|
|
Post by Darknezz on Dec 17, 2008 13:08:32 GMT -5
When I said crossing the line I meant saying something you know will start an argument... and you do this especially when you are voiced. Actually, I do it all the time; It just seems more apparent when I'm voiced because I don't have to wait to smack someone in the face with my arguments. Again, I can't stand stupid rules like "No voiced viewers," especially when there's also no consistency in the mods' decision to voice or not, when mods can remove other mods' voiced viewers with no good reason, when there's been no justifications for the rule in the first place. When a rule is full of that many holes, I just can't stand it. Again, even if I'm not voiced, I could care less, because while I'll be sitting there, sending one message every two minutes, I'll know that at least something changed, at least some of the holes were filled. That, and I hardly use regular chat when it's in slow mode unless it's to tell people to stop spamming or to read the rules. That said, it occurs to me that I probably wouldn't care as much had I not been one of the voiced viewers that had it wrongfully removed. I probably wouldn't have noticed. The thing is, it did happen to me, and now I'm concerned about it. Even if it's a ruling to never voice anyone among the mods, that all the mods follow, I'll be happy. Consistency, a justification (because every decision needs one), no one being wrongfully unvoiced, the holes will be filled. |
|
|
|
Post by mypallyowndu on Dec 17, 2008 15:01:04 GMT -5
But can't consistency be the justification? It's what justifies coordination problems (there is no substantive reason why we drive on the right instead of the left).
And must we be Kantian in our rules? I prefer a pragmatic approach that allows mods to decide for themselves whom to voice and whom not to voice (or a rule to voice no one at all). Indeed, mods are chosen for their special, gravely serious task because they have demonstrated sound judgment and an even temper. Why not have faith in the stringent criteria employed to select mods in the first place?
But, if you insist on a categorical rule, here's what I think works best: Mods, and only mods, can voice people if and only if the mod, after a careful balancing of dependent reasons, decides that the person should be modded.
(I think my right cheek might have developed a sore from my tongue being in it. But only a minor one).
|
|
|
|
Post by Darknezz on Dec 17, 2008 18:21:38 GMT -5
But can't consistency be the justification? It's what justifies coordination problems (there is no substantive reason why we drive on the right instead of the left). If there is no other reason, yes, consistency can be a justification. No one said it couldn't. And must we be Kantian in our rules? I prefer a pragmatic approach that allows mods to decide for themselves whom to voice and whom not to voice (or a rule to voice no one at all). Indeed, mods are chosen for their special, gravely serious task because they have demonstrated sound judgment and an even temper. Why not have faith in the stringent criteria employed to select mods in the first place? The problem I have with that, Pally, is that when there is no consistency, mods will, apparently, overrule other mods, as though one is greater than another. When there is no consistent rule of allowing voiced viewers and a list of people that shouldn't be voiced, it falls into what it is now. That said, to decide if someone should be on the "No Voice" list, it's a decision amongst individual mods, as you say; Just let the other ones know when someone's abusing voice. But, if you insist on a categorical rule, here's what I think works best: Mods, and only mods, can voice people if and only if the mod, after a careful balancing of dependent reasons, decides that the person should be modded. Again, that's the problem; None of the mods can reach a consistency on allowing person A to be voiced but not person B. (I think my right cheek might have developed a sore from my tongue being in it. But only a minor one). Valuable knowledge. |
|
pennz0il
Junior Member
4pp Chat Mod
Posts: 65
|
Post by pennz0il on Dec 17, 2008 23:43:38 GMT -5
OKAY I've had enough.
Darknezzz that day chrono (I believe) had you voiced. I asked him why he voiced you in a PM because you were arguing with someone. We conversed it a while, he said you were helping with rules, and I was fine with it. Our conversation drifted to nothing and then HE un voiced you and dave okay? Then he sent me a PM letting me know he was taking off for a bit and that he un-voiced the two of you because dave was inactive and you were arguing, and spamming the rules link excessively. He said good luck and was on his merry way.
