what to do when mods commit offenses. Options

[*not_your_average*]

If a mod ever commits an offense, how should it be handled? Should we treat the offense as we would any other? Or should we give a harder/easier punishment? I've seen mods break rules before, and nothing happens to them simply becasue they are mods. I feel taht we should be objective when it comes to enforcing the rules, and that we should treat a mod the same way we would treat any other member.

[*not_your_average*]

Well, since we know the mods should have the same punishments as a regular member, we can assume that we'll use verbal warnings, suspensions, etc. However, I think if a mod continually commits an offense, they should be removed from their position. (This should only be used as a last resort.)

If the community guidelines expect more of mods, then shouldn't we give them harsher punishments? (My opinion.)

[*mipadi*]

I think the rules should apply the same way, with the exception that if a mod gets a suspension, they are automatically demoted.

[*mipadi*]

There are several admins, so the other ones could easily suspend a misbehaving admin. The only problem is that we run into some issues of control. Theoretically, micron has complete control of the board; what happens if he commits an offense? And if it is his board, can he really commit an offense?

[*mipadi*]

Two admins...does that include micron? I mean, he has full control too, doesn't he?

[*jooleeah*]

^
He's not an admin. Only an advisor. I'm not completely sure if he has full control or not...

I agree, though. Just because we are mods does not mean we get special privilages for breaking the rules.

[*mipadi*]

Well, we're arguing semantics. Generally speaking, anyone who has full or nearly full control of something is an administrator. The fact is, there are a number of people who are at the very top and, in a sense, are above any rules; but there are several of them with equal powers, which act as a check.

I don't think it's a huge issue at any rate, because such people are not likely to grossly violate any rules, and even if they do, there's little that can be done to stop them, even if we have policies in place.

[racoons > you]

well, the onus is really on the other moderators.

you have to be confident enough to confront a fellow mod. i know in the past there have been issues with people being 'afraid' of 'popular' members (ah teh revolution days...), so you all will have to REALLY toughen up

i do think that, in general, whether rightly or wrongly, members with high post counts or who are well known are treated less harshly than newbies. however, i personally dont see why, as lon gas it is not constant, it is a major deal for these members to occasionally break the spamming rule, and enjoy themselves... that is what CB is really for. ENJOYMENT.

i think mods should be entitled a degree of leniency under this same principle

[*mipadi*]

i do think that, in general, whether rightly or wrongly, members with high post counts or who are well known are treated less harshly than newbies. however, i personally dont see why, as lon gas it is not constant, it is a major deal for these members to occasionally break the spamming rule, and enjoy themselves... that is what CB is really for. ENJOYMENT.

Are you referring to the recent incident in which you were called out for having personal conversations with tweeak in various threads?

[racoons > you]

that would be my major example, yes, but it has also happened with others, for instance justin (sadolakced_acid) and jose (solipsist) that i can think of off the top of my head.

[*mipadi*]

that would be my major example, yes, but it has also happened with others, for instance justin (sadolakced_acid) and jose (solipsist) that i can think of off the top of my head.

I don't mean to call you out specifically, but since you brought it up, I'm going to use your example since it is a fairly good example. (I hope you understand where I'm coming from.)

To be honest, I think this is an example of exactly what I am talking about when I say that all members, regardless of experience or position on cB, need to be held to a higher standard. Again, I don't mean to call you out specifically, but sometimes you and tweeak do get into spam-like conversations in threads that could be better handled over IM or PM's. You might not see it as a distraction, but others do. However, you're very seldomly called on it because you have been around a lot and tweeak is a mod; however, you know very well that if a member who had been here for, say, a month or so, or only had maybe fifty posts, did the same thing, there'd be a dozen people, undoubtedly some of them mods, who would instantly respond with "Don't spam."

It is the duty of the people with more posts counts and more experience on cB to set an example for new members. This definitely includes mods. Mods should hold themselves to a higher standard. You should never see a mod going off on a long personal conversation in a thread that has little or nothing to do with the topic at hand. Mods, and experienced members, should try their best to set an example.

