Hard Light Productions Forums

Site Management => Site Support / Feedback => Topic started by: Mobius on March 18, 2011, 03:04:50 pm

Title: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Mobius on March 18, 2011, 03:04:50 pm
I'm not refering to a specific episode, but rather to what seems to be a well established habit. Therefore, let's keep references to recently locked threads elsewhere.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure split and locked threads with funny/sarcastic/offensive titles can be of use. They have the potential to lead to more flame wars later on (who wouldn't find disturbing an offensive split with his nickname right below it?), flame wars that we don't need. Additionally, said habit makes finding the original thread where the split comes from much harder, thus leading to confusion.

I personally consider this habit a sign of mod power abuse (is it formally allowed?), and would prefer the classic "Re: <original thread>" formula for the reason I posted above. I now wonder what the other community members think about the subject.

First impression on IRC:

Quote
21:13:20 SDM: I don't think it should be kept as "Re:[thread name]" because if it was split, it'd be out-of-context already. "Split from [thread name]" might work. But I never had a problem with sarcastic titles and didn't consider it to be a reason for continuing flames.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Shivan Hunter on March 18, 2011, 03:20:12 pm
If a topic is split, either someone trolled, in which case they might as well be made aware of it, or it just veered off topic without any one person at fault, in which case no one should be offended by it.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: headdie on March 18, 2011, 03:25:55 pm
i went No, it could trigger more flame wars soon afterwards.  HLP as i understand it is supposed to be a fun and respectable spot on the net, when we have thread splits with questionable titles it undermines that.  I also support Mobius' Re: <original thread> naming convention convention with the addition of a post explaining why the item was split out, which i know some do.  I am also sure the split titles have contributed to the inactivity of some newbies who were still adjusting to the social rules on the site, lets face it would you hang around a forum where by posts you have made have been split and given a heated title along with possibly a lock on said split?  Ok the career trolls and flamers can take a flying leap, but how many youngsters are we putting off from contributing who's only experience of the net is teen chatrooms and/or forums and/or multiplayer gaming where the rules tend to be a lot looser?

end of the day mods and admins are supposed to lead by example if they are not doing that then it makes their actions questionable
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: The E on March 18, 2011, 03:32:11 pm
Quote
If a topic is split, either someone trolled, in which case they might as well be made aware of it, or it just veered off topic without any one person at fault, in which case no one should be offended by it.

Exactly. Changing the thread title of split threads into something vaguely humorous (in the case of trolling-related splits), or something more related to the topic under discussion (in case of topic drift), is something that I personally feel to be necessary. In the first case, to give us all a bit of a laugh (and to drive home the point that disruptive behaviour is annoying), in the second for obvious reasons.

Quote
I am also sure the split titles have contributed to the inactivity of some newbies who were still adjusting to the social rules on the site, lets face it would you hang around a forum where by posts you have made have been split and given a heated title along with possibly a lock on said split?

There is only one case in recent history that I am aware of there this actually happened. The noob's name was "Stormy Fairweather". Look him up. Then tell me that that is actually happening often with a straight face again.

Quote
end of the day mods and admins are supposed to lead by example if they are not doing that then it makes their actions questionable

Again, I, personally, can not see the negative side here. Through split thread renaming, we all get more clarity or, as may be the case, a bit of a laugh at the sight of utter stupidity.

Also, Mobius, why are you backseat moderating?
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Shivan Hunter on March 18, 2011, 03:37:04 pm
I am also sure the split titles have contributed to the inactivity of some newbies who were still adjusting to the social rules on the site
Emphasis mine. How exactly are you "sure"? Other than that one troll who didn't do much else, has anyone specifically mentioned the post titles being offensive?

Quote
lets face it would you hang around a forum where by posts you have made have been split and given a heated title along with possibly a lock on said split?
Assuming the decision to split in the first place was correct, which is almost always the case here, I wouldn't think twice about it.

Quote
Ok the career trolls and flamers can take a flying leap, but how many youngsters are we putting off from contributing who's only experience of the net is teen chatrooms and/or forums and/or multiplayer gaming where the rules tend to be a lot looser?
This community is much more stable and open because it's not a chatroom or multi session where everyone can flame each other, and from what I've seen, newbies are given plenty of chances to adjust to HLP's system. If they don't, it's almost always a case of refusing not to be a dick.

