Createspam, Createblog has created a monster Options

[*Weird addiction*]

i was already thinking of you.

Haha. I love you.

[*disco infiltrator*]

I think we all need to look at this issue from the point of view of both the mods and the members. I completely understand why Suzette is confused; I think all of the mods are. No matter what we do, there is always people telling us it's wrong and a few telling us it was the right thing to do, even if we are lenient once and strict another. People are dissatisfied with the staff as a gigantic whole simply because we are the staff. I agree that, in any power of position, there will always be people dissatisfied with your performance, but it's gotten out of hand...and I don't think people should step down when they are upset at people saying how horrible of a mod they are, all the time, every day. I get upset with that a lot. Should I step down?

However, I see the point that James and Nicki are making about indecisiveness. I, myself, have been very wary of what I do in fear of people blowing up at me, which happens all too often. I think that the mods need to be more carefree when it comes to anything regarding their modding performance - not that they shouldn't care, just that they should only take it to heart when those criticizing them are being rational and not just starting stuff for the sake of starting stuff.

Also, those who are hired as mods are supposed to have never been warned/suspended...

[*Zatanna*]

oh, rebecca posted.

i dont NEED to know what goes on behind the scenes to see that no decisions are made. because we see the lack of results. and if you were told to, thats fine. but it isnt working, so STOP IT.

my constructive advise is choose what you want. my adivce is to pick the tougher option. and if you cant, to step down.

Thanks for noticing.

I guess my question is, what *is* this tougher option you elude to? I'm not being a smart ass, I promise. Just trying to get an understanding.

[*Weird addiction*]

^ I hate that smilie. I'm not contributing to anything here... .

[*I Shot JFK*]

^ i wasnt plannin gon saying that as a mod, you have to deal with drama. but as i suspect that you will interpret whatever i say as meaning that anyway, sure why not? suzzette, as a mod, you must deal with drama.

woohoo.

---

sammi, sally was just an example. although i think that rule IS foolish, because it eliminates the potential of those who have 'grown' pr whatever you want to call it. and im not talking about me, to fend of potential criticism. i dont want to be a mod.

and to clarify AGAIN, as people dont seem to grasp this concept, i do NOT think that everyone but michael and dani should step down. i just get sick of mods using the fact that they may get criticised as an excuse to be indecisive.

and i appreciate that this may be a hard choice to make. it just seems to me that there are two clear options. and that the decisions need to start being made. it has to happen at some point.

---

rebecca keeps postinfg while im posting.

i meant that the tougher choice is to toughen up. because it wiull probably get the most short term vocal opposition. but its the best in the long run.

thats all.

[*disco infiltrator*]

To toughen up from being so lenient? That's what we ARE doing, now that people have taken advantage of us. I don't see the problem.

[*I Shot JFK*]

^ there isnt a problem. thats all im saying. get tougher.

apparently though, my words are too confusing for some people, and i want to instigate some form of revolution and have a mass culling of all the mods. funny that.

[*Statues/Shadows*]

To toughen up from being so lenient? That's what we ARE doing, now that people have taken advantage of us. I don't see the problem.

You may be, but that sentiment doesn't seem to have reached everyone else just yet.


Now, ideally, a compromise would be the solution to any situation. However, in this particular scenario, there really isn't one. Suzzette's idea of a compromise seems to be to acknowledge the fact that it's a double edged sword. However, what good does that do just to know that? One way or another, a decision must be made, James and I- no matter what you thin- are not take a side and demading you follow us. Still, something one way or another must be done, and one way or another, we can't keep causing further more dissention between us all

[*disco infiltrator*]

Well, you seem to only be praising two. What, may I ask, are they doing that the rest of us are not?

[*I Shot JFK*]

^ they were just examples of people who connect well with the community. so do a lot of others. the only time i MENTIONED dani was saying that she was friends with the chatites.

im not quite sure why that has been blowon out of proportion, really.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Well, probably because you're not the only person to have ever mentioned that Michael and Dani are good, and others are bad...we hear it all the time, and don't know what the rest of us are doing so wrong.

