The State of Things

[Ash]

Stealth is stupid.

 

[Infinitynexus]

Well, I thought it was good

 

[Ash]

Why? What actually makes stealth a worthwhile tool?

You're using stealth... In a chat room. I just don't get it, why be in there in the first place?

 

[NearbyHermit]

Well,the idea is for them to look over chat,but many of them are AFK for long periods,come on,a mod must have a life but not that much life until it foreigns you from dutty!

We should assign a sort of list,to auto kick users if they arent active for a period!

 

[Ash]

There is a system, but it's bypassed.

I don't like stealth, it's just an excuse for chat mods to kick people. I don't like AFK chat mods, sometimes you need them and they're never there.

 

[Dr00d]

I has idea!

No mods of any rank except admins have chat powers besides stealth.

There will be temporary chat mods who get their term extended if the general opinion is that they do their job good enough.

It's a start, just make it so it's directors as and up, and no one else gets anything period.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Why? What actually makes stealth a worthwhile tool?

You're using stealth... In a chat room. I just don't get it, why be in there in the first place?

Well, the existence of stealth could exist to encourage users to act maturely even when a mod isn't around, but considering there are so little chat mods, nonetheless those that bother stealthing, it's become a useless feature.

 

[Hakeem]

I think this whole chatroom subject is an issue of consistency in rule enforcement and, again, what powers you can trust a user with. As is apparent by the numerous moderators who have their chat powers gone, there are many people who can be trusted in some areas, but not in others. Resources, posts, and chats are not the same media. They each require their own unique method of moderation.

It would seem like there is virtually nobody who can be trusted to enforce rules properly in the chat, because even our webmaster rickrolls it.

I think it is a good idea to restrict chat powers to only admins and directors. I actually think a chatroom, because of its strictly temporary nature, doesn't even need moderation. All it needs is an ignore command, which we already have in our chat.

At this point, I'd make a suggestion about how the chat should be, but Ralle is already working on a new chat (Isn't he? [citation needed]).

So until the new chat, I support the chat mod power restriction.


And remember, you always have the ignore command.

 

[brad.dude03]

I basically agree. My chat powers were removed for having too much fun, while others lose theirs for abuse, etc, chat mods are a very tricky subject. Also, standard guidelines for rule enforcement must be put in writing, such as the rule-of-thumb warn-kick-ban system I've discussed previously. That's why it's so inconsistant, every mod is going on their own judgement, rather than a standardized protocol.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

The problem with the ignore command is that it doesn't fix the problem, it hides it. Certain users persist in harassing everyone and it's inconvenient to have to ignore them both every time you rejoin the chat and every time they rejoin the chat. There is a more permanent solution for those users, and that solution is a ban.

That aside, why isn't there some standardized protocol? Or better yet, why aren't the chat mods picked specifically for how they handle themselves in chat? Rather than the "Every moderator has chat moderator powers unless they lose them," why not make it something you earn based on actions rather than position? There really doesn't have to be any fancy protocol for chat moderating consistency, since all you have to do as a chat mod is stop flame wars. If they don't listen to warnings, kick 'em, persist after that, ban 'em. Done. I can't fathom any other real value for chat moderators in the first place than that.

Back to the topic of ignoring, sometimes it works, like if an argument is between two users only. It's a problem with people that go out of their way to argue with everyone, though, and that is where bans and such are merited. These things exist for a reason, to just say that "ignoring is enough, we don't need anything else" is silly.

 

[Gilles]

Not every moderator has chat powers from the start. I've never had them.

 

[Miz]

Well I really don't think this even involves me, but; Reading this thread, many of you seem to have problems with the moderation staff. Many forget, that Mods and Admins are humans. They will listen, if you talk to them (calmly); If you have a problem with a mod you should tell them, because most likely they don't know there actions are upsetting you.

Although, I don't know the current situation of the Hive; but my comments with Chat Moderators are, even these special users should have to follow the rules. (and every time I visit it, all of them do.)

As for the ones talking about Ghan, are you kidding me, Ghan is one of, if not, the best member I know On Thehelper, and surely on the Hive.

These are just some of my comments as an outside viewer...