Quote
end of the day mods and admins are supposed to lead by example if they are not doing that then it makes their actions questionable
If you think they aren't, there are moderator/admin decisions which are much more questionable than some light humor in split thread titles.

[EDIT] I do think Mobius has the right to be concerned about site policy, but this is clearly a non-issue from where I'm standing. If someone has some new facts to present they may change the case but IMO the mods are right.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: The E on March 18, 2011, 03:44:34 pm
Yes, if there was a rash of incidents where people were driven off the site by this specific behaviour of ours, Mobius would have a point. From my vantage point, that just isn't the case.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Shivan Hunter on March 18, 2011, 03:50:45 pm
Actually I just remembered- Stormy's incident has nothing to do with this at all. He had a thread complaining about a mission called "bug in so-and-so", and battuta changed it to "make so-and-so easier" or something to that effect. It was only after he started raising drama that threads started getting split, and by that point the situation was hardly recoverable anyway.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Mobius on March 18, 2011, 03:54:35 pm
You may have a very good reason to split and lock a thread, no doubt to that, but is it really necessary to let anger/rivalry/whatever between members continue even after the thread is locked? It's mostly a matter of interpretations here: what do you guys think the role of moderation should be? One of its main goals, IMO (but other may share my opinion), is to prevent (in the most diplomatic way possible) additional accidents from happening.


What is there to earn from an offensive naming convention? Unless the troll/whatever is banned, an offensive title may call for retaliation, which can occur in another thread (moderators are active posters, too). Shouldn't we as a community try and prevent that?
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Shivan Hunter on March 18, 2011, 03:57:54 pm
no, the question here is how does it do any harm? It's a bit of harmless fun on the part of the mods/admins. Maybe it pokes fun at trolls, but if they trolled they sort of had it coming anyway.

Actually no, you're right. Nothing should ever be done here unless it has some definite, beneficial purpose. In fact we should replace all the moderators with humorless sentient machines. We could be ruled by- ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Mobius on March 18, 2011, 04:08:50 pm
no, the question here is how does it do any harm? It's a bit of harmless fun on the part of the mods/admins. Maybe it pokes fun at trolls, but if they trolled they sort of had it coming anyway.

Well, you have to prove that. Preliminary poll results don't make it that obvious. Also, are you sure it is only the trolls who are "kindly" offended?
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: The E on March 18, 2011, 04:21:27 pm
No, Mobius. It is in fact you who has to provide proof that this is actually in any way damaging, or even really offensive to many people.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: NGTM-1R on March 18, 2011, 04:23:18 pm
Also, Mobius, why are you backseat moderating?

Though I don't generally agree with Mobius, I think this is a fair question to open and ask. A degree of openness and understanding about moderation will not hurt the moderators and will probably make the rank-and-file happier with them.

The consensus is probably strongly against him, but I do not think we should be openly discouraged from asking question about the hows and whys of moderation. That goes stupid awful places pretty fast and the moderation team is better than such.

(I, personally, find the topic of discussion amusing for the most part, though the habit of splitlocking for the last word annoys me.)
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: The E on March 18, 2011, 04:44:26 pm
On reflection, you are right. My reflexes have gotten the better of me, for which I apologize.

Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Mobius on March 18, 2011, 04:47:57 pm
No, Mobius. It is in fact you who has to provide proof that this is actually in any way damaging, or even really offensive to many people.

In a case that involved me the thread title was so disturbing that I requested the thread to be deleted, and my request was kindly accepted by an Admin. Said thread had a relatively funny, but hardly offensive title, I can only imagine what could happen to another member dealing with a much less funny title. There's plenty of subjectivity here, but it's still a proof.

The questions follow: is it really necessary? Shouldn't the necessity to end arguments take precedence over the supposed need to make a fool of other people? As NGTM-1R pointed out, there's no harm in discussing this subject, so let's see where the poll will lead to.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: The E on March 18, 2011, 05:01:45 pm
Even so, as far as I am concerned, I don't quite see what the point of this is. As you said yourself, it's all really minor stuff.

And no, it is not, strictly speaking, necessary. It is, however, fun to rename a particularly annoying thread.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Rodo on March 18, 2011, 06:25:56 pm
I voted no, being an admin does not give you the right to have the last or absolute word about any kind of discussion on the forums.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Flipside on March 18, 2011, 06:28:58 pm
To be honest, when you've warned people that you are going to split a thread if a discussion continues, and asked people to calm down, and they still insist in forcing the administrator or moderator to read through the entire thread in order to split out the useless stuff, then they deserve whatever happens. It's like custom titles, get used to them, because you earn them, and you may not like them.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Zacam on March 18, 2011, 07:24:43 pm
Quote
blah blah. blah blah blah. blah. blah blah.

