Psy; Overmoderation

[Qdeathstar 1763]

Since my other topic has been answered (Not discussed), then i have a few points for Psy to consider.

Psy, Your moderators seem to have a lot of meaningless restrictions on what members can do. Merging and locking topics in GTA5 because there are threads that are related for example. Last time i looked GTA 5 general isn't exactly flowing with new topics. The whole point of merging topics is so that good topics don't fall to the second page to make room for four simular topics, but when you average 3-4 topics a day in GTA 5 general this isn't a problem.

The key to keeping new members is to make them feel important..

People don't like when you lock their topics, and as active as this place is, it's not really needed. You should consider getting rid of all the staff, or at least stopping them from making rediculous changes and locking topics / banning members "because they are annoying" ...

I can't believe a moderator would post a topic in the asylum called "Elitism", asking members if they should ban new members because they are annoying. But they did it. You know better than me, but i CANT believe that is good for the site, or for you personally.

Secondly, on the signatures... thought it was my computer fucking the signature up, turns it was Duffman.

I can see the need to control signature limits, but we didn't seem to have a problem with it before when there was 150 members online at anygiven time, and bandwith was an issue, so what has changed between now and then. I wanted to have a discussion about it, or to atleast hear your response... but Duffman locks the topic because it annoys him... I wasn't looking for duffman's respnse, because he doesn't own the site. He didn't seem to understand that.

Duffmann complains that he made the change becuase it's hard for him to tell the signature is over the 250px limit (for the image). If it's so close to the right size that you have to open up photoshop to make sure it ain't 251 pixels, then you need to find something else to do. Let it be. I can easily tell the difference between 250 pixel, and 350, for example. We've never had a limit on text in a signature, since the main concern was bandwith. If your going to place a limit on it, at least make it reasonable. 250 for image and text is too small.

Remember GTA -SanAndreas? You didn't even have a staff until it was requested by members... something to think about.

[OptimumPx 329]

I can't speak for anyone besides myself, but the only GTA V topics I lock are on the far side of retarded...that's the main problem we're having right now mostly due to the lack of any new game info at this point.

Random examples from some locked (and later deleted) GTA V topics:

"u think this time dey will show NUDITY??? i wanna walk into a strip club n see naked bitches lol"

"People got really bored of liberty city and really wanted sanandreas or vice city back but one day people will be wanting liberty city back imo"

"ALL CLUES POINT TO THE FACT THAT THE GAME MIGHT VERY WELL COME OUT ON THIS DATE" Talking about that May 24th nonsense

"Will the protagonist died in the end just like RDR,maybe if the protagonist has a son or a hot daughter that can be playable in the end,my opinion?I choose a hot protagonist daughter than a son that like reading books. What in your mind?"

[DuffMan 266]

Would you have kept both of these antagonist threads open then? Considering they are barely more than a few lines apart and talk about the same thing.

[Qdeathstar 1763]

Yes I would have. They don't do any harm, you can still see all active topics, and both members still feel like their topic is adding to the conversation.

If it does no harm I don't see the need to take action.

Gta-sanandreas.com didn't need moderators until it got active, igta5 probably doesn't need them either. Idle hands.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you guys are there for the front end of the site in terms of content development, and I think the current staff are the ones who done the most hard work for the site (news, content, ect) but for a inactive forum there's very limited need for moderators, especially when they make up new constraints just because they find something personally annoying.

To your point opx, if people post stupid topics,

A. They won't get a response any way and the topic will fall to the wayside

Or

B. members will berate the user until he becomes a villain in for the "good" members to build a community of active members around the "good" members.

See: harrier, gigabit?, psycho, Og loc

Yours sincerely, A very fine gentleman with an iPhone.

[narcolepsy 581]

A. They won't get a response any way and the topic will fall to the wayside

Or

B. members will berate the user until he becomes a villain in for the "good" members to build a community of active members around the "good" members.

Birds of a shit feather flock together Rand.

Most users dont ever change, they come to a GTA fan site, post their bullshit for a few weeks then leave to do it at another.

[ConQueSteD 552]

Just wondering I know it's sorta off topic but pertaining to what QD is talking about. What happened to the Rate the Staff thread or did it disappear from the move to GTA4.tv to iGTA?

