' Wrote:Back before the "Faction Creation Request" subforum a group that wanted faction approval HAD to get the admins to sign off on an idea BEFORE posting it, THEN the community would rip them apart.
So they weren't automatic shoo-ins before this new subforum.
Not entirely true.
For a short period, that's how things were. Before that, people just got five members together, and created a faction. Eventually they posted an official faction status post. It was considered good form to talk to people, but not mandatory to talk to anyone at all.
Hmm. I'm gonna get back to the point, Del. So there is my question: how are you gonna "cure" proposed discussions from flame lynching? That's one thing for the start, in details.
Theory is all good but I'd like to know how it's going to be laid down on practice and how possible issues to be resolved around it. Just purely practical.
' Wrote:Hmm. I'm gonna get back to the point, Del. So there is my question: how are you gonna "cure" proposed discussions from flame lynching? That's one thing for the start, in details.
This is a needed action and should be mandatory for all factions before the admins obtained absolute power to accept of deny a prospective faction their rights. Any less is simply criminal to those forming a new faction, yet looking on the older and seeing hypocrisies in their status'.
I know they would feel jealous, suspicious and have ill feeling towards those telling them to "shape up or ship out" when a much older more established faction is doing the same. I am not pointing a finger at anyone, as there might be some things TBH get which others dont as well.
This is needed if we are to have equality between those factions new and old. That much cannot be denied.
I think this deserves a subforum "Faction Feedback". I also think that flame posts should be sanctioned with ingame credits or a ban for a short period of time in this subforum alone. A threat of a ban would certainly appeal to most people's better judgement over their raw feelings to keep their fingers off of the wrong keys.
' Wrote:Hmm. I'm gonna get back to the point, Del. So there is my question: how are you gonna "cure" proposed discussions from flame lynching? That's one thing for the start, in details.
Theory is all good but I'd like to know how it's going to laid down on practice and how possible issues getting resolved around it.
I will need to talk to an admin or three before I can set this in stone, as I stated earlier my pet theory on this is to have the topic locked, cleaned and then re-opened, with the offending parties warned not to repeat their antics but I'd need to speak to either a mod or an Admin to find out how much their work load would increase if, in the worst case scenario, every single thread were to break into a flame war at once.
Oh and thank you for getting back to the topic at hand, it is much apreciated. It just goes to show how easy it is to be pulled off track and not realise.
Saint Del is considered a holy healer of diseases of children, but also as a protector of cattle.
' Wrote:Hmm. I'm gonna get back to the point, Del. So there is my question: how are you gonna "cure" proposed discussions from flame lynching? That's one thing for the start, in details.
Theory is all good but I'd like to know how it's going to be laid down on practice and how possible issues to be resolved around it. Just purely practical.
I think this is something the Mods should answer, not Del. =/
Edit: We have flaming potential all over the forum. Those requests wouldn't be anything special.
' Wrote:There is a difference between a "flame potential" and deliberately setting a building on fire.
So very true, it's the deliberate arsonists we should be wary of on this one, those who would try to prevent a discussion taking place because they do not wish for a particular outcome good or bad.
Saint Del is considered a holy healer of diseases of children, but also as a protector of cattle.
' Wrote:I will need to talk to an admin or three before I can set this in stone, as I stated earlier my pet theory on this is to have the topic locked, cleaned and then re-opened, with the offending parties warned not to repeat their antics but I'd need to speak to either a mod or an Admin to find out how much their work load would increase if, in the worst case scenario, every single thread were to break into a flame war at once.
Oh and thank you for getting back to the topic at hand, it is much apreciated. It just goes to show how easy it is to be pulled off track and not realise.
Okay. So basically it boils down whether admins/mods will have time and whether they will find it reasonable. Fair enough. In this case let's wait for their reply first I'd say. Because regardless of the way this discussion goes it all comes down to one point.
Worst case scenario is actually a single thread breaking into flaming on several times as different people can start flaming in it one after another. Thus possibility growing exponentially. With flaming in such threads being sanction-able it also increases loadout on that part as well. Now that's a nightmare really. A mandatory one as you say. I'm starting to see less reasonable seed in there. While driven by good intentions, but also now seeing unhealthy ambitions (Judge Dredd syndrome) and I'm getting more skeptical about this.
Nothing else to add for now.
Quote:I think this is something the Mods should answer, not Del. =/
It's Del's proposal so I think it's ok to ask him about details of his proposal. Admins and moderators haven't said anything about this at all yet, so asking them about a proposal made by someone else for them doesn't sound right I'm afraid.
![[Image: Del1.png]](http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a344/Spiderjerusalem1979/Del1.png)
![[Image: Norway.png]](http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/images/Norway.png)