While that is a good argument for holding mods to a higher standard and punishing them more severely, they are also just normal people after all. They want to have fun, too. So I can understand not wanting to hold mods to tougher standards, which is why I take the position that they should be held to the same standards as a normal member, but should not be "let off the hook" for offenses that other members would get warned for. Note that this means that other mods do need to take an active role in policing themselves, and have the nerves to stand up to other mods.

Furthermore, allowing relaxed rules for long-term members and mods creates a sort of "clique" on cB that makes it seem as though people are more important than others merely because they have been around here longer. People talk about the "drama" on cB all the time--well, if you want to see the cause, just look at the various cliques that have popped up around here in an effort to make some people seem more important or otherwise privileged than other members. That is something we most certainly do not need and do not want to encourage. Therefore, I think that the same standards that apply to regular members must apply to mods and admins--no more, no less.

(And please, I hope that no one gets the feeling I am specifically picking on certain members. I am merely using an example that has been brought up--I certainly do not hate or even dislike anyone I used in my example. I'm also not saying that everything I said in my post strictly applies to those I mentioned--while I used an example, mostly I'm speaking in a broad sense. I hope no one takes my post in an offensive manner because it was not meant to be delivered in the spirit of a personal attack.)

[racoons > you]

i dont mind you using me as an example, its a good one.

i will defend myself personally by saying that my PMs dont work (i KNOW why, i just dont know how to fix it, which is infuriating) and nicki is unable to use a messenger feature, and then move on from that.

i dont feel that members who have higher post counts should necessarily be held to a lower standard than other members. mainly, i was just observing that it is happening regularly.

and i agree about setting a good example to newbies... however i think i disagree on what constitues a good example. personally, i want to present an atmosphere on CB where people follo the rules most of the time, but can occasionally let their hair down and just have fun. as for drama, i understand why people complain about it, bu tpersonally i believe that drama strengthens the cb community rather than damages it.

a community has its conflicts, and the resolutions of these conflicts, and moves on from it.

[*tweeak*]

Now, I consider myself to be a pretty good mod. And yes, I fully hold myself to the standards of other members. Hovever, I am generally more lenient on spam conversations than most others. Why? Because I understand that it is not always possible to communicate with other members off the boards themselves. I don't have AIM, or any other messanger for that matter, so that's infuriating. Most people get to know each other that way, and I'm fairly isolated. Thus, if I want to be included in anything, I have to talk through the boards. And also, as convenient as PMs are, they're really not the best method. For one, you can only have 2 way conversations. If I'm talking to, say, Shauna and Justin, it does me no good to be told to use PMs or AIM, because for a 3-way conversation, neither of those methods is going to work for me. I don't care about my post count- it would be about as high even if I didn't have the occasional spam fest (which are few and far between, by the way). While I don't expect people to fully ignore the fact that James and I occasionally converse, I think it should also be understood that we have a history and extroridnary circumstances. But I'm not going to suspend members for something I do- yes, that would be hypocrisy. Steven doesn't count. Steven is an ctual blatant spammer. He and his posse got IP banned for real spamming, and now that he's back, he has yet to make any posts that aren't spam. Yes, there is a difference! If spam chats become aneveryday occurance, yes, problem. But for the occasional one, I see it as no big deal, honestly. How do you intend to build a community if we can't talk to one another? Whatever happened to the fun cb? I'm one of the oldest mods here at this point, and very rarely has my judgement been questioned. If someone wants to demod me for talking to my best friend, that's bullshit. This is becoming ridiculously rule-oriented.

Oh, and also, I certainly am not more lenient on older, more established members. When I see newbies spamming, I try to give them a chance to redeem themselves, because how is cb ever going to survive if we drive away every new member? If they repeatedly ignore me, they will be punished accordingly. Just like everyone else.