[TreeFitty 2631]

Merging and locking topics in GTA5 because there are threads that are related for example.

On to your next point:

The whole point of merging topics is so that good topics don't fall to the second page to make room for four simular topics

So you want multiple topics about the same thing (pointless) but don't want the "good" topics (typically the first one the others get merged into) to fall down the page? Sense: this makes not.

People don't like when you lock their topics, and as active as this place is, it's not really needed. You should consider getting rid of all the staff, or at least stopping them from making rediculous changes and locking topics / banning members "because they are annoying" ...

I can't believe a moderator would post a topic in the asylum called "Elitism", asking members if they should ban new members because they are annoying. But they did it. You know better than me, but i CANT believe that is good for the site, or for you personally.

Very few times I've seen a lock as overkill. As for the Elitism topic, it was in regards to the complete tards (such as those who "work for Rockstar" if you don't recall). Stop exaggerating.

Secondly, on the signatures... thought it was my computer fucking the signature up, turns it was Duffman.

I can see the need to control signature limits, but we didn't seem to have a problem with it before when there was 150 members online at anygiven time, and bandwith was an issue, so what has changed between now and then. I wanted to have a discussion about it, or to atleast hear your response... but Duffman locks the topic because it annoys him... I wasn't looking for duffman's respnse, because he doesn't own the site. He didn't seem to understand that.

Duffmann complains that he made the change becuase it's hard for him to tell the signature is over the 250px limit (for the image). If it's so close to the right size that you have to open up photoshop to make sure it ain't 251 pixels, then you need to find something else to do. Let it be. I can easily tell the difference between 250 pixel, and 350, for example. We've never had a limit on text in a signature, since the main concern was bandwith. If your going to place a limit on it, at least make it reasonable. 250 for image and text is too small.

It's not completely a bandwidth issue. Scrolling past a tall image is just as annoying as a tall signature overall. I like the new enforcement.

In response to your "if people post stupid topics" options, typically the topic turns into a flame fest of calling the OP a tard.

For your complaints overall, you yourself have posted tard topics in almost a trolling manner. I laughed when you reported spam about a week and a half ago.

[Qdeathstar 1763]

Thanks for the response, TreeFitty.

A. They won't get a response any way and the topic will fall to the wayside

Or

B. members will berate the user until he becomes a villain in for the "good" members to build a community of active members around the "good" members.

Birds of a shit feather flock together Rand.

Most users dont ever change, they come to a GTA fan site, post their bullshit for a few weeks then leave to do it at another.

My point there wasn't that you can get people to change, but that who cares if they don't change. If they don't chage they are a rallying point. Someone the rest of the community can point the finger at, and say "I don't like you", all the while building relationships with each other. If you want an active forum, you want to build relationships. Having a common enemy makes this easier.

Merging and locking topics in GTA5 because there are threads that are related for example.

On to your next point:

The whole point of merging topics is so that good topics don't fall to the second page to make room for four simular topics

So you want multiple topics about the same thing (pointless) but don't want the "good" topics (typically the first one the others get merged into) to fall down the page? Sense: this makes not.

Actually, those weren't two seperate points, they were the same point. The point was that although at certain times, (eg, when the forum is busy) locking or merging topics has a purpose, when the forum is empty, and there are only 4-5 topics posted a day, theres no need to lock/merge simular topics because they don't reduce access to the active topics ( 4 good topics, 4 repetitive topics is still only eight topics, and all eight topics fit on the first page).

People don't like when you lock their topics, and as active as this place is, it's not really needed. You should consider getting rid of all the staff, or at least stopping them from making rediculous changes and locking topics / banning members "because they are annoying" ...

I can't believe a moderator would post a topic in the asylum called "Elitism", asking members if they should ban new members because they are annoying. But they did it. You know better than me, but i CANT believe that is good for the site, or for you personally.

Very few times I've seen a lock as overkill. As for the Elitism topic, it was in regards to the complete tards (such as those who "work for Rockstar" if you don't recall). Stop exaggerating.