 

[brad.dude03]

I don't necessarily agree there. Most of the time, I know full well when my actions will upset the users, and most of the time, I'm right, so I don't care. Those few times I'm not right are when I should be called up, and then I'd happily sort the issue and undo any wrong.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

The problem with the ignore command is that it doesn't fix the problem, it hides it. Certain users persist in harassing everyone and it's inconvenient to have to ignore them both every time you rejoin the chat and every time they rejoin the chat. There is a more permanent solution for those users, and that solution is a ban.

That aside, why isn't there some standardized protocol? Or better yet, why aren't the chat mods picked specifically for how they handle themselves in chat? Rather than the "Every moderator has chat moderator powers unless they lose them," why not make it something you earn based on actions rather than position? There really doesn't have to be any fancy protocol for chat moderating consistency, since all you have to do as a chat mod is stop flame wars. If they don't listen to warnings, kick 'em, persist after that, ban 'em. Done. I can't fathom any other real value for chat moderators in the first place than that.

Back to the topic of ignoring, sometimes it works, like if an argument is between two users only. It's a problem with people that go out of their way to argue with everyone, though, and that is where bans and such are merited. These things exist for a reason, to just say that "ignoring is enough, we don't need anything else" is silly.

If someone is being a pill time and time again, it should be relatively easy to SS and report them.

I like Hakeem's idea, and, in my opinion, it's quite logical. If someone finds chat modship to be a necessity, however, please at least clarify the rules for the chatroom.

 

[Earth-Fury]

I think this whole chatroom subject is an issue of consistency in rule enforcement and, again, what powers you can trust a user with. As is apparent by the numerous moderators who have their chat powers gone, there are many people who can be trusted in some areas, but not in others. Resources, posts, and chats are not the same media. They each require their own unique method of moderation.

It would seem like there is virtually nobody who can be trusted to enforce rules properly in the chat, because even our webmaster rickrolls it.

Agreed. We need more chat mods, not more mods for the chat.

I think it is a good idea to restrict chat powers to only admins and directors. I actually think a chatroom, because of its strictly temporary nature, doesn't even need moderation. All it needs is an ignore command, which we already have in our chat.

At this point, I'd make a suggestion about how the chat should be, but Ralle is already working on a new chat (Isn't he? [citation needed]).

So until the new chat, I support the chat mod power restriction.


And remember, you always have the ignore command.

That's the stupidest idea I've heard throughout the course of this thread. (And this thread has some pretty large concentrations of stupidity.)

First, dividing the community in to sub groups by zealously encouraging use of /ignore is bad.

Secondly, people won't use /ignore, even if encouraged to do so. (Why the hell do you think there's a moderator command to make two people ignore each other? For fun?)

The chatroom should be a nice, happy environment for discussion, debate, and some friendly fucking around for fun. Getting everyone to start ignoring each other will divide us instead of uniting us. We need to get people capable of kicking the right asses consistently to keep the damn peace, and keep the enviroment nice and happy for everyone.

And to people who will think "OMG 1984 put a smile on and be happy or be black bagged! D:"...: Go find somewhere else to be an ass and troll people for fun, and enjoy friendly discussion at this community, which actually has a purpose besides quenching your boredom.

 

[Elenai]

Earth-Fury is correct.

The problem the HIVE is facing is division itself more than those whom are divided.

Things that divide, must be dealt with.

 

[Hakeem]

(Why the hell do you think there's a moderator command to make two people ignore each other? For fun?)

Pretty much. You know if you are on your own ignore list you can't see feedback from stuff like invalid commands and /ignorelist? Note that you can't ignore yourself, but uncle on the other hand can.

Getting everyone to start ignoring each other will divide us instead of uniting us.

Not what I'm suggesting. I'm saying that ignore, if need be, is the only moderation a chatroom really needs. Keep in mind, that an ignore can be undone.

My internet just had to get cut off last night didn't it? And you just had to post before I had the chance to clarify. Now, as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted...

I like Hakeem's idea, and, in my opinion, it's quite logical.

Wasn't my idea. Infinitynexus said it first if I am not mistaken.

The problem with the ignore command is that it doesn't fix the problem, it hides it.

Hiding it is our only weapon on the internet. Bans don't fix people, and it's not a moderators job to fix people either.

Certain users persist in harassing everyone and it's inconvenient to have to ignore them both every time you rejoin the chat and every time they rejoin the chat.

I can't see storing the ignore list somewhere other than a session as a very hard programming task.

There is a more permanent solution for those users, and that solution is a ban.