[racoons > you]

^

i love you.

i also feel like having a spam chat as some sort of rebellion.

i wont, but, but you know...

[*not_your_average*]

Well, Nicki, why can't you install an instant messaging feature? I've always wanted to know. And James, you can always talk to an admin about it or something.

Also, I agree with Michael. We should hold mods to the same degree that we hold regular members. As in, mods are subject to the same consequences as a regular member.

[*tweeak*]

Do you really think I'm stupid enough to use that as an excuse without a good reason? It's not like I don't want to install AIM, or even use AIM express. It's a damned lot easier to hide my history than it is to hide an installed program. The last time I downloaded AIM, I got a virus. That combined with the fact that they've explicitly banned me from it means that if I tried it again, I wouldn't be allowed on the computer at all. That includes typing things, and since I can't very well get by in school without computer access, that is so not a chance Im willing to take. (Apparently AIM = people I don't know who are going to come rape me. cb is the same, but like I said, I can hide that more easily). I used to use AIM express, but then it would slow down my computer so badly I'd have to restart after about half an hour of it. Now I have so many popup blockers that even if I disable temorarily what seems like all of them, I still won't be able to access it.

I don't make up petty excuses.

A good as that sounds, it frankly does not make sense to be able to discipline a mod in the same way.

[racoons > you]

nicki cant because her rents wont allow it.

and i would talk to an admin, but i dont have any of their contact details outside of pms (ah a catch 22) and the problem isnt CB, its my computer

[*incoherent*]

like nicki said, little spam fests are nothing. people can just ignore them or read them for enjoyment.

but back to the mod/admin thing, who exactly is going to step forward and call them out? will regular members have to do it because other mods arent going to say "nicki and james took up 3 whole pages in a topic in the lounge talking about cigarettes and drinking vodka". i doubt you can name one mod that would do that except for maybe the fact that they dont like the other party. given, most of the mods are close and seem to get along fine.

so the question raised is, who is going to call someone out? we dont have our own police force and i doubt anyone would want to be on it because they would undoubtably be the most hated group on cB.

[racoons > you]

i would SO be on a police force!

anyway.

[*incoherent*]

james, you would SO be hated by most.

actually, i dont think you would.

i guess id do it too...thats kinda why i brought it up.

oh, look, a common example of a spam fest.

too bad im a mod in here and dont care.





alright, that was a joke, but i would be on the police force. dun dun dun.

[*tweeak*]

No one likes a tattle tail.

We can't really very well go around warning each other. If we are punished every time someone slips up, who is going to be left? It's like a f**king game of Mafia.

At this point, I am assuming this topic is largely directed at me, because as a whole, mods don't make that many offenses. But are you really going to be as spiteful as to warn me for talking to James? Are you going to forget this easily my history of dedication and good judgement just because some spiteful rule breakers can't let it go that I'm not perfect because it makes their own crimes seem pettier? Have you forgotten that you can't be modded if you've been warned? You can't honestly think that everyone who's ever been a mod has a spotless record. Just because you can't see the forest through the trees does not mean that you have to do spiteful and/or unfortunate things just because you resent others.

There will be no police force or anything like it. period.

[*incoherent*]

i say we drop it and keep things as they are. no one is going to want to come here if we make this like a concentration camp and if you spam, you have to dig holes for 7 days straight.

There will be no police force or anything like it. period.

oh, but what if there is, miss nicki?

[pshaa.shauna]

Honestly, if people keep complaining about it, maybe Junsun should add another board for just conversation with post count off. Even though this whole "problem" is a bit exaggerated.

//edit//

And it wouldn't only be nicki and james in there, if you read the other versions on anonymous shoutouts, the entire thing was conversations. It was just Nicki, Justin, James, and myself that were called out (conversations between Nicki and james, and conversations betwen Nicki, Justin, and I.)

[*incoherent*]

^
whats the point in turning the post count off if its just another board? if he creates another board, in other words, turning the post count off will not effect cB because its a whole new forum in its self.

