Most users ever online was 1,088 on Feb 17 2005, 7:22 PM Options

[*AngelicEyz00*]

Createblog sucks now. But of course, that's just my opinion. Why don't I just leave? Because I don't feel like it, ho. It still sucks, and I'll tell you why, later.

What do you think is the reason that not as many people come on here anymore?

[Spirited Away]

I agree with you somewhat, James, it is a two way street. However, why do you think uptight folks get made fun of all the time? Also, why are tyrants despised. Why is it, that there were members baiting moderators in the past as well, but cB was still awesome? This isn't the first time members went against mods, surely. Most of us know know this.

A moderator's job should be to arbitrate, promote discussion, and to fix the technical kinks if he/she can. Yes, uphold the guidelines, but use discretion to punish/reward.

Now onto my critique guidelines...I seriously think the "Controversy", and "Pointless Posts" sections need to be revised, especially if moderators are going to enforce them strictly by the book.

Controversy: Avoiding topics that can stir up controversy isn't realistic and it gravely limits the level of intellectual discussion that could arise from controversy. Controversy should not be avoided, but rather encouraged, and it should be kept only within the boundaries of civility and rationality. If one disagrees or is offended by another's rational, civil opinion, one can oppose it in the same manner.

Pointless posts: "Anything [ir]relevant (not unrelevant) to the topic at hand" is considered pointless? This is something moderators should really use their discretion on, not enforce this rule as is. Many times topics go off tangent for good reasons! I made friends and learned many things from going off topic. I remember debating along side with Eric, Mr. Acid, and Minda (ComradRed) about Hell, and next thing we know, we were talking about getting a piece of the Virgin Islands from Minda. That day, I learned knowledge, maturity, and stubborness are not dependent with age.

And for example, just because the topic title says "complain about Bush", doesn't mean I can't argue that point and praise Bush instead (in the same topic). If that's the case, the SCREW the mod that doesn't understand how to preside over a good discussion.

[*I Viddy Horrorshow*]

I agree with you somewhat, James, it is a two way street. However, why do you think uptight folks get made fun of all the time? Also, why are tyrants despised. Why is it, that there were members baiting moderators in the past as well, but cB was still awesome? This isn't the first time members went against mods, surely. Most of us know know this.

A moderator's job should be to arbitrate, promote discussion, and to fix the technical kinks if he/she can. Yes, uphold the guidelines, but use discretion to punish/reward.

Now onto my critique guidelines...I seriously think the "Controversy", and "Pointless Posts" sections need to be revised, especially if moderators are going to enforce them strictly by the book.

Controversy: Avoiding topics that can stir up controversy isn't realistic and it gravely limits the level of intellectual discussion that could arise from controversy. Controversy should not be avoided, but rather encouraged, and it should be kept only within the boundaries of civility and rationality. If one disagrees or is offended by another's rational, civil opinion, one can oppose it in the same manner.

Pointless posts: "Anything [ir]relevant (not unrelevant) to the topic at hand" is considered pointless? This is something moderators should really use their discretion on, not enforce this rule as is. Many times topics go off tangent for good reasons! I made friends and learned many things from going off topic. I remember debating along side with Eric, Mr. Acid, and Minda (ComradRed) about Hell, and next thing we know, we were talking about getting a piece of the Virgin Islands from Minda. That day, I learned knowledge, maturity, and stubborness are not dependent with age.

And for example, just because the topic title says "complain about Bush", doesn't mean I can't argue that point and praise Bush instead (in the same topic). If that's the case, the SCREW the mod that doesn't understand how to preside over a good discussion.

Anarchists are mocked a lot too, you know.



The thing is about the written rules is that if we DO revise them too much or make them too ambiguous, we get a problem, as with the past leniency rule. If we make them too rigid, it either comes off as Nazi-ish, or else just plain tedious to match off each potentially problematic post against a long list of criteria

I don't think ANYONE has closed a topic where the discussion merely 'branched,' in the way you're talking about, nor would they. The problems we've dealt with recently have revolved around people posting 'offensive' remarks.

Dammit, work, more later, promise