You think they are complete tards. I hate to break it you but some of the most active members were complete tards when they first joined, Sir TreeFitty. I would also like you to revisit my point about Harrier, GigaBit?, Imaphatpimp, Omega, et al.

Secondly, on the signatures... thought it was my computer fucking the signature up, turns it was Duffman.

I can see the need to control signature limits, but we didn't seem to have a problem with it before when there was 150 members online at anygiven time, and bandwith was an issue, so what has changed between now and then. I wanted to have a discussion about it, or to atleast hear your response... but Duffman locks the topic because it annoys him... I wasn't looking for duffman's respnse, because he doesn't own the site. He didn't seem to understand that.

Duffmann complains that he made the change becuase it's hard for him to tell the signature is over the 250px limit (for the image). If it's so close to the right size that you have to open up photoshop to make sure it ain't 251 pixels, then you need to find something else to do. Let it be. I can easily tell the difference between 250 pixel, and 350, for example. We've never had a limit on text in a signature, since the main concern was bandwith. If your going to place a limit on it, at least make it reasonable. 250 for image and text is too small.

It's not completely a bandwidth issue. Scrolling past a tall image is just as annoying as a tall signature overall. I like the new

enforcement

.

Well, thats a personal preference. I disagree; Its not new enforcement. The signature requirements were always ment to refer to image size. I should know, i helped write them. Thats changed now, ok. Thats the point of

this

topic. Moderators change things for their

personal

benefit.

In response to your "

if people post stupid topics

" options, typically the topic turns into a flame fest of calling the OP a tard.

My response to that is... who gives a fuck. Do you care if a member flames a person for posting something stupid? Wheres the downside.

I see only upside for a less than active forum. Mr BadPost (as he's called) is a villian that all the good members can make fun of and talk about while waiting for new GTA5 information. I would again encourage you to look at the roles members like Harrier and Omega played in building forum relationships and activity. Having someone to hate isn't always a bad thing.

For your complaints overall, you yourself have posted tard topics in almost a trolling manner. I laughed when you reported spam about a week and a half ago.

I'm proud of my topics, i have no idea what your talking about. You thought they were stupid, i really wanted to know why kind of brick styles GTA would have. It got more than a few responses in an otherwise dead forum before the "all too proper" authorities decided to move it to the "old member only zone" known as the asylum.

I reported spam from a "established" member, because i find it Ironic that 95 percent of the rules apply only to new members.

Besides that TreeFitty and Duffman, i already know how you feel about it. Psy wil probably agree with you to, but i'd like him to atleast thing about what i'm saying. Theres no need for all these nit picky rules right now.

EDIT: Finally, who ever decided it was a good idea to make it so you could only have 3 quote boxes, should really really go for a walk.

[Mercy 30]

I feel this is none of my business but i will put my two cents in anyway.

I agree with the locking of topics at times, it is good to hate members as it brings the old members together, like that qwerty guy and even fresh.

However i do understand that the forum does get overrun with nonsence topics, i think maybe leave a topic open for a day, if there are no responces to it then lock it, that way its not affecting anyone becasue noone was posting in it anyway.

As for merging, doesnt bother me too much because you can still reply to the poster.

The sig limits make sense. QD u cant say u want a larger sig area (which no one else seems to worry about) and then also report someone for spam, its a bit hipicritical. But i do agree with majority or ur points QD. We want you to be strict but not to the point that the forum regulars run out of steam, taking the mick out of noobs passes the time.

[Stoic Person Eater 159]

Leave it to a woman to put in her two cents when no one fucking asked for it. Next time, you get slapped.

I haven't been paying much attention to the GTAV forums. I HATE the ramblings of these proud americans who stake their claim why CJ will be back; why the protagonist is the guy from the balcony!; FINGERLESS gloves; so I have been avoiding the whole GTAV speculation threads. I figured with the new game coming out; these new members will grow like tadpoles in the threads into mighty frogs, that I can play frog baseball with, metaphorically. Maybe I need to start patrolling the GTAV threads again; no one can kill a shitty thread like I can. I'd like to apply for moderator immunity while I ethnically cleanse the forums of gypsies, proud americans, and other undesirables killing the common sense on this site. I don't want to risk increasing my Warn % before the fucking game even comes out.