[racoons > you]

^

oh.. we TRIED teh spamming where it didnt affect post count, in forum games.

that thread was closed as 'it still affects ppd'

[pshaa.shauna]

^ Well that's just plain stupid. Spam should be if it's useless and contribute to your post count.

I meant new board as in another section, like forum games. I really have no lcue what it's called.

[racoons > you]

i know what you meant, but there is no way to make a board which doesnt affect ppd, so by past reasoning, mods wont accept that

[pshaa.shauna]

But forum games doesnt affect post count, I've checked!

There is a list of sections that don't effect you post count.

[*incoherent*]

someone said it effected ppd, but i dont think it does anything to mine.

this is turning into nothing. post counts and ppd has nothing to do with what was generally set out to do in this topic. i think we either need to close it, or come of with punishments for mods that abuse rules.

[racoons > you]

it doesnt affect POST COUNT

it does affect POST PER DAY

[pshaa.shauna]

Well how on earth does that work? That's actually kinda dumb.

Well here, if you are conversing with someone, I don't think you should be punished (to a degree), but if you can tell it's spam to raise ppd or w/e, then be punished. (there is a difference)

[*tweeak*]

^I agree

No, that's what he's saying- it doesn't affect post count, but PPDs. Because apparently that matters to people. I frankly don't see the issue with "spamming" (conversing) in forum games- at least you're being productive communally. What does something like the counting thread accomplish? Damn lot of nothing, I say. Most forum games are actually much worse spam than our conversations there would be. And without the visitor tracker now, I can't really imagine official membership being all that attractive (oh, more people posted)

[*incoherent*]

well on my forum, if someone joins the first day and posts 30 times in a forum that doesnt count for post counts, their ppd still goes up.

my forum is and invisionfree forum, much like what jusun uses, but he pays for his.

[*tweeak*]

But honestly, not too many people have conversations for the sake of raising their post count

[*incoherent*]

thats true. i think this has accomplished nothing and the original topic starter has not come back to help us in what they specifically wanted.

[pshaa.shauna]

^ x2 Really. Most people who actually care about their post count don't actually have someone to converse with, because they are new.

[racoons > you]

i dont think anyone actually does, even including steven's little coven...

i think we can leave that idea out when debating the validity of the matter

[*incoherent*]

^x2
what shes saying, is people that usually have convos dont care about their post count and how high it is. i know i dont really care about mine, i just post when i can.

[*tweeak*]

Steven is a spiteful spammer. Period.

Well, where did she really intend for this topic to go? For everyone to hop blindly onto the anti-tyrannical mod bandwagon? The we're doing a fine job. There is no mass chaos. We do our duties. So if at the end of the day, we want to make our responsibilities worth while, so what? Are you going to fire mangers for using the perks of their job for their personal benefit? I would think not. We're human. We want to have fun. If I want to have people on my ass about every single thing I say or do, I'll f**king go to school, thanks

[*incoherent*]

alright, so well just end this now. a mod cannot personally attack someone for a wrong doing that they have recently committed and all rules for mods still apply. there is no reason to change them because then no one will apply because they will be too afraid the do something wrong.

topic closed

[*mzkandi*]

I don't mean to call you out specifically, but since you brought it up, I'm going to use your example since it is a fairly good example. (I hope you understand where I'm coming from.)

To be honest, I think this is an example of exactly what I am talking about when I say that all members, regardless of experience or position on cB, need to be held to a higher standard. Again, I don't mean to call you out specifically, but sometimes you and tweeak do get into spam-like conversations in threads that could be better handled over IM or PM's. You might not see it as a distraction, but others do. However, you're very seldomly called on it because you have been around a lot and tweeak is a mod; however, you know very well that if a member who had been here for, say, a month or so, or only had maybe fifty posts, did the same thing, there'd be a dozen people, undoubtedly some of them mods, who would instantly respond with "Don't spam."

