Close Topic Options

Since when is that a 'golden rule', or hell, when did that even come up? I don't remember anything about that here.

(THIS POST WAS REMOVED BY REQUEST)

But why? What's wrong with an active member becoming a mod, or anything else for that matter?

(THIS POST WAS REMOVED BY REQUEST)

Or it could be taken as the staff is very involved and social with all members.

I'm with Atrum on this one. Why the heck can't someone who is clearly deeply involved with the forums be a part of the staff? I'm not speaking specifically about Carver, here--he just happens to have such a post count--I'm speaking in general. Why should a high post count be a factor for denying modship? Shouldn't the decision on who should be staff be made based solely on the merits of the applicant?

It just seems insane to discount someone because their post count is high. That has nothing to do with their potential to be a good moderator.

I rarely consider post count to be an indicator of anything when I look for moderators. With a community like IDW, that runs for over a decade, post count really can't reflect anything. Heck, I can't even tell if someone is active by looking at their post count, unless of course they have very low post count.

In agreeance with Pear, Don and Atrum, I don't think that is how most people would perceive a #1-poster mod/admin. To be honest, I thought you were going to say the problem would be that it would look like there is such little activity, the only people really posting are the mods! That would be a more legitimate argument!

This post has been edited by kyonpalm on Apr 27 2012, 10:50 PM

And even then, it's easier to simply look through their posts. Just take myself for example, joined 2 years ago, but have >200 posts, and seem to be one of the more active noobs now.

95.78 percent of all unwritten rules are made up on the spot as they are needed, and in a way that benefits who made it up in the first place.

Just like 92.98 percent of all statistics are.

Speaking of rules...

Minor revisions to the forum guidelines have been applied as of today.

Did you know that double posting has been written as a warnable offense even after we shut off the 72-hour bump limit? Rule removed!

The warning system has been written so as to actually be understandable. Specifically, the "warn cooldown" provision was heavily retooled to reflect the directives I relayed to the mod team a few weeks ago.

I took the time to correct a fair amount of Perry's "interesting" grammar throughout the guidelines.

We're streamlining things, and staff communication is beyond my expectations. I couldn't be prouder of IDW right now!

(THIS POST WAS REMOVED BY REQUEST)

I would reword that a bit further. The way it is worded now, instant warning level decreases ( or even restarts ) are something to be expected:

It's should not be sometimes. It should be a minimum of 30, possibly higher depending on factors such as repeat offenses, severity of offense, and so on and so forth...

The other thing I feel is in need of further tweaking is the following :

Withdrawal from posting, that part is fine. But if one does not demonstrate improved posting behavior at all, from the one that earned him the warn to begin with, it should be followed by further warns, which will eventually result in a ban. The second part of the sentence is just redundant, especially since it is followed by this :

That part was thrown in by Perry, not me. I'll get to work on it when I have the time. Right now I'm prepping for moving out, so my time is very limited.

Kinda figured as much...

Not urgent at all, good luck on the move!

(THIS POST WAS REMOVED BY REQUEST)

I had a little bit of time this morning to revise the guidelines.

- Warn Level reduction text has been completely rewritten. It should look a lot better now.

- Ban Lift guideline was edited to remove the reference to the now-defunct Judiciary Committee.

Oi! I have 350 posts! Where's my ability to create a custom title!?

We removed it on account of all your incessant whining.

You have a custom title already... where's the problem?

According to the guidelines, members can edit their own titles at 800 posts, not 350. You gain the privilege of having a custom title at 300, but you have to ask mods to change it.

Oh. Can you specify that on the guidelines please? It only goes up to 300.

@N1
But ... I just ... awwwww...

Something seems to be up with the mobile site:

https://idforums.net/index.php?showtopic=44...5&#entry1236757

It looks like when you make a post, it adds the "[ Post made via Mobile Device ]" bit, but when you edit it, it adds that bit again. Can this be fixed?

It's fixed. They won't show up twice when you edit the post now.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

As expected of our coder-in-chief.

It's at the very bottom of the guidelines, which details the member titles and privileges.