*s

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
All,

So while I ran out and saw the utterly disappointing "The Departed,"


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm shocked that you feel this way. I thought this movie was awesome and had yet to see someone say anything to the contrary yet.

[NT!]

I haven't looked in on this in a while but here's my take.

I generally wait a bit before giving someone a * if they have a custom title and are a respected poster. I consider it carefully. Sometimes I pass on it.

When I don't, it's because they deserved it and they can live with it. It says in the sticky what the consequences are.

I have no problem with mods of other forums who have given thse posters custom titles brokering a *-removal somewhere down the line. I have never received this type of request however. But if one of your pet posters comes crying to you about a * and you want to do something about it, I think the most appropriate thing to do is to PM the mod who issued it.

NT

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with mods of other forums who have given thse posters custom titles brokering a *-removal somewhere down the line. I have never received this type of request however. But if one of your pet posters comes crying to you about a * and you want to do something about it, I think the most appropriate thing to do is to PM the mod who issued it.

NT

[/ QUOTE ]


This sounds eminently reasonable. Actually, I've been asked about B# removal by mods, and agreed to them as long as the user notes stay - a mod is right to be looking out for contributors of his own forum.

To this end it becomes even more important a note is added to user notes when a * is given/removed.

[SamIAm]

FWIW, I agree with the OOT mods; seeming power-hungry and arbitrary and punitive is their job, and they should do their thing. It does seem to make sense to append *s, so crappy posters' fancy titles are preserved (but it's a stretch to call an undertitle-joke "another mod's action".) I suppose it's fine to move it to the notes, but I worry they'll be less noticable by the people who deserve them, and there'll be more exilin'. (Not so bad, in the long run.)

By the way, I'd like to be listed in the "Power-Hungry" list. I move incorrect posts and delete spam with an iron fist!
-Sam

[citanul]

i, ugh, agree with sniper. i also don't understand why nick has to be such a total douche all the time in this forum. whatever.

dids, i'm still missing the point i guess, are we actually saying that the *s are scarlet letter and that's a good thing?

mb,

i thought the ovie was good, but not as good as the original. the nytimes movie critic who i usually don't like that much pretty much feels the same about the movie as i do. i felt the best stuff about the original was the conflictedness of the characters and a lot of ambiguity. this movie had too much cleaning up of those same ambiguities. also i didn't like what they did with nicholson's character at all. there's more stuff i wasn't too hot on, but yeah, mostly it's in the nytimes review.

c

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But seriously, I wish all you other mods who think you know OOT, would shut the [censored] up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nick, this is the Mod discussion forum... discussion between mods is what this forum is for [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

When you give someone a *, it impacts on that user's experience across 2+2, which gives non-OOT mods more than enough reason to feel the need to comment.

[/ QUOTE ]

[daryn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
posting IM data is much closer to posting someone's myspace info

[/ QUOTE ]

Cit, posting IM conversations is done all the time in OOT... are you saying that this shouldn't be allowed?

[/ QUOTE ]

it's different went both people approve of the convos being posted.. usually the two people are friends. either that or convos are posted where the OP is talking to some anonymous girl.. clearly different no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Daryn, I'm asking the question, because I am trying to understand where others drew a distinction between different types of IM conversation posting.

SO are you saying, that it is OK to post an IM conversation with some 3rd party who might or might not find out that it was posted; while its not ok to post an IM conversation with you, because you have an opportunity to tell the poster that he's a moron for posting it?

[/ QUOTE ]

no, i am not saying that.

the difference is anonymity.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
dids, i'm still missing the point i guess, are we actually saying that the *s are scarlet letter and that's a good thing

[/ QUOTE ]

i feel that way

[Ryan Beal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
not true. if that were true, then custom titles would basically be * immunity.


[/ QUOTE ]

Based on the new rules, custom titles should = * immunity


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how you could interpret it that way. But just in case there is still confusion about this, it's not true. *s are currently part of a system of moderation, and they absolutely can be used if a member has a custom title. Truthfully I get more nervous about all the custom titles being given than the *s.

I think the * system is fine. It needs to be applied appropriately, but I'm not going to ask the OOT mods to make any big changes here. If they decide that some of the ideas in this thread are worth using, they are, of course, free to use them.

[Sniper]

Ryan, I stand corrected, if you are saying that custom titles are not mod decisions covered by the rule.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
i also don't understand why nick has to be such a total douche all the time in this forum. whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

probably because the majority of the time, what you consider him being a douche is him just stating the obvious truth to other mods who are unable to comprehend it. That and when you cant rip on other mods in the public forums, you end up saving it all up for here.