also need to declare when they’re being sarcastic or satirical to help prevent misunderstandings [we need a sarcasm smiley]). Not some obscure saying from a paerson whose name they don’t remember. Petty and undeserved insults contribute better to a bar brawl than it does a forum debate. Go do it at the bar around the corner, not here.
I know some of my ideas are a bit extreme, but for the most part I believe they’re a good starting point for cleaning up the GD & PD forums.
(b) PD & GD come back as normal
Keeping in mind that the current state of affiars is what caused this sort of situation to occur, doing this will solve nothing and merely prolong the problem.
© PD & GD become an unmoderated free-for-all
This is one way to kill the GD & PD for sure. It will become so inundated with trolls, flame threads, and pure nonsense that it will eventually be abandoned by the participants, and then closed due to lack of use. If you want to kill it slowly, this is the way to do it.
(d) PD & GD become a new, separate website
An idea in and of itself, but it would still need to be properly moderated and members made to play nice. This I believe, is a key issue to resolving this situation.
-
I’d say keep it simple.
Reiterate the rules, not just those for the PD & GD forum (are there any differences?) in particular.
Break them, and you are barred. If you are banned X number of times (3 is a good number), you are permabanned from PD & GD - possibly from the entire site if it’s egregious enough.
I don’t care about citations unless I want someone to believe my argument, or they are really trying to convince me. Sometimes discussion is completely subjective.
The only other problem I see is where the line is actually drawn. For instance, I’m used to hearing balung say GD liberal every other second, and sadly, am acclimated to it, but someone else might be completely turned away from the site. Or if I started that, would it be tolerated?
Maybe even put in a BattleDome Forum that basically says “No whining; go here if you like it hardcore”
Making a new website doesn’t address the problems of a forum getting out of hand (what happened anyway?) - you still have the same problem just at a new domain.