I'm just glad I've suppressed my baser instinct to rename THIS thread as being "The Un-Split, Not-Offensively re-Titled Thread of Blah-Blah"

That is all.

(Just to clarify, I am actually completely kidding.)

Whether or not a particular action or behaviour/pattern is "useful" as seen by any one person, in my opinion, is irrelevant so long as it is not actually leading to an egregious problem. None of us get to where we are because we lack personality or an established sense of self. And we can't make ourselves any better by divorcing who we are into being separate from what we do or how we do it.

Having a structure to how splitting or split-locking is handled is, again in my opinion, over kill. If there happens to be a case where one happens that is felt to be out of line, other Moderators as well as Administrators can follow the Cause of Reason when presented with the Voice of Consensus. At the end of any day, we are who we are which is no better or worse or different than anybody else. This does mean that personal beliefs, feelings and attitudes will invariably present themselves in every thing that we do. It is more important, I think, when one can recognize that as well as accept the responsibility for that if and when it comes into conflict with the greater whole, rather than trying to arbitrate and sterilize needlessly. The forum already has policies for users to follow, which the Moderators/Administrators moderate or mediate around/within when necessary.

And when someone doesn't follow them, or doesn't follow a common sense of etiquette (especially after multiple attempts to mediate/moderate), then it often comes down to more creative means of pointing out what has gone wrong. And while that may or may not meet with disapproval for some, it can only really be pointed out on a specific by case basis, not in an overly generalized sense of additional policy. If we want to go that route, might as well endorse the use of an Artificially Intelligent teletype to handle the job then.

As for what a Moderator (or Administrator) is responsible for, is (my opinion) ultimately themselves in alignment with community spirit. But no personality or Moderation or Administration will ever completely manage to address all of the possible foibles of individualism, especially not in cases where the individual refuses to accept the Moderation/Administration taking place or apply it towards correcting their actions. We can't -prevent- anything and everything from happening. We can only Moderate or Mediate -when- things happen as best as we possibly can. And that means dealing with it our own way and with our own personal foibles, for better or worse.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Mongoose on March 18, 2011, 07:54:20 pm
I can't say I care either way.  If someone acts like enough of a douchebag to get a split thread with a sarcastic title, then odds are they probably deserved it in the first place.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Qent on March 18, 2011, 08:31:22 pm
I greatly dislike your poll options. No, moderators should not make offensive thread titles, whether split or unsplit; however, it is also up to the moderators to judge what is considered "offensive."

I don't know what recent action prompted this, but "Marcov does not want to debate" is not offensive. "Bad posts" is true but painful, and I wish GB hadn't been so blunt, but it isn't offensive or sarcastic.

Finally, "Re: <thread title>" is bad because it's the same naming scheme as actual replies to the original thread. Even "Re: Re: <thread title>" is too similar. "<optional new topid> (split from <thread title>)" is much better IMHO.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: jr2 on March 18, 2011, 09:01:23 pm
I greatly dislike your poll options. No, moderators should not make offensive thread titles, whether split or unsplit; however, it is also up to the moderators to judge what is considered "offensive."

I don't know what recent action prompted this, but "Marcov does not want to debate" is not offensive. "Bad posts" is true but painful, and I wish GB hadn't been so blunt, but it isn't offensive or sarcastic.

Finally, "Re: <thread title>" is bad because it's the same naming scheme as actual replies to the original thread. Even "Re: Re: <thread title>" is too similar. "<optional new topid> (split from <thread title>)" is much better IMHO.

+1 exactly
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Mobius on March 19, 2011, 08:49:56 am
Finally, "Re: <thread title>" is bad because it's the same naming scheme as actual replies to the original thread. Even "Re: Re: <thread title>" is too similar. "<optional new topid> (split from <thread title>)" is much better IMHO.

Whatever points to the original thread prevents more confusion. "Re: <thread title>" is not the only option, of course.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: CommanderDJ on March 19, 2011, 09:03:40 am
These actions by moderators, with a few exceptions, generally don't bother me that much. I can see how the thread authors may take offense at their thread being renamed, no matter whether the title is offensive or not (which in itself is subjective). In the case of trolls, the mods are usually right in the threads they lock/split, and if someone's been enough of a jerk to piss off several people (ie not just a particular mod) then they probably deserve to have their thread laughed at a little.