Like bans. Bans are stored somewhere other than a session.

Back to the topic of ignoring, sometimes it works, like if an argument is between two users only. It's a problem with people that go out of their way to argue with everyone, though, and that is where bans and such are merited. These things exist for a reason, to just say that "ignoring is enough, we don't need anything else" is silly.

If a user wishes to watch this user argue all the time, they are able. If a user wishes to stop arguing with this user, they are able. If a user watching the argument doesn't want to hear it anymore, they are able.

I'm surprised you didn't bring up spammers. Not so much of a problem since you have to be a member to access the chat, but it is still there. Spammers are the only reason I would ever use ignore. Spammers are mutually disliked by everyone in the chat, because they take up a bunch of lines pointlessly. If you are right there when the spammer starts, you can just ignore, this is not a problem. The problem arises when you are away from the chat and actually get spammed. This, in my opinion, is the primary cause for moderation in a chat. That's why I don't think we should just get rid of all moderation. I do support moderation of chatrooms.

However, I also support the concept of multiple channels. At least one for the moderation so many people like, and at least one with no moderation, where we can have fun all day. (Not good for serious discussions.)

---

Glad I said that before people started making the wrong conclusions. Yay for cutting off the internet while I'm in the middle of saying something important.

Now, I'm not suggesting permanent restriction of chat powers. I'm supporting the suggestions because people are displeased with the current chat. All I support is a temporary removal of chat powers from all but the admins and directors, while Ralle works on the new chat. Please bear with us until it is up. Maybe this restriction would help people bear it.

The problem the HIVE is facing is division itself more than those whom are divided.

Perhaps it would be wise to ask those divided, what exactly divided them, so as to prevent further division.

But I don't think division is a problem. The "divided" often say they are going to wc3c now. All a division does is make some people leave.
People come, people go. Such is the way of things.

The Hive itself is not in danger, but it would be nice for some of us to be less divided.

 

[PurplePoot]

Pretty much. You know if you are on your own ignore list you can't see feedback from stuff like invalid commands and /ignorelist? Note that you can't ignore yourself, but uncle on the other hand can.

That's fixed as of a few days ago, at least.

 

[Eleandor]

Things that divide, must be dealt with.

Exactly why I've always told not to add advanced features like rep or user groups. It might at the very least help at least a bit...

 

[SuPa-]

The issue is that some users have certain opinions about other users that they just want drop. That creates a bias

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Exactly why I've always told not to add advanced features like rep or user groups. It might at the very least help at least a bit...

As of yet, I've joined 77 user groups and have 616 rep. That must make me the most loved user on the Hive.

Or things are being blown out of proportion.

To be quite honest, I think the latter sounds more logical.

If there is "division" going on at the Hive, rep or user groups have absolutely nothing to do with it. People with differing opinions do.

 

[Andriejj]

I'll pull a different string. My biggest problem with the Hive, is the map section. I downloaded so many 5 and 4 mod-rated maps which were medicore or just crap.

Seems only Ash was consistent and had some proper system for map-rating. He gave 5 to only one map. Other moderators give ratings according to their momentary feelings. Septimus should cut his reviews to half or less, without all that bullshit. They lack some real judgement of the map, they're too technical atm. You can't make everything into numbers.

Also this review made me angry. This map is bad. Very bad. Why is EF a map moderator, if he reviews 1 map in a month, and makes it in such manner?
Random Wars 3.5c - The Hive Workshop - A Warcraft III Modding Site

From the current map moderation stuff, I'd keep Rui, bring back Ash (he probably wouldn't like to) and Satomi (that's probably not possible). Gilles isn't bad, but what he dedicates to the Maps Section, is just a small % of what he does on Terrain Board. And remove all spontaneous moderators, like EF and Ghan. The "trial map moderator" idea mentioned somewhere here before maybe could work :/

Why not Septimus? I think many will agree with me here, I just can't trust his judgement.

Nobody see's you?


Hey Mods,according by ''some'' rules that we follow,shouldn't he be warned/punished?

Read the post before his post.

 

[Earth-Fury]

Also this review made me angry. This map is bad. Very bad. Why is EF a map moderator, if he reviews 1 map in a month, and makes it in such manner?
Random Wars 3.5c - The Hive Workshop - A Warcraft III Modding Site

Firstly, note that I wasn't moderating ANY maps in July, when that map was last updates. Now, as for why my comment on it sucks: I moderated over 100 maps in 1 day, back when the system was very, very fucking different. (Go find the maps that are approved without comment, or with an even less relevant comment.) I was also the only really active map moderator at the time. So don't criticize what you don't understand.

