WE love our admins !

It is easier to moderate individual threads than a large one that tends to spawn 4-6 pages of interconnected bitchfest overnight, interspersed with less stuff that needs to be moderated.

Whoever said larger threads were already getting split into smaller threads is wrong. That rarely happens. More to the point, people who say that there is a difference in justification between making a post and making a thread are seemingly in the minority. Both major and minor rants went into the lack of rants thread. Barely any new threads were created during the time it was open, causing those 4-6 pages of interconnected bitchfest overnight to appear in Lack of Rants. You don't think the massive reduction in flamewars and stupid arguments caused by a couple of people who bitch whenever anything bad happens to them, ever, or a skill is used on them (we all know who they are so I won't name names) was a coincidence, do you?

It has actually decreased the vitriol in the forum, so far as we are able to tell, though that may be a coincidence. (I doubt it.)

So from all these perspectives it's far better to resist the temptation to reopen it. As a moderator, I can say that it's simply better. These "orwellian babysitting" comments are all, frankly, as bizarre as Arel's face and I don't yet understand the extent to which anyone who isn't Verithrax believes them.

I used to use the lack of rantsfor small rants but it's actually been a good look in perspective not to have it open for me. I feel like I want to complain about something, but then I go "is this really worth bitching about?" 99% of the time it isn't. If I'm really irritated I will start a new thread, just as I would have back before there was a lack of rants thread in the first place.

That's because no one talks here any more now that you closed the thread.

Or your stench could be driving them away, but that may just be coincidental. (I doubt it.)

I remember this happening on numerous occasions, when people felt it was important enough (Aesyra talking about guards comes to mind).

And as for the vitriol, yes, maybe it's not apparent, but it's most likely still there anyway. I was told there were a lot of Narsrim-hating threads back in the day, which I vaguely remember, and by the sounds of it, those were just as annoying.

What the hell does this have to do WITH ANYTHING, by the way?

Jesus tapdancing Christ, I made that thread as a joke, you know. Mainly to get a potshot at Narsrim. Just make individual threads, it's hardly like it's a hassle.

The irony is palpable. Cuz if there was a Lack of Rants thread going currently, I would totally rant about you guys overreacting in it.

Look at the poll. The people have spoken.

These are the same people who participated in Lack of Rants endlessly. I strongly hope it's nonbinding and they just wanted feedback. Feh

I shouldn't think it'd be binding. You would -expect- the majority to vote this way to start with, since most people just liked the convenience of ranting there and don't really consider the drawbacks to having it. The people who consider the drawbacks to having it don't have any such agenda (I used it quite a bit when it was up), so the fact the are just under 1/3 of total voters voting that way is pretty telling.

You're missing the point. There's a difference between "Don't say bad things randomly for no good reason" and "never say things that aren't nice." There's a difference between not being an idiot, manners, and being incapable of making criticism. Sometimes things that aren't socially appropriate need to be said; that is not the same as saying all things which are socially unacceptable should be said. You are ultimately comparing, say, complaining about something to going up to someone random and insulting them. I'm going to assume you just failed to get my point, and that you can indeed see the difference between those two things.

I'm not sure how you can say that the people who are voting for it "aren't considering the 'drawbacks'". That seems like saying, "Well, I know I'm right, so I'll justify my side and say the other side just isn't thinking about things!"

That doesn't make it true, though, or telling.

That was a bit too confusing for me to work out what you're trying to say there.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess, though. Try a comparison. When there was a referendum for letting Narsrim into Glomdoring, you would expect the default to be majority "yes" because most of those people don't know what the reasons for saying "no" are. Comparatively few people vote "no" because they don't know much about it either way. It's going to be the same situation here.

I'm saying that you're just pulling this 'fact' out of thin air and stating it as gospel, in order to say...

Which reads, "My side is right, your side is wrong, because your side is not thinking about what they're doing!"

Edit: With no clear evidence for that fact, as there is debate on both sides here. With Commune-wide referendums like that, there is VERY clear evidence of that sort of trend-- but most forum-goers already have close-hand experience with the Lack of Rants thread, which makes it a different beast.

What clear evidence is there for that that there isn't for this? Both involve the same conjecture about the expected voting patterns, and both involve debate on both sides. Lack of Rants is a more recent issue than Narsrim, but I'd like to see a better refutation against the idea that the default position is "do not ban something." I hardly think there's any "I voted for keep it banned because I trust Shiri and Daganev" going on, though I could easily be proven wrong on that one.

The general reason for the trend in these Commune referendums is, "Hey, I don't really know a whole lot about this guy. I don't really see why anyone should be banned, so I'll just be a nice fellow and guess that since the referendum's up, it's a good thing to vote yes! Yay, I'm patriotic!" I don't see a correlation between that and, "Hmm, well, you all have a lot of experience with this thread. You know how it works, and you've now had nearly a week to experience the alternative. What are your thoughts on the situation now?" Sure, it's phrased a little differently, but that's what the question's really asking-- should we keep the forums without it, or return it?

That just doesn't seem like you answered my question at all. Maybe I'm missing something here.

The answer is that it doesn't match the same profile-- and, in fact, doesn't match any profile with the general playerbase, as this is the first time this sort of thing has come up (unless you want to relate it to Collegiums, where the role of GNT was being discussed in a "should it stay or should it go" manner, but that's just a WEE bit of a stretch). As such, there is no evidence for your claim. I'm not saying that "Everyone who is voting to ban it are all blind fools" (because, obviously, you're all not), so I don't need to provide evidence to that effect.

The only real evidence I need to provide is demonstrating that it doesn't have a correlation to a Commune-referendum about letting in someone who is generally disliked, which I think is pretty intuitive. Beyond that, it's up to you to prove the truth of your claim, that "the majority of those who are voting for its return are somehow not thinking about the ramifications."

It is interesting, because the people who seem to say they want the thread, argue for reasons of censorship and "babysitting."

However, the people who don't want the thread give arguments regarding ease of thread moderation, not having giant threads, and "posting for a reason."

Sounds like a debate that is talking across eachother, and that is why I think Shiri is saying what he is saying. (i.e. the people who vote yes, aren't voting yes because they know why somebody would vote no at all and reject that reasoning, but rather for other reasons)

Personally, I voted for "either way" cause I don't think it is such a big deal one way or another.

If the problem is thread moderation and "posting for a reason," the Lack of Raves thread should be taken down, as well as Quotes, and any other thread with an excessive number of pages.

Unless, of course, it's the negativity that's the issue, though it's been claimed already that the negativity has nothing to do with it. If it's the negativity that's the issue, there are ways to keep the thread for those who want it- without having to create new threads for every small rant and being threatened with a forum ban for doing it, and without posing a blood-pressure hazard to those who don't want to be involved. (Ignoring the fact that, yes, they could just avoid reading it.)

I think the quotes thread is a bit different, since its a bit of a time capsule thing, and conversation is often moderated out of the thread anyways, but I agree with the lack of raves thread as well. Though one could argue that that thread is less prone to cursing and personal attacks that would require moderation. (but I doubt that is true)