THE END.
and there is no "no voiced viewers rule" in fact you see the words from the big man himself "I prefer a pragmatic approach that allows mods to decide for themselves whom to voice and whom not to voice " Perfect. i couldn't have said it better myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darknezz on Dec 18, 2008 0:26:12 GMT -5
OKAY I've had enough. Darknezzz that day chrono (I believe) had you voiced. I asked him why he voiced you in a PM because you were arguing with someone. We conversed it a while, he said you were helping with rules, and I was fine with it. Our conversation drifted to nothing and then HE un voiced you and dave okay? Then he sent me a PM letting me know he was taking off for a bit and that he un-voiced the two of you because dave was inactive and you were arguing, and spamming the rules link excessively. He said good luck and was on his merry way. THE END. And again, I honestly don't care about my self, or that day. I only brought it up again because I probably wouldn't care as much if it weren't me, hell, I probably wouldn't have even noticed. and there is no "no voiced viewers rule" in fact you see the words from the big man himself "I prefer a pragmatic approach that allows mods to decide for themselves whom to voice and whom not to voice " Perfect. i couldn't have said it better myself. I know there's no rule about, that's what I'm getting at. There needs to be a decision; To voice, or not to voice. I can't stand all the holes in the logic of having each mod decide on whether to voice people or not. It's ridiculous and there's no reason for those holes to be there. Plus, getting back to the argument of why voicing viewers is a good idea, no one has addressed why it isn't, aside from "people might abuse it," to which we already brought up a solution of having a blacklist in the mod forum. |
|
|
|
Post by inquisition on Dec 18, 2008 20:14:35 GMT -5
Does it really matter that much to you Darknezz?
If it does.. I feel.. bad for you.
|
|
Ultimatum
Junior Member
"The One and Only"
Posts: 167
|
Post by Ultimatum on Dec 28, 2008 18:09:28 GMT -5
Don't you need a mic jk
People should only be voiced if they supposed to
help a 4pp member on a game.
EX:Like Miss Joker Girl helping Brad with Fatal Frame
|
|
ard
Junior Member
fear the beard.
Posts: 51
|
Post by ard on Dec 29, 2008 0:22:06 GMT -5
The whole system of voicing members is, to me, flawed. There are some who are voiced and talk about unlikeable shit, and there are some who aren't voiced who actually have something to say. But while it pisses me off, I really have no interest in being voiced. I have other things to do, so a minute between messages is actually pretty normal for me.
Still, I hate it when some voiced members type random crap like ">|" and "hewo everyone!!!"
Since I have said this, I might have lost respect for some of you, but this whole "voice" system is pretty screwed up.
|
|
|
|
Post by uberryan on Jan 5, 2009 3:05:28 GMT -5
eh it's a trade off on my end, one day i'm surprisingly voiced, the next i'm eating my minute/2 minute wait to speak up again.
|
|
halfjaw
Devoted Member
Everyone's Favorite Spammer
20%
Posts: 931
|
Post by halfjaw on Jan 5, 2009 11:05:31 GMT -5
some mod randomly voices me.
?_?
|
|
Icarus94
Devoted Member
Captain MacMillain
By the way i ain't your daddy.
Posts: 958
|
Post by Icarus94 on Jan 6, 2009 1:25:07 GMT -5
yeah i was voiced on wednesday by lenali for good reason, then unvoiced friday by a ninja apparently because no one would say they were the one who unvoiced me, i wasnt breaking any rules in fact i was talking to one of the mods at the time.
i just wanna know who unvoiced me, not knowing these things annoys me
|
|
|
|
Post by Darknezz on Jan 6, 2009 1:45:56 GMT -5
yeah i was voiced on wednesday by lenali for good reason, then unvoiced friday by a ninja apparently because no one would say they were the one who unvoiced me, i wasnt breaking any rules in fact i was talking to one of the mods at the time. i just wanna know who unvoiced me, not knowing these things annoys me Voice expires after a while, but yeah, one of the mods has just been unvoicing voiced people. |
|
xerotwo
Junior Member
Searching for random intruders....
Posts: 171
|
Post by xerotwo on Jan 26, 2009 7:58:28 GMT -5
Then what is your reason to be voiced Darknezz? (not trying to be against you or anything related)
|
|
|
|
Post by Darknezz on Jan 26, 2009 8:05:42 GMT -5
Like I've said countless times, there's no reason that those of us who are here all the time and are actually productive in chat, not just spouting "LOL YAY BRAD! BEARELL ROLL! TURN OFF SLOW MODE!" not to be voiced.
The fact of the matter is that if we didn't have all of the idiots in chat, and only those of us who actually use it to communicate with other people, we would never need slow mode, because we know how to shut our faces.
|
|
|
|
Post by Travis on Jan 26, 2009 13:51:58 GMT -5
i'm fairly certain we have agreed on a system. not sure if it is really in affect though.
last time i checked.... a mod can voice whoever the hell they want, or feel appropriate voicing. The only catch is, when the mod or the user leaves, they have to unvoice them. If that person is helping 4pp or something and the mod has to leave, give responsibility to another mod.
|
|