In short: on principle I would stand against thread renaming to derogatory titles, but I can see the justification in renaming particularly epic fail threads.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Sololop on March 20, 2011, 12:11:59 am
Makes the moderators look as immature as the ones who caused the thread split. I voted no, they shouldn't be used.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Flipside on March 20, 2011, 06:27:11 am
I never knew this place was so full of Prima-Donnas who feel they have the right to act any way they want and then complain if it's pointed out that they can't in a manner which might bruise their feelings. Apparently no-one else but them counts.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Shade on March 20, 2011, 06:32:46 am
I am of two minds on this issue. If a thread was split because someone was being an idiot/troll, then by all means mock them. On the other hand, if it were a straight foward derailment, with the seperate discussion being unrelated but still sane, make the title something which would let people actually identify what it's about.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Flipside on March 20, 2011, 06:49:27 am
Well, if someone has an issue with what the thread has been renamed then they can feel free to PM the Mod involved or even speak to Admin if it hurts their feelings that deeply, but the whole idea that Moderators are some kind of robot who are merely here to service the  collective is an incorrect one. I've had to chase arguments not only through threads, but through several forums in the past, and whilst I don't mind moderating because I enjoy HLP, I am still one of the Forum Members.

The truth is, compare this site with most 'official' game forums and we are extremely tolerant in a lot of ways, and that's because it is staffed by fans of Freespace, not employees of the company that produced it. We don't ban people unless we have to, we almost never delete a thread, and 99% of official sites don't ask people to calm down or even bother to split the thread out for discussion, silly name or not, the posts would just vanish, and people would consider themselves lucky not to have been banned. Our technique is a little softer than that, we poke fun at people, but unless the discussion is disruptive, we tolerate it.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Mobius on March 20, 2011, 06:57:43 am
I voted no, being an admin does not give you the right to have the last or absolute word about any kind of discussion on the forums.

Makes the moderators look as immature as the ones who caused the thread split. I voted no, they shouldn't be used.

I never knew this place was so full of Prima-Donnas who feel they have the right to act any way they want and then complain if it's pointed out that they can't in a manner which might bruise their feelings. Apparently no-one else but them counts.

Read the first two quotes in this post. The "problem" is not only limited to those who may feel offended, but also affects what other members think about moderators and their behavior. To me, making a fool of a member (regardless of what he did) with offensive thread titles sounds like pure abuse of moderation powers, because AFAIK moderators aren't allowed to do that.

If additional actions are to be taken, let the admins take care of it. Leave locked threads as they are, let people know where the split comes from to avoid confusion and prevent anger towards moderators from spreading out.

Well, if someone has an issue with what the thread has been renamed then they can feel free to PM the Mod involved or even speak to Admin if it hurts their feelings that deeply, but the whole idea that Moderators are some kind of robot who are merely here to service the  collective is an incorrect one. I've had to chase arguments not only through threads, but through several forums in the past, and whilst I don't mind moderating because I enjoy HLP, I am still one of the Forum Members.

The truth is, compare this site with most 'official' game forums and we are extremely tolerant in a lot of ways, and that's because it is staffed by fans of Freespace, not employees of the company that produced it, we don't ban people unless we have to, and we almost never delete a thread, and 99% of official sites don't ask people to calm down or even bother to split the thread out for discussion, silly name or not, the posts would just vanish, and people would consider themselves lucky not to have been banned. Our technique is a little softer than that, we poke fun at people, but unless the discussion is disruptive, we tolerate it.

You're implying that moderators and moderating are the same all throughout the internet, and this is not true. There are forums where moderators can ban and admins hardly read threads because they're too busy managing the site and doing other things.