It is the duty of the people with more posts counts and more experience on cB to set an example for new members. This definitely includes mods. Mods should hold themselves to a higher standard. You should never see a mod going off on a long personal conversation in a thread that has little or nothing to do with the topic at hand. Mods, and experienced members, should try their best to set an example.

While that is a good argument for holding mods to a higher standard and punishing them more severely, they are also just normal people after all. They want to have fun, too. So I can understand not wanting to hold mods to tougher standards, which is why I take the position that they should be held to the same standards as a normal member, but should not be "let off the hook" for offenses that other members would get warned for. Note that this means that other mods do need to take an active role in policing themselves, and have the nerves to stand up to other mods.

Furthermore, allowing relaxed rules for long-term members and mods creates a sort of "clique" on cB that makes it seem as though people are more important than others merely because they have been around here longer. People talk about the "drama" on cB all the time--well, if you want to see the cause, just look at the various cliques that have popped up around here in an effort to make some people seem more important or otherwise privileged than other members. That is something we most certainly do not need and do not want to encourage. Therefore, I think that the same standards that apply to regular members must apply to mods and admins--no more, no less.

(And please, I hope that no one gets the feeling I am specifically picking on certain members. I am merely using an example that has been brought up--I certainly do not hate or even dislike anyone I used in my example. I'm also not saying that everything I said in my post strictly applies to those I mentioned--while I used an example, mostly I'm speaking in a broad sense. I hope no one takes my post in an offensive manner because it was not meant to be delivered in the spirit of a personal attack.)

Ok thats all. bye

Topic Reclosed.

[racoons > you]

Well, where did she really intend for this topic to go? For everyone to hop blindly onto the anti-tyrannical mod bandwagon? The we're doing a fine job. There is no mass chaos. We do our duties. So if at the end of the day, we want to make our responsibilities worth while, so what? Are you going to fire mangers for using the perks of their job for their personal benefit? I would think not. We're human. We want to have fun. If I want to have people on my ass about every single thing I say or do, I'll f**king go to school, thanks

i give that my so there.

topic reclosed

[*mzkandi*]

^ So there, what?

[racoons > you]

just... so there.

meaning i disagree.

and i have a deep character flaw meaning i have an obsessive need to have the last word

*shrug*

[*not_your_average*]

I'm sorry if you feel that way, Nicki. I never intended to attack you, I'm just trying to contribute to the discussion. =[ :flower: My apologies if this topic came across that way.

[racoons > you]

i promise, neither nicki or i take offense

we just feel we can defend ourselves

[*incoherent*]

okay, now that this is reopened, not_your_average, can you please try to point us in the direction in which you were going with your post since you never came back.

[racoons > you]

than it has changed since we had that orgy (long story) in forum games and sammi closed the thread saying that it increased ppd.

i've heard it numerous other times as well.. i apologise if it is incorrect, though

[*mona lisa*]

I have in fact seen members' profile pages and they had 0 posts but an actual PPD.

[*disco infiltrator*]

I thought it did. People said it did...I had no reason not to believe....

[racoons > you]

see? im not insane.

[*incoherent*]

i believe it does increase your ppd...but like i said it doesnt effect mine. maybe you have to post so many times for it to count as a ppd.

like say you have to post 5 times in order to just get 1 ppd, like it counts for a fraction.

i dont think that made since, so moving on with other peoples discussions.

[racoons > you]

thats just so unlikely... you wouldnt actually notice it increasing your ppd i wouldnt have thought, as that takes a lot of posting to change significantly

[*incoherent*]

alright, so i guess since this isnt getting anywhere yet again, and the topic starter wont state their point...

topic closed

ah...gotta wait for mona to post

nvm...

[*mona lisa*]

How many times did you post and in which forum(s)?

[*tweeak*]

than it has changed since we had that orgy (long story) in forum games and sammi closed the thread saying that it increased ppd.

i've heard it numerous other times as well.. i apologise if it is incorrect, though

oooooh, I forgot about that!

