Karma feature

[axls#2]

And can we post? minus points for incompetent? moderators?

Really, this idea strikes me as silly. Another brick in the wall of thought control. I understand the motivation and the purpose, but it strikes me as VERY heavy handed and? arbitrary. If you want to turn this into? a peer-reviewed website where? postings? have to meet certain criteria? of acceptance, it really contravenes? the whole? idea? of a shared? forum. The idea might be? good in theory, but given the arbitrary and inconsistent nature? of moderators' decisions, there? is tremendous room for abuse, and ultimately, defection from this site? as people become? alienated from nontransparent and inconsistent application of rules.

You make a good argument there, but thought control? I don't see how that plays into any of this.  I guess you could consider it thought control because having people use their brains instead of posting whatever the hell comes into their head does require a bit of thought. 

And as far as defection, well I don't see that as a bad thing.  Cutting some of the fat off this board will only help it as maybe the people who spam promising threads with pages and pages of smileys will maybe stop posting or actually focus a little more.

[Christos AG]

And can we post  minus points for incompetent  moderators?

Really, this idea strikes me as silly. Another brick in the wall of thought control. I understand the motivation and the purpose, but it strikes me as VERY heavy handed and  arbitrary. If you want to turn this into  a peer-reviewed website where  postings  have to meet certain criteria  of acceptance, it really contravenes  the whole  idea  of a shared  forum. The idea might be  good in theory, but given the arbitrary and inconsistent nature  of moderators' decisions, there  is tremendous room for abuse, and ultimately, defection from this site  as people become  alienated from nontransparent and inconsistent application of rules.

Hey...

you got a chance to go from zero to hero... and you start whinning again?

Ofcourse we need some thought control. People need to think before they post as much as they need to think before they talk.

That's because there are rules and people HAVE to follow them.

Jarmo cannot moderate the whole board 24hrs, so he's basically giving us the chance to help even more.

I only see a few people complaining about the mods. You know what they say about majority, right?

[Krispy Kreme]

And can we post? minus points for incompetent? moderators?

Really, this idea strikes me as silly. Another brick in the wall of thought control. I understand the motivation and the purpose, but it strikes me as VERY heavy handed and? arbitrary. If you want to turn this into? a peer-reviewed website where? postings? have to meet certain criteria? of acceptance, it really contravenes? the whole? idea? of a shared? forum. The idea might be? good in theory, but given the arbitrary and inconsistent nature? of moderators' decisions, there? is tremendous room for abuse, and ultimately, defection from this site? as people become? alienated from nontransparent and inconsistent application of rules.

Hey...

you got a chance to go from zero to hero... and you start whinning again?

Ofcourse we need some thought control. People need to think before they post as much as they need to think before they talk.

That's because there are rules and people HAVE to follow them.

Jarmo cannot moderate the whole board 24hrs, so he's basically giving us the chance to help even more.

I only see a few people complaining about the mods. You know what they say about majority, right?

You make my points even better than I.
Additionally:

1. "help even more" vs. "abuse our privilege  to serve those  who patronize the site." There is a  difference. Mods are here to serve us. Without us (the masses) there would  be no site. It  would, in the words  of  Trotsky, disappare into the "dustbin of history."
2. Rosseau  was very clear about  the tyrrany of the majority. Yours is a spurious point.
3. I am sure that more people are dissatisfied  with  the job  mods do than the  few who may actually voice  their dissent.
4. Again, I understand the intent. My point was that there is  an arbitrary nature in which mods  exercise  their "power" and that makes the entire excercise untenable and ultimately self-defeating.
Unless  the board is going to have paid mods who are  professionally qualified, any arbitrary application of rules--which vary from mod to mod  and subject to subject--is untenable.

[Christos AG]

And can we post  minus points for incompetent  moderators?

Really, this idea strikes me as silly. Another brick in the wall of thought control. I understand the motivation and the purpose, but it strikes me as VERY heavy handed and  arbitrary. If you want to turn this into  a peer-reviewed website where  postings  have to meet certain criteria  of acceptance, it really contravenes  the whole  idea  of a shared  forum. The idea might be  good in theory, but given the arbitrary and inconsistent nature  of moderators' decisions, there  is tremendous room for abuse, and ultimately, defection from this site  as people become  alienated from nontransparent and inconsistent application of rules.