Now, ideally, a compromise would be the solution to any situation. However, in this particular scenario, there really isn't one. Suzzette's idea of a compromise seems to be to acknowledge the fact that it's a double edged sword. However, what good does that do just to know that? One way or another, a decision must be made, James and I- no matter what you thin- are not take a side and demading you follow us. Still, something one way or another must be done, and one way or another, we can't keep causing further more dissention between us all

I actually think a compromise would be the best - lenient on things like conversations drifting off past the original point and giving more topics a chance to prove themselves as good ones, but more strict on things like useless spam and sharing usernames and stuff. I think more of a priority check is in order rather than being more lenient or more strict about everything. Some things deserve more attention than others.

[*Zatanna*]

THREAD CLOSED!

Just kidding.

Oh and about the Dani/Michael reference, I didn't think you (James) were repeatedly singing their praises, they were just examples of commonly praised mods. And for damn good reason, both are really excellent at what they do.

Honestly, I think we're just spinning our wheels here. Again, we were doing what were told to do. IN fact, The Lounge was, to an extent, off limits as far as hardcore moderating goes.

I appreciate the criticism and suggestions. I'd prefer being able to not have reservations about closing things that (in my best judgement ) need to be closed. It really isn't in my nature to be so, soft (if that makes sense).

[*Statues/Shadows*]

^The thinng about the lounge being "unmoderated" was honestly not the best idea. Jusun had good intentions, it's just that he's not around, so he really doesn't know. Suzzette mentioned that there was no discussion about the unmoderated thing: we know that. Even in discussion after it was instated, though, some of us did have doubts as to how it'd go over with our members. Sure enough, our fears came true. However- not telling anyone what to do, no ordering around, etc etc- I don't think that is a course of action that should continue. I think it'd have been a better decision for a smaller forum, with members who are mature and have better ways to channel their boredom than they are now. So, Rebecca, I don't think you need to have a particular lot of reservastions about closing things. When people said you were being to harsh, I generally disagreed, because most of the topics you'd closed needed to be closed. You should use your judgement, rather than that of others. You're a good mod too- there's more than just Dani and Michael, obviously.

I actually think a compromise would be the best - lenient on things like conversations drifting off past the original point and giving more topics a chance to prove themselves as good ones, but more strict on things like useless spam and sharing usernames and stuff. I think more of a priority check is in order rather than being more lenient or more strict about everything. Some things deserve more attention than others.

I think that's a really good point, actually.

[NoSex]

You also have to remember, as I have told other people, that the people who spam this place to hell, don't care. They. Don't. Care. At all.

I think this is an important and easily overlooked point.
I made this thread because I care about the future of Createblog and wish to see it do well. I think it would appear evident that a decent amount of posters (not exactly spammers) don't really care too much, or at least, have different values in the matter. I want the community to grow stronger, more friendly and ultimately become a more stimulating, interesting, and personal area.

Would it really hurt the community if those who did not care for it left?

I think that if we did lose some members over a policy change, it would be a blessing in disguise. If a policy change was made in order to increase the quality of the boards, and certain members decided to leave because of it, that may be a good thing. Their values may not be positioned in a way to promote a greater quality of the boards. So, if those people who embraced leniency only to abuse it left, wouldn't that be a good thing? Also, wouldn't that speak volumes to their actual intent here on the boards?

But, I think this is a far greater issue than lenient or strict. In fact, I think it's clear (Sammi kind of pointed it out) that such a division is a false dichotomy. Worse yet, it may be a red herring. I think the real issue is that there is little to no promotion for a higher standard of quality posting. What we need, at least, is some kind of encouragement for members to post more meaningful, less general, and more interesting threads which hold more quality and value than those plague infested "drive-by threads."

I don't think there is an issue of censorship. Everyone is, under the rule set, easily capable of expressing their views, opinions, and sentiments. However, few seem to want to do so in an appropriate or meaningful manner.

[*I Shot JFK*]

I think this is an important and easily overlooked point.
I made this thread because I care about the future of Createblog and wish to see it do well. I think it would appear evident that a decent amount of posters (not exactly spammers) don't really care too much, or at least, have different values in the matter. I want the community to grow stronger, more friendly and ultimately become a more stimulating, interesting, and personal area.

Would it really hurt the community if those who did not care for it left?