As for why I am a map moderator still... Why not? It's not like I claim to be active in map moderation; but if the mood strikes me, I may very well go moderate some maps. Why not let me have that power if I'm on the staff already?

 

[Rising_Dusk]

Why not let me have that power if I'm on the staff already?

It's this attitude that resulted in some of the problems this topic was created to discuss.

I can't see storing the ignore list somewhere other than a session as a very hard programming task.

What? Why would you do that? That's one of the biggest differences between ignores and bans. Bans are indefinite, ignores aren't. I don't think it's intelligent to change ignore until it's a one-action-fits-all-circumstances option, but rather embrace the fact that hey, there are different ways of dealing with things! What a novel idea!

If a user wishes to watch this user argue all the time, they are able. If a user wishes to stop arguing with this user, they are able. If a user watching the argument doesn't want to hear it anymore, they are able.

That's great, wonderful, so why has it been a problem then? Oh, that's right, because most people that are being argued with prefer to argue back since it's the internet. That's why moderators with a neutral hand in the matter have to come in with some consistency and moderate, God forbid. Spammers are the main reason for ignore, as to be fair those are the only people I ignore since you don't care about what they have to say. Trolls and assholes I don't ignore because well shit, I want to know what that bastard is saying about my mother, you know? If they get banned for being pricks, I feel happy, but if I just ignore them, I'm left with this bitter taste in my mouth like the moderators aren't doing their jobs.

 

[Steel_Stallion]

That's why moderators with a neutral hand in the matter have to come in with some consistency and moderate, God forbid.

See the problem people are having with many moderators is that they do not have a neutral hand. Chat moderators who are trying to stop 2 users from arguing should stop both of them from arguing despite who may or may not be correct.

More than often they just pick the side they believe is right and argue back and "stfu" the "Wrong" user. And even MORE often they pick the side their friends are on or the one they prefer, which is natural being a person. But you have to "stfu" both users. So that its a fair judgement. Even if one user is so clearly wrong, doesnt matter.

If they get banned for being pricks, I feel happy, but if I just ignore them, I'm left with this bitter taste in my mouth like the moderators aren't doing their jobs.

That is so fucking true! I feel the exact same way.

 

[Gilles]

From the current map moderation stuff, I'd keep Rui, bring back Ash (he probably wouldn't like to) and Satomi (that's probably not possible). Gilles isn't bad, but what he dedicates to the Maps Section, is just a small % of what he does on Terrain Board. And remove all spontaneous moderators, like EF and Ghan. The "trial map moderator" idea mentioned somewhere here before maybe could work :/

I'll admit I don't give maps much of my time as it's eaten up by the terrain board. However, I do help take care of the maps section in the Resource Moderation forum quite a bit.

 

[Captain Griffen]

See the problem people are having with many moderators is that they do not have a neutral hand. Chat moderators who are trying to stop 2 users from arguing should stop both of them from arguing despite who may or may not be correct.

You've missed the point of moderation. Moderation is not to stop discussions or arguments, but to make sure they are conducted without flaming, spamming, etc.

 

[Earth-Fury]

You've missed the point of moderation. Moderation is not to stop discussions or arguments, but to make sure they are conducted without flaming, spamming, etc.

You miss a crucial exception: Completely unproductive argument. A 40 minute argument that goes nowhere, even if conducted without a violation of the literal rules, should still be ended. As things are, I don't think we have any moderators capable of squelching out the constant pointless arguments going on; at least not in any kind of productive manner. (Banning everyone involved, muting the whole channel, mass kicks and threats: solutions of that type are not productive in properly ending pointless, but civilized, arguments.) This is a problem.

Not all discussion must have a point. However, all argument must; lest it is simply many people spinning their wheels to kick up a cloud of dust.

 

[Captain Griffen]

You miss a crucial exception: Completely unproductive argument. A 40 minute argument that goes nowhere, even if conducted without a violation of the literal rules, should still be ended. As things are, I don't think we have any moderators capable of squelching out the constant pointless arguments going on; at least not in any kind of productive manner. (Banning everyone involved, muting the whole channel, mass kicks and threats: solutions of that type are not productive in properly ending pointless, but civilized, arguments.) This is a problem.