Oh and Rhadika, James is right- we don't get offended, just slightly indignant.

[racoons > you]

i enjoy the fact that nicki and my motions and reaction can functon as on eentity.

its like Jicky

[*tweeak*]

God, that was a distressing sentence

Jicky? (you realize neither of our names contain a y)

but yes yes

spencer, you probably ust didn't post enough. my PPD hardly ever changes

[*mipadi*]

While I don't expect people to fully ignore the fact that James and I occasionally converse, I think it should also be understood that we have a history and extroridnary circumstances.

This almost exactly highlights my point--you're making a special acception to the rules for certain members. What if every member felt they deserved an exception and should be able to go into off-topic discussion whenever they pleased? Where do we draw the line? Where do we say that it's okay in one instance to spam, but not okay in another instance?

[racoons > you]

i've been working on a drama project for over 13 hours now.. forgive my slight hysteria

[*incoherent*]

nicki...my post per day is always changing no matter how much i post...

its down to like 18.5 and about a week ago is was 19...and ive been on everyday. maybe theres just no topics to reply to and i dont go back to topics ive been in (well usually i dont)

[*tweeak*]

I'm not saying it's okay, but again, I don't think we need specific guidelines to judge when someone has gone too far. Hopefully, the first mod that sees the spamming going on will call it to a stop- verbally warn, delete the spam posts, close the topic. The last 2 pages of anonymous shout outs 2- yeah, that was bad. But when there are mini conversations going on- so long as they're not blatantly spam, I think that's okay, so long as they are reminded to stop. But do I think it's worth warning them for? no.

It would be ridiculous to set okay cirumstances, because then people could just claim that's what they were doing. But in general, talking in topics- especially if it just happens to evolve off something random- should be considered a pretty minor offense

[*mipadi*]

But when there are mini conversations going on- so long as they're not blatantly spam, I think that's okay, so long as they are reminded to stop. But do I think it's worth warning them for? no.

I think a warning is in older for repetitive violations. Let's be honest: if a new member came in here and started conversing with someone off-topic, and was asked to stop, and didn't, he would be warned.

[*tweeak*]

I try to give more than one verbal warning, though.

[*mzkandi*]

Well I will say you can count on me not to be bias to either a mod or a member. If see something getting out of hand or has the potential to get out of hand, knowing the members history, I will warn before hand, not so much a verbal warning but a warning nonetheless so they can keep in mind to keep it under control. I dont and will never give special treatment to anyone, mod or member.

[racoons > you]

generally, nicki and i do stop when we are told... i personally sometimes doont notice if im doing it in all honesly... it just takes a while for nayone to say something.

but i think it all comes back to the degree of frequency. if it is often, it needs stopping. if it is once and a while, it doesn't

[*not_your_average*]

Well, Spencer, I just wanted to make by-laws for how we should treat mods in the circumstances he or she breaks the rules.

[*incoherent*]

Well I will say you can count on me not to be bias to either a mod or a member. If see something getting out of hand or has the potential to get out of hand, knowing the members history, I will warn before hand, not so much a verbal warning but a warning nonetheless so they can keep in mind to keep it under control. I dont and will never give special treatment to anyone, mod or member.

but in warning a mod, cant they just take it off themselves? i know it keeps records and possibly an admin would see it and they get in trouble, but theres still the chance since admins arent on a lot...well, mona is.

[*tweeak*]

James makes a good point. We do stop when we're told. The difference is that others do not. We just have to be nudged back into reality- other have to be bludgeoned

[racoons > you]

it would be fun to bludgeon people...

[*tweeak*]

And again, it's fully not hypicrisy to tell Steven to stop spamming because HE WAS IP BANNED FOR EXCESSIVE SPAMMING. I think that's a pretty good reason to watch him closely. I don't even know why he's still here.

[*incoherent*]

^
thats the point of the ip thread...

[*tweeak*]

I know it is. But we've touched so many points here it still fits. And I'm still mad, too.

