| Welcome to Zetaboards Think Tank. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| n00b bashing | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 5 2006, 12:23 AM (541 Views) | |
| Tachyon | Feb 5 2006, 05:30 PM Post #41 |
|
Third Grade
|
I'm very much against the idea of any sort of extra user group for members like this. The reasons above have been discussed, but it also comes down to this: what does this mean for normal members? I think we should focus on methods that encourage normal members to continue behaving with integrity and maturity rather than attempt to separate them from other members by placing them in a special group. If we place anyone in a "community snitch" sort of group, it sends the message to normal members that we apparently have more confidence in these people than the rest of the members. We need to have confidence in our own members, because they are the community. It also creates the problem of increased decentralisation. (Yes, ach, a liberal, run away!) Centralisation works for a message board. Members, staff members, admins. If we add another link in the chain, it's just more opportunity for something to go wrong. |
![]() |
|
| Aaron | Feb 5 2006, 05:48 PM Post #42 |
|
First Grade
|
I do not understand why we need a special group for members we trust to handle things, in the end it will just cause more spam because people who want to get in that group (like they do with trying to get on Staff), and probilty just ruin staff-member relation ships a bit. Besides are we not doing sothing like a "eliet"(or what ever you want to call them) group would do anyways? Community Chat in my view where the members of staff can post like a member and be a bit more free yet still having rules. I hardly post anywere espialy in Community Chat compaired to others becasue 1) the "deep" topics I kinda of stay aways from becasue of a) Ingorence on all sides my lack of spelling skills c) I tend to debate better in persion then online. What I'm about to say is not limited to CC olny, We need better guide lines on what is and what is not back seat moding. I am still confused about what is and what is not. I also think that posts such as "Hey please follow this pin topic[<- with a link] then say heres the answer to your question...." should be still considerd Back Seat moding since it still is. (which is also can cause bashing) Noob Bashing I have not been seeing a lot of it other then when S13 was down and it was manly noob vs noob with that. Bashing in general I would hafe to say that topics like "what's better PS2 Xbox or GameCube" Are the worse for bashing and the least is done about it. I tend to stay away from these topics more then the "deep" topics becasue "fanboyism" is the highest form of ingorence there is in my view and leads to the most bashing. I hope I did that right ![]() All though this is close to flaming Deltasix brings up a good point about poeple not reading the topics fully to understand what the topic is about which distorys a lot of good points and the topic in general, the fact is I feel that for the most part the users of IF are not ready to do topics about things that make you think deeply and what you beleave in. :/ |
![]() |
|
| zorg222 | Feb 5 2006, 06:14 PM Post #43 |
|
First Grade
|
No new usergroup needed. This creates issues with egos, and there is no way to place people in a new usergroup without egos being an issue. You're either a member or not, there's no inbetween which is probably best. Though, an incentive for users to act kindly towards the newbies would be nice. Or, you could simply lay down a guideline of sorts in regards to showing kindness towards new users. In effect, you could get away with more serious "Punishments," for veterans who abuse new users. This is justified in my mind for this reason: the users who act rudely towards new users are somewhat experienced. If they know enough about the board to act rudely towards a member who doesn't know how to post a poll, they shouldn't behave that way. Veterans, in my mind, deserve a little less slack on things like this. (Especially if there were to be an outline on treating new people kindly.) |
![]() |
|
| Yodaminch | Feb 5 2006, 06:15 PM Post #44 |
|
Administrator
|
Bingo. Sorry guys, but as I said before, members are the snitch police if you will. A new group would only cause more trouble. I guess while I slept you guys were discussing giving out mod powers without actually solving the question. More it was about getting another group to do a staff member's job. We could do that any time. What I want is effiency for the current members. Reporting abuse better will be in IF2 I believe, but until then, what do we do? That's the question. |
![]() |
|
| DreamWiva | Feb 5 2006, 06:27 PM Post #45 |
|
First Grade
|
These kind of topics are still considered as discussion, its just that you do not need to be very intellectual to participate in them. Which is why i think there is more flaming in these types of topics. Also, most of the posts in these topics do vote for one option, but they do not provide reason, there must be a reason why a person would choose a ps2 over an Xbox, right?
which is why you need an indicator that the topic is an intellectual discussion rather than a normal topic. People may think twice before posting in them.