Not all discussion must have a point. However, all argument must; lest it is simply many people spinning their wheels to kick up a cloud of dust.

That moves into the realms of spam, which I already said should be avoided. But ending them properly takes some level of skill (and respect from those involved). That is lacking, as you say.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Spammers are the main reason for ignore, as to be fair those are the only people I ignore since you don't care about what they have to say. Trolls and assholes I don't ignore because well shit, I want to know what that bastard is saying about my mother, you know? If they get banned for being pricks, I feel happy, but if I just ignore them, I'm left with this bitter taste in my mouth like the moderators aren't doing their jobs.

It's this attitude that resulted in some of the problems this topic was created to discuss.

It's a user's duty to turn the other cheek when someone is picking a fight. You report if he's making an offense, or you ignore him. You don't fight right back or wait in anticipation for him to get what you believe are his just deserts. That's neither mature nor productive.

If I see someone breaking a rule, I ding Ghan or some other person with chat powers, and I wait patiently and maybe take a screenshot or two.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

It's this attitude that resulted in some of the problems this topic was created to discuss.

That I like to see people that harass me get taken care of by Mods? Damned right it's this attitude that resulted from some of the problems this topic was created to discuss -- It's this attitude that is trying to get those problems fixed. I'm actually happy you tried to be clever by repeating what I said already back at me, it was a perfect segue into my main point.

It's a user's duty to turn the other cheek when someone is picking a fight. You report if he's making an offense, or you ignore him. You don't fight right back or wait in anticipation for him to get what you believe are his just deserts. That's neither mature nor productive.

I agree, but nine times out of ten that just won't happen. That is a perfect example of why we wish all people were as benign as you suggest, but that they clearly aren't and therefore mods must exist to take action as necessary.

If I see someone breaking a rule, I ding Ghan or some other person with chat powers, and I wait patiently and maybe take a screenshot or two.

Yeah, and that's great, but say no one has chat powers who is on? This argument of yours only strengthens the fact that there must be chat mods who can be trusted for when those who already exist (ie. Admins/whatever) are not available or online.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

That I like to see people that harass me get taken care of by Mods?

That you think adding fuel to the fire will solve anything.

Damned right it's this attitude that resulted from some of the problems this topic was created to discuss -- It's this attitude that is trying to get those problems fixed. I'm actually happy you tried to be clever by repeating what I said already back at me, it was a perfect segue into my main point.

Oh, I don't try to be clever. My wit just feeds off the bittersweet sap secreted from your contentiousness.

I agree, but nine times out of ten that just won't happen. That is a perfect example of why we wish all people were as benign as you suggest, but that they clearly aren't and therefore mods must exist to take action as necessary.

And you think that because this action is never going to happen, you're not even going to attempt doing trying it out?

Yeah, and that's great, but say no one has chat powers who is on? This argument of yours only strengthens the fact that there must be chat mods who can be trusted for when those who already exist (ie. Admins/whatever) are not available or online.

Yes, there need to be chat mods, but if there aren't, take a screenshot and, if need be, report his ass in the Admin Contact forum. This might even be better if you're looking to getting him his just deserts. After all, revenge is a dish best served cold.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

That you think adding fuel to the fire will solve anything.

Somehow, people like yourself are convinced that things will magickally fix themselves if you just sit on the sidelines and will it so. Hey, as much as I wish that were the case, unless some people stand up and make it happen, it just won't.

Yes, there need to be chat mods, but if there aren't, take a screenshot and, if need be, report his ass in the Admin Contact forum. This might even be better if you're looking to getting him his just deserts. After all, revenge is a dish best served cold.

I did that once. Ralle didn't seem to think the person was insulting me and couldn't find merit for a ban despite the wonderfully indignant language the individual felt fitting to fling at me.

Oh, I don't try to be clever. My wit just feeds off the bittersweet sap secreted from your contentiousness.

My (and your) disputatious nature is certainly not the topic of discussion, so unless your 'wit' has any more thread derailing to do, you could keep your sap to yourself. Send me a PM and we can whip up a storm if you really see fit, however I will not have you taking this thread further off course than it already is.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Somehow, people like yourself are convinced that things will magickally fix themselves if you just sit on the sidelines and will it so. Hey, as much as I wish that were the case, unless some people stand up and make it happen, it just won't.