[Heathasm]

well a mod shouldnt be able to take their warning off...i say if a mod goes so far as to go past the verbal warning to an actual warning they are demoted (for the time being)

[racoons > you]

^

i think that goes beyond saying.

and yes, spencer, it is technically possible, but i dont hink a mod would actually do it

[*incoherent*]

^x2
sounds good to me. we should vote on it.

james...and if they do, should they also be demoted?

[racoons > you]

vote on what? i hav elosttrack of things. GOD IM TIRED

[*tweeak*]

Nay?

[Heathasm]

well . . . when official members get a warning they are demoted, too, right?

[racoons > you]

wait. so we are voting to decide that if a mod is deemed bad enough to get ehir official warnign level raised, they should be demodded, yes?

[*tweeak*]

Oh, well then I don't see how that requires voting. Seems like a given. That being said, it could be hard to get the right amont of leniency. If there's a mass conversation (or orgy) and I'm involved, and warning goes about, I don't think I'd deserve to be demodded for it. ughh

[Heathasm]

yeah i was thinking the same thing nicki lol

but i was also thinking having it as a suspension instead

[racoons > you]

i miss jordan. he was always good for an orgy.

ANYWAY.

but yes, if mod has atheir warning level raised, they should be demodded.. we can sort out what should meirt the warning level being raised later.

i vote aye for this

[*incoherent*]

aye

[*disco infiltrator*]

Aye.

[*mzkandi*]

Aye

[*mipadi*]

Aye

[pshaa.shauna]

Aye. (even though I don't count)

[*mzkandi*]

^ If you arent on the committee you cant vote.

So far 5 ayes and 0 nays

[Rachel]

(off topic, I wish I had moddy powers :[)

Just a quick question before I vote, do the mods have a chance to like regain their powers after being demodded? I do think that it is a bit harsh, I think a suspension would be quite suitable. I mean, official members can get their status quite easily. Also, they were made mods for a reason, they can do the job. If they slip up, I don't think they just get blantantly kicked out.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Yes, if they prove themself worthy of redemption, they should recieve it.

[sadolakced acid]

about the whole conversations in threads.

isn't that what kinda makes cB fun? i mean, as long as it's not happening in like, website help, where someone might actually need to read the threads, it shouldn't really be bad.

sure, if it goes past a page that's usually too much, but usually it doesn't go past there.

[*mona lisa*]

^Are you talking about that game you created? Just make it a rule asking people to say something random they've heard, did, said, thought...whatever, but anything random. As long as every post isn't "did i win?" as I saw in there, and each one has a meaning, I don't see a problem.

[sadolakced acid]

well, the game is supposed to be a compromise. it's what this other forum did, and it seemed pretty fun.


but anyways, like, other forums that hvae purposes other than to connect people ( like a forum to help people fix comptuers or stuff) would have to be more strict about off topicness and such...

but in a forum that's purpose is for people to talk to each other and have fun? i think offtopicness should be treated with salutary neglect, unless it exceeds a page.

[*mona lisa*]

I think I see what you mean...well, my interpretation of it is a topic devoted to off-topic convos. As long as people have something to discuss, I'm not against it.

[racoons > you]

ooh... an offcial conversation thread? i LIKE it

[*disco infiltrator*]

I never liked off-topic threads (on other forums) because I could never keep up and always came in not knowing what people were talking about...

But other forums pull it off, so I don't think it could hurt. As long as people still go elsewhere.

Threads that are purely conversations tend to go fast and make people not want to do much else...I know from experience...

[*mipadi*]

I don't really see the point of a conversation thread. We have PM's; we have the AIM chatroom; people who just want to chat can you AIM, MSN, IRC, Yahoo!, Google talk, private Invisionfree forum, other private forum, etc. There're myriad choices for off-topic, random, and untargeted chatting.

[OneOfTheseDayz]

aye

[*mzkandi*]

^You cant vote if you arent a committee member.