Hey...

you got a chance to go from zero to hero... and you start whinning again?

Ofcourse we need some thought control. People need to think before they post as much as they need to think before they talk.

That's because there are rules and people HAVE to follow them.

Jarmo cannot moderate the whole board 24hrs, so he's basically giving us the chance to help even more.

I only see a few people complaining about the mods. You know what they say about majority, right?

You make my points even better than I.
Additionally:

1. "help even more" vs. "abuse our privilege  to serve those  who patronize the site." There is a  difference. Mods are here to serve us. Without us (the masses) there would  be no site. It  would, in the words  of  Trotsky, disappare into the "dustbin of history."
2. Rosseau  was very clear about  the tyrrany of the majority. Yours is a spurious point.
3. I am sure that more people are dissatisfied  with  the job  mods do than the  few who may actually voice  their dissent.
4. Again, I understand the intent. My point was that there is  an arbitrary nature in which mods  exercise  their "power" and that makes the entire excercise untenable and ultimately self-defeating.
Unless  the board is going to have paid mods who are  professionally qualified, any arbitrary application of rules--which vary from mod to mod  and subject to subject--is untenable.

Thanks, that just made my day and it's the only reason why I won't answer to any of your posts from now on...

[-Jack-]

I swear.. you people whine so damn much. 

Who cares? Just don't fuck around and you wont even notice the difference.

[JennaSide]

I'm dying to know what a mod did to put Krispy Kreme over the edge...? what was the straw that broke the camel's back on this?? It all seems very recent...

(crap, that was off-topic, wasn't it? Watch me lose karma over it... wait, no! I mentioned karma, I'm bringing it back around...)

[Kujo]

Christos said he liked Dunkin Donuts better, it got realy nasty

[Christos AG]

Christos said he liked Dunkin Donuts better, it got realy nasty

Now this is a really good reason to get a -1...

I never said that they're better. I just said "they just thought I'd know better"...

[Skeletor]

I like it. Maybe it will help with those posters who spam bad obsession. (Walk)

Was that sarcasm? Very often your own posts in Bad Obsession consist of quoting a big chunk of text and just replying "You're a fucking idiot", or something similar.

[Brody]

so can you get + karma!

[Kujo]

Unless? the board is going to have paid mods who are? professionally qualified, any arbitrary application of rules--which vary from mod to mod? and subject to subject--is untenable.

Do you really want these guys moderating this board?:

[Steve McKagan]

Isn't it possible to get positive karma? Or if you get negative you can get it positive again?

[Skeba]

I think the karma thing ain't bad.

If you want to post something, do it in the right section, use the search feat to see if it's been discussed before in the past, and post. If you think it's something worth discussing, post it. I for one (and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one) will not be punishing anyone just because a search came up empty and there was a similar topic and someone didn't notice it. Do, however think, whether the post you'll be doing, could be put into an existing thread (a lot of the show-related threads are like that, also, there was a pretty big number of topics on Axl's recent radio interview). If you think it deserves a new thread, post it in a new thread. If a mod sees that it should be merged, he'll do it.

No one will be getting minuspoints just because. There's always a reason. So don't feel that this thing is limiting your posting in some way. It's only a tool to see if someone is continuously and deliberately breaking the rules and being an ass. Getting a minuspoint is not the end of the world.

[jarmo]

In all seriousness, if we're having an honest to goodness debate with someone (void of name calling and so on), we can do that w/o getting negative points right?

Debates are what we try to encourage by having the rules we have.

This isn't the kind of debates we wan't:

Example #1:

Poster #1:?
Poster #2: That's funny!
Poster #3: Idiots!


Example #2 (in the GN'R section):

Poster #1:? Kurt Cobain was an asshole
Poster #2: Yeah, good thing he killed himself!
Poster #3: Nirvana sucked!
Poster #4: I like Nirvana!

Isn't it possible to get positive karma? Or if you get negative you can get it positive again?

Not right now, 0 is the highest and I guess we can reset negative karma if enough time passes without any other issues....

Really, this idea strikes me as silly. Another brick in the wall of thought control. I understand the motivation and the purpose, but it strikes me as VERY heavy handed and  arbitrary. If you want to turn this into  a peer-reviewed website where  postings  have to meet certain criteria  of acceptance, it really contravenes  the whole  idea  of a shared  forum. The idea might be  good in theory, but given the arbitrary and inconsistent nature  of moderators' decisions, there  is tremendous room for abuse, and ultimately, defection from this site  as people become  alienated from nontransparent and inconsistent application of rules.