I don't quite seem to grasp what you expect a powerless user to do that can make a chatroom argument any less disruptive. Adding to the argument most certainly will not help.

I did that once. Ralle didn't seem to think the person was insulting me and couldn't find merit for a ban despite the wonderfully indignant language the individual felt fitting to fling at me.

If it's a repeat offender, keep a log of all of his acts of trolling, flaming, spamming, or anything else that breaks the site's rules. If it's a one-time offender, let it go.

I don't quite understand your whole "Net Vigilante" idea, that adding to an argument will somehow contribute to taking you one step closer to ending it. That's just not going to work, no matter how right you think you are. Reporting and ignoring isn't always effective, but it's better than trying to flame, spam, and troll right back. Even, as you say, "sitting on the sidelines" will cause less problems than attempting to fight back with a rule breaker when you, in fact, have no powers.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

I don't quite seem to grasp what you expect a powerless user to do that can make a chatroom argument any less disruptive. Adding to the argument most certainly will not help.

Well, if the thread hadn't been derailed so badly you would grasp it quite well. If the "powerless user" rallies together with other "powerless users" and says to the administration "Hey, we want some people that can help out in chat so we don't feel so powerless when people are being mean/etc. to us!", then those people together can make a difference -- And lo' this topic exists as a result!

There is no "net vigilante" idea here, you're just misconstruing everything I've managed to say in a way so as to make it seem there is. This is not me saying we should all rise up and gain power and give way to some form of anarchy or whatever, this is me suggesting that chat mods have a reason to exist purely for well, you know, moderation's sake.

Welcome to ten posts ago.

 

[Sansui]

@myspacebarbroke

I love you say you are against people adding to the arguments to fix the(the squeaky wheel gets the oil) problem but are completely for people to be little tattle tale bitches and run to their mommies with screen shots and complaints to mods(which results in a ban to a user that doesn't know what they did at the time and only pisses them off. Because mods and admins have a serious problem here with explaining anything. They like to use smart ass comebacks and retarded I say so attitudes. Or refuse to elaborate anything at all or give any reasoning. Mostly because they can't or the reason they have is flawed.)

I also love the fact that you actually like the idea of people being annoying bastards and complaining about everything other people do to mods so they can get banned at a later time so you can get your revenge. That is so petty and pathetic. In some cases its needed but you seem to want it for ever single spammer or person you deam mean. Grow not everyone is an asslicking bitch, and some people will tell you whats what straight up without holding punches. If you can't take it ignore it or get the fuck off the internet.

 

[Gilles]

@myspacebarbroke

I love you say you are against people adding to the arguments to fix the(the squeaky wheel gets the oil) problem but are completely for people to be little tattle tale bitches and run to their mommies with screen shots and complaints to mods(which results in a ban to a user that doesn't know what they did at the time and only pisses them off. Because mods and admins have a serious problem here with explaining anything. They like to use smart ass comebacks and retarded I say so attitudes. Or refuse to elaborate anything at all or give any reasoning. Mostly because they can't or the reason they have is flawed.)

I also love the fact that you actually like the idea of people being annoying bastards and complaining about everything other people do to mods so they can get banned at a later time so you can get your revenge. That is so petty and pathetic. In some cases its needed but you seem to want it for ever single spammer or person you deam mean. Grow not everyone is an asslicking bitch, and some people will tell you whats what straight up without holding punches. If you can't take it ignore it or get the fuck off the internet.

It's not the "tattle tale little bitches" that are the problem there, it's the mods, again.

 

[Hakeem]

What? Why would you do that?

Certain users persist in harassing everyone and it's inconvenient to have to ignore them both every time you rejoin the chat and every time they rejoin the chat.

That's one of the biggest differences between ignores and bans. Bans are indefinite, ignores aren't. I don't think it's intelligent to change ignore until it's a one-action-fits-all-circumstances option, but rather embrace the fact that hey, there are different ways of dealing with things! What a novel idea!

That's why I don't think we should just get rid of all moderation. I do support moderation of chatrooms.

It sounds as if you didn't fully read my post.

That's great, wonderful, so why has it been a problem then?

Has it? From my experience it has not. The major problem with the chatroom is consistency, and the rarity it is to find someone willing and able to moderate a chatroom. I mean, think about it, moderating a chatroom is moderating the day-to-day chit-chat that people do all the time.