On HLP, we all know what the role of a moderator is, and the thread naming convention we have recently seen nearly goes beyond that limit. It's extremely disturbing to see a moderator lock a thread and post the last comment, criticizing you without giving a chance to reply. Sure, there are PMs to handle problems like these (in the case that involved me, in fact, I relied on PMs to get an objectively thread deleted), but why wouldn't the moderators simply prevent that and put a real end to debates by just locking a thread?
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Snail on March 20, 2011, 07:05:12 am
It's the way the question and the options are phrased. There's "offensive" in the title right there.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Mobius on March 20, 2011, 07:06:46 am
There's "sarcastic" up there, too. The two things can work together at times.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: The E on March 20, 2011, 07:08:22 am
Oh teh noes, teh sarcasm, it buuuuurnzzz ussss.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Flipside on March 20, 2011, 07:11:08 am
Quote
You're implying that moderators and moderating are the same all throughout the internet, and this is not true. There are forums where moderators can ban and admins hardly read threads because they're too busy managing the site and doing other things.

No, I'm saying we are easier on you than a lot of games-site Moderators would be. If you would prefer, I can start Moderating as you want, enforcing the rules to the letter, locking the thread the moment the discussion gets heated and banning people for trolling. It'd empty General Discussion in under a month.

Quote
On HLP, we all know what the role of a moderator is, and the thread naming convention we have recently seen nearly goes beyond that limit. It's extremely disturbing to see a moderator lock a thread and post the last comment, criticizing you without giving a chance to reply. Sure, there are PMs to handle problems like these (in the case that involved me, in fact, I relied on PMs to get an objectively thread deleted), but why wouldn't the moderators simply prevent that and put a real end to debates by just locking a thread?

IF I had 'performed the role of a Moderator' as percieved on most official game sites, you wouldn't even be here to make this post, both you and Snail would have been perma-banned during your ongoing argument about Inferno that not only stretched over several threads a couple of years ago, but literally over several Forums. As it was, I had a shout, split and locked where I could and did what I could to limit the damage until you sorted it out.

Trust me, if sarcastic split-thread names are the most oppressive Moderation is getting, there really is no call to complain.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Jeff Vader on March 20, 2011, 07:14:43 am
HLP is a democracy and the people should have a saying on matters.

...no wait.

HLP basically belongs to the admins. They elect moderators. The moderators have powers. They can use them. They should use their own judgement on how to use those powers. If a member thinks a moderator is abusing his/her powers, they probably should complain to the admins. The admins can then act or not act on the matter.

I wouldn't like really in-your-face offensive new thread titles like "<name> is a dickbutt", but come on. We're humans. Most of us have a sense of humour. Why so serious?
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Flipside on March 20, 2011, 07:30:44 am
Thing is, the whole reason that we have a system of warnings and Monkeys in place before we hit the Ban button is that we value member contribution, it is, quite literally, what keeps this site alive, you aren't our 'fans', you are all us, we're all FS2 fans. We don't like punishing people when they may contribute to the project as a whole.

A Sarcastic split title can often be considered a polite warning that people were getting close to what Moderators are prepared to tolerate by way of behaviour, if it goes too far, or is felt to be motivated by more than maintaining thread civility then, fine, take it up with the person involved.

The hint to what Moderators 'do' is in the name, we make sure the discussion stays Moderate, we can split or we can lock that's pretty much all the power we have to prevent flamefests etc. Sometimes we wish we could do more, and several people can probably thank their lucky stars that we cannot, but we are FS2 fans, not employees, not staff etc, but we are expected to make that extra effort for the sake of everyone. Sometimes we use an approach that is sarcastic, maybe because, like everyone else, we do have other things to be doing with our time.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Mobius on March 20, 2011, 07:39:06 am
I'm just pointing out that certain behaviors may be damaging the reputation of moderators, and the way they will be treated during debates. It doesn't really affect me because I'll hardly have a lot of time to spend here in the future, and therefore will not even notice most splits that will occur, but that doesn't mean I cannot post my opinion on the matter. Plus, the preliminary results of this poll (though it'd be better to wait until we get 50 or so votes before coming to any conclusion) indicate that many community members find those titles dangerous, in the sense that they may result in additional flame wars later on. Question is: why would a moderator encourage that?


This is intended to be a peaceful discussion, and fortunately no references to any particular episode have been made. I surely won't spend the rest of the day here trying to convince you that what you're doing is wrong, of course. :) Just let the poll results speak for themselves.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Dilmah G on March 20, 2011, 07:45:48 am
Mobius, whilst you and I are able to voice opinions about moderation decisions (I've done so prior, without the thread and poll), it's ultimately down to the Admins, as Jeff Vader says prior. The forum is not a democracy and yelling 'it's wrong, it's wrong!' and putting it in several different forms and implying it won't do you any good. The point has been made, and I daresay that all the mods have seen it, and most have commented.