I would agree, if we were told when members get punished, which in my opinion is really harsh. There should be a better way to tell members to be nice to others rather than make an example by punishing a few veteran noob bashers. maybe a game which involves new and old members teaming up? |
![]() |
|
| Aaron | Feb 5 2006, 06:48 PM Post #46 |
|
First Grade
|
No the point is that the members do not read the full topic and maybe a little of the first post or none at all, thats part of the problem. if they read the first post fully then they would of known that it was a "deep" topic. Which also part of the problem is the lack of poeple reading the rule(s) and pin topics which for the most part we can not change...unless there was an hidden thing (like a GD2 thing) in the rules were the member had to read the rules to get to see the code then enter the code to join...but that may be too much work and something that olny Brandon could do if he choose to. Also that would not mean they would follow the rules. We need to probily point out "Freedom of Speech" (as Americans think of it) does not really apply online. It got so bad at one of the boards I go to they needed to make a topic aobut it and explaining how the 1st admented applyed to them and that you could not hide behind that admenment.. I think IF could benifite form it a little bit if we get more poeple that hide behind laws for the wrong reasions. |
![]() |
|
| Locke | Feb 5 2006, 11:40 PM Post #47 |
|
First Grade
|
If you would like an example of near disaster in the creation of a second, lower group performing a staff obligation, simply direct your eyes to the Request Assistant group at my board. I apologize for bringing that board into this, but it is a perfect example. The point has been established, but I will reiterate: You will simply create long-term problems by adding a secondary level to the Community. Rather, in order to sidestep the mass problems that occur in n00b bashing, the best choice of action is for a respected member of the staff to simply PM or IM the member in question and ask them kindly to cool it and remember that once they were new as well. Make the tone one of disappointment that they would act in such a manner, and perhaps even ask them to apologize. Do not publicly rebuke them as that is an ego-deflater and can cause other issues of resentment. I would agree completely with Aaron stating that a clear definition and line to backseat moderating needs to be decided. Too many people have their own definitions of the term. What needs to happen is a conversation between the Community Moderators in which they can determine their own mid-level for acceptable and not. Then I would ask a group of better known members with level heads their opinion of that level. Once it is approved then you have a new standard which you can institute in the Community that everyone should view as acceptable. |
![]() |
|
| OcelotJay | Feb 6 2006, 09:04 AM Post #48 |
|
First Grade
|
On the whole sub-staff issue, I am against it for the reasons that have pretty much been pressed by staff. Ultimately it seems futile and unnecessary to create new ways of punishing when we should be finding ways to educate and make the community better.
I agree with this for the most part. There are some occasions where I feel that public humiliation, if you wish to call it that, is necessary. Such an occasion would be repeat offenders who have been around for quite some time and have been warned about it continuously yet do not show sign of giving up their old ways. Many of the now banned people are good examples, but I could point out an existing person who has long been a thorn in my side, though I'm not entirely sure if that would simply kick up a fuss here. If someone can clarify that this is ok, I'll be happy to do so in order to make my point all the more clearer. But anyway, such people who have been warned, punished and warned some more don't seem worth taking time to PM warn them yet again as if to display disappointment and ask them 'kindly' to cool it. I'm not entirely sure why such people are still around (the person I have in mind has been warned [verbally, PM and via punishment system] at least 6 times), though I suspect it's to do with our more relaxed attitude in the hopes of not banning quite so many people. Frankly, if you've been told off about being rude to members (and staff) a few times, and you refuse to heed the warnings, then the next time you do it you deserve to be told off in public. If nothing else, it acts as a warning to others. I've see PhranK do it a few times, at least once or twice with this member, and it seems to pay off in that respect. I've done it too with others in the past. My main point being that some people are stuck in their ways and beyond salvation. Personally I believe such people deserve something a little more harsh, more long term, in the way of punishment should they reoffend for the millionth time to prevent it influencing others or making the behaviour seem ok, but with those who start doing it I'm all for taking them to one side and talking to them about it to steer them backk on the right path. ![]()
For staff I always thought the outline of backseat moderating was pretty clear, especially with Stephen's BM topic (but then again maybe you weren't on staff when we last discussed it :unsure:). I can see that there are grey areas but really on something that can vary and sometimes has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis (remember that sometimes it's the intention, not the words) it's difficult to fully clarify what is and is not backseat moderating with examples beyond the basics. Stephen's definition seems fine to me:
And that's only a small part of his longer explanation. If someone can come up with ideas as to how it can be clarified more, that'd help. Right now it's as clear as it can get for me, again bearing in mind that it's not always a black and white issue.
That example is acceptable in my mind. The reason being that there is a difference between giving support and attaching a side note to point something out (so long as it's not done in an offensive or horrid tone) and posting simply to point out that the topic needs to be moved (which isn't helping the person at all). It does still contain a form of backseat moderating but intention is not to do that. The intention is to give support and help the person out a little so they know where to post things. A post that says 'ZOMG this shouldn't be here!!!! Move dis here!!!!' is about as helpful as a catflap in an elephant cage. Not only is the person being useless and not answering the question, but they're pointing out the blindly obvious to *us* (the only people who can move it, and obviously know where it belongs). I suppose it can depend though. In Graphics Requests it can be considered BM to point out the guidelines but to me they're helping, as if the topic doesn't fit the guidelines it is likely to be ignored. To me this is fine so long as the user doesn't extend to showing annoyance or start stroking their ego by putting the person down. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Community Chat Think Tank · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2






my lack of spelling skills c) I tend to debate better in persion then online.
I hope I did that right 


2:14 PM Jul 11