Trolls and assholes I don't ignore because well shit, I want to know what that bastard is saying about my mother, you know?

That why I only ignore spammers. XP

If they get banned for being pricks, I feel happy, but if I just ignore them, I'm left with this bitter taste in my mouth like the moderators aren't doing their jobs.

If they're only trolling me, like in whispers or something, ignore does the trick.

See the problem people are having with many moderators is that they do not have a neutral hand. Chat moderators who are trying to stop 2 users from arguing should stop both of them from arguing despite who may or may not be correct.

I think this is mostly a problem with the chat.

You miss a crucial exception: Completely unproductive argument. A 40 minute argument that goes nowhere, even if conducted without a violation of the literal rules, should still be ended. As things are, I don't think we have any moderators capable of squelching out the constant pointless arguments going on; at least not in any kind of productive manner. (Banning everyone involved, muting the whole channel, mass kicks and threats: solutions of that type are not productive in properly ending pointless, but civilized, arguments.) This is a problem.

ending them properly takes some level of skill (and respect from those involved).

Without some form of respect, it becomes very, very, hard.

"Hey, we want some people that can help out in chat so we don't feel so powerless when people are being mean/etc. to us!"

"I see what you mean. I have implemented a fully functional ignore command. Enjoy your power."

this is me suggesting that chat mods have a reason to exist purely for well, you know, moderation's sake.

"Sheesh you're a whiny bunch of users. There I've set up a channel with moderation."

which results in a ban to a user that doesn't know what they did at the time and only pisses them off. Because mods and admins have a serious problem here with explaining anything. They like to use smart ass comebacks and retarded I say so attitudes. Or refuse to elaborate anything at all or give any reasoning.

I think the best thing for a user who is breaking the rules, is to inform them of what they are doing, so they can learn not to do it in the future. Obviously some people are breaking the rules on purpose, and that's when the best course of action becomes punishment.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

"Sheesh you're a whiny bunch of users. There I've set up a channel with moderation."

If the administration is complaining about the users caring too much, then you've really got something backwards along the way.

It sounds as if you didn't fully read my post.

I did, but really, I like to explain myself and say something meaningful, otherwise I may as well say nothing at all.

Anyways, I've beaten this to a pulp and it seems that nothing is going to change, so I'll take my leave of this back and forth discussion. I'd prefer to not let my post count ascend past 100 or something crazy like that.

 

[Andriejj]

Like chat was the most important part of the page...

Just make those rooms/channels, like you're planning to, and the problem will be fixed. Make one room named Offtopic or something like that (read: for talking bullshit, which is 80% of the chat activity) and if someone starts insulting other users and their mothers in a different room, then gtfo.

 

[NearbyHermit]

Guys,could we stop chat controversials and focus more on the forum!

I definitely needs more activity and somewhat attraction.

 

[brad.dude03]

I don't think the forum needs any more activity or attraction. We normally have hundreds of users online at the same time, and they're quite attractive as far as I'm concerned. It's a non-issue if you ask me.

 

[NearbyHermit]

I wished that we gave a bit more attention to that guy that had the idea of an Arcade in Hive!

 

[Pyritie]

I wished that we gave a bit more attention to that guy that had the idea of an Arcade in Hive!

No, as this is a wc3 modding site, not an arcade site.

 

[NearbyHermit]

Still,many websites have them,respected websites I have to mention.

 

[brad.dude03]

I honestly don't give a damn. Everyone opposed this the first time it was brought up, LET IT DIE.

 

[NearbyHermit]

Sure thing,but I sudgest we take some measures,to increase or to keep the popularity!

 

[link598]

I wished that we gave a bit more attention to that guy that had the idea of an Arcade in Hive!

You meant me.

We have 10,000 active user so i don't think we need an arcade section.

We have wc3 map here so people can play them.

 

[Gilles]

Sure thing,but I sudgest we take some measures,to increase or to keep the popularity!

What kind of popularity do we want? I don't want to keep the popularity if it means making this site anything but a modding community. Let's focus on continually making this a good modding site, if it becomes popular for that reason, good, if not, it'll be a site for a few of us who still enjoy modding wc3.

 

[Elenai]

We don't want popularity...we already have enough noobs coming in.

We need QUALITY! That's what we need