I personally voted for Snuffy. Most of them seem in the same league as custom titles to me.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Mobius on March 20, 2011, 07:49:25 am
But of course it's up to the admins, but they can't do that if members don't voice their opinions first. We have all the right to complain about things as long the complaints are reasonable. That said, let's see what comes out.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Dilmah G on March 20, 2011, 07:50:53 am
I agree with your final two sentences, but the admins don't have to wait for a poll to make their decisions, if they're going to make any decision at all. They're probably just having a laugh about it over in the admin cave. ;)
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Mobius on March 20, 2011, 08:02:55 am
Polls have their use in situations like this, though. :)
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Dilmah G on March 20, 2011, 08:11:02 am
Of course.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: The E on March 20, 2011, 08:17:22 am
Nope, they really don't. This is not a democracy. It never will be. If we take the current standing, we have 35 votes, a third of which are "we don't care", another third being "Keep it as it is", and the last third being "It's stupid, stop it".

I hardly call that a representative sample of HLP's population, most of which have never and never will run into trouble with the issues under debate here.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Mobius on March 20, 2011, 08:27:12 am
Even if HLP is not a democracy I believe the admins have taken a look at this poll's preliminary results and will eventually use said results to make a decision. Please note that we have seen administrators creating new polls in the past, asking other community members to voice their opinions. :nod:

I agree with you when it comes to the number of votes, though. There should be more, but of course we can't force people to vote here.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Dilmah G on March 20, 2011, 08:31:41 am
Nope, they really don't. This is not a democracy. It never will be. If we take the current standing, we have 35 votes, a third of which are "we don't care", another third being "Keep it as it is", and the last third being "It's stupid, stop it".

I hardly call that a representative sample of HLP's population, most of which have never and never will run into trouble with the issues under debate here.
That would be implying that I thought the polls would be of some use to the Admins/Moderators. As I said before, I think this is more something to have a laugh about over in the admin-cave rather than anything else.

The polls are of perhaps of some use to people such as Mobius who seem to have an issue with the thread renaming, and as a result, can feel that their viewpoint is at least shared by someone other than themselves.

If the Admins really cared about what people thought, they'd have started the poll themselves.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Rodo on March 20, 2011, 09:02:28 am
This is just a suggestion, and the why to my voting:

When certain user gets frustrated and starts flaming or behaves incorrectly, thread lock or split is due.
Moderators should take a step back, cool their head down and then assign a title to the thread, we all know humans are susceptible to emotional behaviour after a heated discusion, but it gives no rights to act accordingly in public.
We're bound to cross our ways again in this small community, so why keep such a mooded ambient?

I expect no less from the admins that an impartial and objective treatment to me and all members alike, jerks will always be jerks, admins should act like grown up and put their responsibilities before any personal issues.
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: pecenipicek on March 20, 2011, 11:04:36 am
I'm a bit trolling here, but people "living" here who assume we are under a democracy of any kind are sorely mistaken. We're under what could be called "Somewhat Benevolent Dictatorship" at best. As far as i'm concerned, what mods, globalmods and admins decide, that is what goes. If people cant handle sarcasm or ribbing from others, they need to grow some thicker skin.

We dont need to become another refuge for Mr.'s Mrs.'s "I-spotted-an-offensive-word-BAN THAT USER FOR OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE! What, he said ass? BURN HIM!" of the internet. Leave the meek to the meek. Anyone who manages to stay coherent here after more than a year is ok in my book.




Spoiler:
Some unfortunate individuals notwithstanding...
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: Qent on March 20, 2011, 12:01:41 pm
Plus, the preliminary results of this poll (though it'd be better to wait until we get 50 or so votes before coming to any conclusion) indicate that many community members find those titles dangerous, in the sense that they may result in additional flame wars later on.
No. This poll is not as useful as it could have been because you loaded it against the the renaming of threads. You could have gone the other way by calling it "the humorous renaming of split threads." What you have done is akin to asking "Should mods make bad posts? Welp, let the poll results speak for themselves. :)"
Title: Re: On split threads' offensive titles
Post by: karajorma on March 21, 2011, 09:30:54 am
That would be implying that I thought the polls would be of some use to the Admins/Moderators. As I said before, I think this is more something to have a laugh about over in the admin-cave rather than anything else.

I'll laugh about it right here.

 :lol:


The poll is so ludicrously loaded as to be worthless.