I think that if we did lose some members over a policy change, it would be a blessing in disguise. If a policy change was made in order to increase the quality of the boards, and certain members decided to leave because of it, that may be a good thing. Their values may not be positioned in a way to promote a greater quality of the boards. So, if those people who embraced leniency only to abuse it left, wouldn't that be a good thing? Also, wouldn't that speak volumes to their actual intent here on the boards?

But, I think this is a far greater issue than lenient or strict. In fact, I think it's clear (Sammi kind of pointed it out) that such a division is a false dichotomy. Worse yet, it may be a red herring. I think the real issue is that there is little to no promotion for a higher standard of quality posting. What we need, at least, is some kind of encouragement for members to post more meaningful, less general, and more interesting threads which hold more quality and value than those plague infested "drive-by threads."

I don't think there is an issue of censorship. Everyone is, under the rule set, easily capable of expressing their views, opinions, and sentiments. However, few seem to want to do so in an appropriate or meaningful manner.

see, now HE could be a mod.

and actually, i agree with sammi as well. i think in broad terms, it needs to get stricter. bu tobviously, that is more applicable to some areas than others. and if peopl edon tlike that, then presumably, they will leave... which as nate said may be a good thing

[*RiC3xBoy*]

see, now HE could be a mod.

Yes yes. I think he would make a fine MOD. However, this brings up something. Aren't mods chosen by the people of cB? Of course, the people that choose whoever they choose trust their judgement and all, but I think there are more qualified candidates. So in the end, aren't all the MODs just the most popular of cB?

[*I Shot JFK*]

^ oh god. moddding being a popularity contest.

we havent had that one in a while, actually...

[*RiC3xBoy*]

"They shouldnt be strict on the sharing usernames part, unless its to post when youre suspended or to post spam or explicit content."

- Christine.

[*I Shot JFK*]

^

heh.

well, why do you want to share if not for some other purpose?

[*Statues/Shadows*]

I think this is an important and easily overlooked point.
I made this thread because I care about the future of Createblog and wish to see it do well. I think it would appear evident that a decent amount of posters (not exactly spammers) don't really care too much, or at least, have different values in the matter. I want the community to grow stronger, more friendly and ultimately become a more stimulating, interesting, and personal area.

Would it really hurt the community if those who did not care for it left?

I think that if we did lose some members over a policy change, it would be a blessing in disguise. If a policy change was made in order to increase the quality of the boards, and certain members decided to leave because of it, that may be a good thing. Their values may not be positioned in a way to promote a greater quality of the boards. So, if those people who embraced leniency only to abuse it left, wouldn't that be a good thing? Also, wouldn't that speak volumes to their actual intent here on the boards?

But, I think this is a far greater issue than lenient or strict. In fact, I think it's clear (Sammi kind of pointed it out) that such a division is a false dichotomy. Worse yet, it may be a red herring. I think the real issue is that there is little to no promotion for a higher standard of quality posting. What we need, at least, is some kind of encouragement for members to post more meaningful, less general, and more interesting threads which hold more quality and value than those plague infested "drive-by threads."

I don't think there is an issue of censorship. Everyone is, under the rule set, easily capable of expressing their views, opinions, and sentiments. However, few seem to want to do so in an appropriate or meaningful manner.

"They shouldnt be strict on the sharing usernames part, unless its to post when youre suspended or to post spam or explicit content."

- Christine.

Why are you quoting that? She doesn't even make a good point?

[*RiC3xBoy*]

Why are you quoting that?

Because she asked my nicely to.

[sadolakced acid]

hmmmm
hmmmm

anyways.

this is overblown.

sure, there's problems in the community being too impersonal

but spam is simply an effect.

kill the cause, then the effect follows. don't try to kill the effect whilest leaving the cause.

i'm going to ask the mods, and i'm going to be obvious.

can you think of a private forum with a limited viewership that's unmodded?
now think of the atmosphere there.

it's becuase it's a small, group.

ergo, if other members had thier own small private forums,

they would have thier own tight-knit group, and spam wouldn't be a problem.

[*RiC3xBoy*]

well, why do you want to share if not for some other purpose?

"like.. just for fun, out of boredome, bordom*, asdhasduilhasdfnlasf, boredom."

[*I Shot JFK*]

hi, justin.

= )

[*RiC3xBoy*]

"Why its such a big deal to share usernames if its not gonna do harm?"

-Christine