Of course it's silly for you. Because you never have to deal with the "fans" who constantly call others all kinds of names because it's "cool". You never have to deal with trying to read through 40 pages of nonsense just to see if there was something worthwhile posted in that thread.


If you think this is too much to handle, then you're fucking lazy. All you need to do is read the rules, follow them and you won't get any minus points.

I can't believe you're still so upset because a mod locked one of your threads. 


/jarmo

[Izzy]

Will this affect my entry into heaven?

[Jim]

Not unless you conceed that Barca are going to beat Arsenal. Because of course if you don't, that's an automatic -1.

I can't believe you're still so upset because a mod locked one of your threads. 

So that's what made pushed him over the edge, eh? I did wonder what happened to the boy. Oh well, at least he gave us a good chuckle.

Mind control? Well. At least it's a new one.

[Steve McKagan]

If you only can get negative karma, I think it brings a negative vibe over the whole thing.

[speed-stone]

In all seriousness, if we're having an honest to goodness debate with someone (void of name calling and so on), we can do that w/o getting negative points right?

Debates are what we try to encourage by having the rules we have.

This isn't the kind of debates we wan't:

Example #1:

Poster #1:?
Poster #2: That's funny!
Poster #3: Idiots!


Example #2 (in the GN'R section):

Poster #1:? Kurt Cobain was an asshole
Poster #2: Yeah, good thing he killed himself!
Poster #3: Nirvana sucked!
Poster #4: I like Nirvana!

Isn't it possible to get positive karma? Or if you get negative you can get it positive again?

Not right now, 0 is the highest and I guess we can reset negative karma if enough time passes without any other issues....

Really, this idea strikes me as silly. Another brick in the wall of thought control. I understand the motivation and the purpose, but it strikes me as VERY heavy handed and? arbitrary. If you want to turn this into? a peer-reviewed website where? postings? have to meet certain criteria? of acceptance, it really contravenes? the whole? idea? of a shared? forum. The idea might be? good in theory, but given the arbitrary and inconsistent nature? of moderators' decisions, there? is tremendous room for abuse, and ultimately, defection from this site? as people become? alienated from nontransparent and inconsistent application of rules.

Of course it's silly for you. Because you never have to deal with the "fans" who constantly call others all kinds of names because it's "cool". You never have to deal with trying to read through 40 pages of nonsense just to see if there was something worthwhile posted in that thread.


If you think this is too much to handle, then you're fucking lazy. All you need to do is read the rules, follow them and you won't get any minus points.

I can't believe you're still so upset because a mod locked one of your threads.?


/jarmo

the karma thing is whatever to me, like "oh no some guy put a number next to my user name" whatever, however the problem i have is with you referring to other posters as "fans", put like that as if they weren't. the last thing we need is someone trying to decide who is a gnr fan or not, for all you know the person you are talking about in manner that could be one of the most hardcore fans around.

[jarmo]

Look, you obviously have no fucking idea about how this place works.

It's not about being a hardcore fan at all. You can be the biggest fan in the world, but unless you fucking pay attention and respect our rules, you won't be welcome here.

Get it?

Somebody who bought AFD yesterday and respect the fact that we do have rules will feel more welcome here than somebody who saw GN'R play in 1985 and calls everybody idiots in every thread.

I don't know how many times I've tried to explain that to you, but you just don't seem to get it.




/jarmo

[speed-stone]

Look, you obviously have no fucking idea about how this place works.

It's not about being a hardcore fan at all. You can be the biggest fan in the world, but unless you fucking pay attention and respect our rules, you won't be welcome here.

Get it?

Somebody who bought AFD yesterday and respect the fact that we do have rules will feel more welcome here than somebody who saw GN'R play in 1985 and calls everybody idiots in every thread.

I don't know how many times I've tried to explain that to you, but you just don't seem to get it.




/jarmo

i get that you are enforcing your own rules on this place, and that's your right as an admin, but i'm reffering to you putting it like this "fans", i'm a fucking longtime fan and i'm not gonna have anyone tell me that i'm lesser of a fan because i'm not rated the all-time top HTGTH poster.