If the issue is "too much moderation time," then that right there is the reason Quotes would have to go as well.

Not that I really think anyone actually wants Quotes gone.

Actually, I see two arguments that work in synergy, not just one. 1) A single thread is harder to moderate and control and is against the nature of a forum in general, and 2) Having a single generic "lack of rants" thread actually encourages conflict on the forums and in turn hurts the game and makes people lazy giving them an easy place to argue, which sort of overides the inherent manners instinct people would have.

It is that combination which is causing LoR to be targeted, though some care about only one rather than the other.

LoR invites negativity for no reason. There's nothing wrong with legitimate complaining, but if you would post in lack of rants, and wouldn't make a thread otherwise, maybe its better to just suck it up?

not all moderation activites are equal though.

But its not really an argument that the general forum going population should worry about.

In my experience, quotes doesn't waste quite as much of my time.

Like Morgfyre said, it's a case of politeness and manners. The "mother who says that" is probably trying to prevent her kind from becoming a rude bastard, the type who would end up saying "wow, you're fat!" to somebody on the street.

That's why certain Internet forums have different rules. Television Without Pity, a TV commentary site, allows a lot of rude and snarky commentary, but personal attacks against members or mods (or even discussing the subject of the TWOP forums) is strictly not allowed, and sometimes their mods can be considered totalitarian. ENWorld, has rules not to attack creators, and asks people not to make blanket statements of condemnation--their "off topic" forum doesn't allow political and religious discussion because they know it can cause problems when people get hot. If the mods and others decide for instance, to apply a similar rule (say, no religion or politic talk in The Real World forum), I'd support it because if they decided to ban it, it's probably keeping people from getting into fights. Forums are like a private club--even if there are thousands of members.

One quote perplexes me: Our civilisation is built on the right of saying things that aren't nice. Which Civilization are you talking about? Western? The United States? Your own country? Actually, "Civilization" in general is built on varying principles, the right of Free Speech is only a fairly recent development when you look at the history of the world as a whole. The Roman Empire, Ancient Egypt, the various incarnations of China, etc. As important as I believe Freedom of Speech and Press is, Civilization is at its most basic is complex systems and hierarchies, laws and rules, etc.

Look at all the poor closed threads.

Then look at the poll. Hmm.

The results tell all!

The problem I have with it is it kinda makes it hard to play the game when you see these massive forum pages on nothing but endless ranting about the game, and in those rantings people usually got rather "hardcore" (poor word choice I know but whatever).

Also, what does it do? What does rants and walls of text do for the game? I doubt that it reaches the admin because there's no basis. I'd wager that the Admin get really tired of seeing something like:



Oookkaaayyy What do you want us to fix about 'em?

I'm wagering that the Idiots! Section is sort of desigened for players to come and bitch about certain aspects of the game that could use fixing. Coming in and saying "Fix monks kthxbai" doesn't really help the Admin much, and pretty much the "Lack of Rants" thread was just that. Nothing really useful. And if anything, makes the Admin LESS likely to fix it because they don't want to sift through the crap.

Now if the lack of rants was a little more organized in it's delivery, perhaps "Fix Monks! Here's some logs to prove their godly power of rapage:" it might be different.

Edit: Damn I didn't think this thread was so old.

Edit2: And on the Quotes stuff, the quotes is just people taking stuff from the game that they think is funny, and dropping it for everyone to see, and if it starts to get off-topic, usually someone just drops another funny quote and life goes on. It's a much more light-hearted thread.

I am sternly of the opinion that the poll hasn't yet run for long enough for us to be certain of what the forum playerbase wants. Certainly it looks like the playerbase wants the lack of rants threads back at the moment, but who can be sure what will happen in the next six months?

That's where personal responsibility comes in. If there is a topic that someone has no interest in or finds that it detracts from the game, they are under no obligation to read it. Quotes though some might find amusing and some are, in no way add to the game and more often than not are pure fluff and almost seem staged with the quotes thread in mind.

Bottom line is that the forums isn't the game and you take from it what you want. Sometimes it's a good source of information and a good place to talk about mechanics and ideas and sometimes good for catharsis. Maybe rants doesn't add to the game much at all, but does restricting an avenue and a choice for some to use -really- take anything away from it?

This line makes no sense.

Whats peronal responciblity have to do with the way you find other people reacting ingame based on out of game events?

Maybe it's just me, but I can't seem to figure out how to change my poll answer... So... I think it's a safe assumption that the existing players who are going to vote, have voted. The existing players who haven't either don't troll the forums (and therefore it's not a problem for them) or don't care enough to vote (which would imply it's not a problem for them) or, I guess, didn't see it... But it's been somewhat prominent at times. I'll discount that option too.

So, again, assuming the above, the only players who will change their mind in the next six months are new players to the forums, which isn't likely to be more than, what, 10?, then even if they all vote to ban lack of rants, the people who want lack of rants opened is still higher!

Yay! But a bit late.

Yay! nonetheless.

Fireweaver had stated that he found it hard to play the game when seeing pages of ranting. Hence, if something as trivial as ranting is going to actually make playing the game difficult he can choose whether or not to continue with the activity, which in this case is either 1)reading these pages or 2) merely seeing a large number of rants pages. I'd say that if someone continues doing something that is detrimental to their endeavor, in this case, playing Lusternia, said person should take steps to ensure the problem is corrected.


bleh, edit for a troublesome smiley

Let's lock lack of rants again, then hold another poll, but give it vote weighting.

Yep.

It'll be even more lopsided in our favour, then!

Especially if it's weighted by time active on the forums.

Not if it's weighted based on postcount, and the Divine get to vote.

If the mods only get half weight (since you're biased based on reasons other than forum experience), I think we'll be fine.