[OptimumPx 329]

Well, Q, you want to see what happens when we leave stupid topics open for ridicule?

This is what happens.

I hope you're happy.

[Mercy 30]

Yeah but that guy has posted 11 times, do we really care about him? It also made me, stoic and that danny guy bond over his stupidity, whish makes the forum fun, he asked for our opinions. I enjoyed myself lol.

[Stoic Person Eater 159]

Glad I logged in this morning. I love shitting in people's cereal!

[DiO 4730]

I think they're doing a fine job. The elitism topic was a joke. Burning n00bs in the asylum is fuckin funny and its the proper place to do it.

Peace out.

[Qdeathstar 1763]

Yes I'm happy, look at that topic, look at the replies, hell it brought stoic back. That guy is a villain. Tell people once to stop Flaiming, then suspend them for a day if the ignore you, but in the mean time, good times. Tons of activity.

Yours sincerely, A fine gentleman with an iPhone.

[DuffMan 266]

We already do that. Thanks for the advice though.

[Qdeathstar 1763]

Nah, you lock the topic or delete it, silly

Yours sincerely, A fine gentleman with an iPhone.

[OptimumPx 329]

Let me see if I understand what you're saying...

You say that when we lock a stupid topic we drive the new member who created it away, so instead we shouldn't lock the topic and let other people flame and spam in it in such a way that will drive the new member away...in the name of community.

The hell are you smoking?

BTW, letting Stoic spam in that topic didn't 'bring him back' he was already here. Hell he's got more posts then me.

Just letting the retard topics sit there while other members turn them into mini spam fests in not a good idea, no matter how you slice it.

[Mercy 30]

Fine then, we are just going to have to find another way to berate new members...

I do see ur point tho, i mean these people are idiots but its not fair to flame them (even if i highly enjoy it) i think just keep it as is, ur doing a good job abd we dont want to get over run with idiots now do we.

[Qdeathstar 1763]

Opx, see: Harrier, gigabit

Yours sincerely, A fine gentleman with an iPhone.

[OptimumPx 329]

Who and who?

[Qdeathstar 1763]

Harrier and Giggabit were huge spammers back in the day before GTA-SanAndreas had moderators. They were villains, and basically the whole communited hated them. They provided a catalyst for members to form relationships with one another that kept them comming back to the forums to find out what "harrier" was going to do next and whether or not we could finally get Psy to have moderators. It was a community building experience that let NEW members experiment with their posts without getting blasted, banned, or nitpicked with. Now if you make one mistake, your topic is locked, deleted and your told by moderators what an idiot you are. Not exactly the most friendly place.

Before your time, I guess. Which is my point, none of the current moderators were around when GTA-SanAndreas didn't have moderators.

I was on my Iphone so i couldn't quote before, but this:

Just letting the retard topics sit there while other members turn them into mini spam fests in not a good idea, no matter how you slice it.

Why is it not a good idea. Before when people where creating a lot of topics locking the bad ones was a good idea to limit clutter, now we don't have to worry about clutter so much.

[DuffMan 266]

It's been 7 years since those days. Times have changed, I can't be the only one who is past the novelty of being anonymous on the internet and wanting a place to discuss ideas with intelligent people. Why would you have several versions of the exact same topic? It just makes no sense. Keep it all in one place and you aren't constantly reading the same thing over and over.

Topics in the GTA V forum also appear at the top of the main site. We don't want that constantly filled with stupid shit, so it has to be moderated.

[OptimumPx 329]

Q, are you saying that it was so much better back before there were mods. When there were two spammers making a mess of things and people were asking Psy to add mods.

Are you kidding me?

Also, I stick by my point that its not a good idea to let people spam in the GTA V section. It's not the Asylum, its the GTA V section.

[Mercy 30]

Topics in the GTA V forum also appear at the top of the main site. We don't want that constantly filled with stupid shit, so it has to be moderated.

^^

This is a good point. I mean for those who are thinking of joining it puts them off if they think they will be attacked, but then again if they think there post will simply be ignored or 'locked' this may put them off to. In a way its swings and roundabouts.