The first post is dated 05-29-08. The thread has roughly 2,800 relies. Which means that it is averaging 71.9 relies daily. Personally if WotC wants to keep the edition change baggage out of the general discussion area, then they should not have closed concerns and criticisms. And for the record, if someone expresses a negative opinion of 4e, they are still discussing, which meats the criteria for general discussion. Unless that criteria was changed to discussions of 4e which are only positive.
Howver those people who wish to praise 4th to no end will attack people for making threads that view 4th in a negative light.
Maybe a better approach you to be actually see if a thread is discussing just a "first impression" or not. Many threads that have been folded in there are NOT first impression, but detailed analysis of the game after playing for a while.
Maybe take mudbunny initiative with the DDI pricing model and have a directed discussion about first impressions of 4th edition.
Either way it makes a very unwelcome feel when a new user posts something to have it thrown into what many view as a garbage thread. I am not using vitrol either G_Z. It is a bin to dump things into and thus got the name.
For an old look see Hackers and the garbage file mentioned there.
Same thing. A dumping ground for things, and many people don't like being dumoed into other places. It isn't jsut about the threads topic as I mentioned to Solice in here asking about merging threads and such but about how closely the topics relate to each other, and if the difference the OP cites is a new subject. When the thread it is dumped into looks like it is made to make fun of ideas, it also doesn't help putting threads there.
Might as well dump all of Ken Troops DDI threads into the one about "Why DDI will not happen" or another one that predates it, but is on the same topic.
According to the form watch thread, on this board, any forum with over 50 new threads needs to split ASSAP. If we apply this to the mega thread
It doesn't apply to threads, only for forums, which is obvious for the all the reasons given for the "active threadcount" requirements that can be found in the first post of the Forumwatch thread.
And since I think you probably knew that, I imagine this is just a poorly conceived generic complaint about the megathread in the General Discussion forum.
And for the record, if someone expresses a negative opinion of 4e, they are still discussing, which meats the criteria for general discussion. Unless that criteria was changed to discussions of 4e which are only positive.
All first impressions threads -- positive and negative -- are merged therein. Moreover, the General Discussion forum still has plenty of non-merged threads expressing negative opinions of 4th edition. So for people to continue to cry that negative discussion is being squelched is obviously wrong to anybody who takes the time just to read some of the thread titles on the first page of the General Discussion forum, such as (as of the time of this post):
- 4th edition less magical?
- Answer the Haters: 4e and Role-Playing (begun by notorious 4E critic, psychoticrobot)
- DnD video podcast blows chunks
- Ink Smearing?
- Magic Missle 1974-2008
- hit points, 30 years later
What's the difference between those threads and the merged threads? The threads have a specific criticism that can actually be discussed and hasn't yet degenerated into a flamefest between so-called haters and so-called avengers.
Now, have some threads been merged inappropriately? Probably. The boards are run by humans and humans are prone to err. Have some threads not been merged that maybe should have been? Probably as well. That's going to happen. But it seems to me that the megathread has served its purpose. The General Discussion forum is no longer flooded with flame wars. Criticisms of 4E are more substantive than previously. There is room for discussions other than general 4E hatred or praise.
Answers to haters, is in itself hate speech and forbidden by the CoC.
Ink smearing is about the books, and not the game.
Magic Missile is about a single spell, and not the entire game.
HP are not about all of 4th edition either, but jsut how HP are rendered now vs then.
Gee, are some people not able to see what the topics are so they just THINK that some of those that were merged are first impressions, becaused they happened to glance at the topic title?
By the standards used so far the entire GD should be merged into the megathread as it is all about 4th edition, first impression or not.
Podcast is NOT about 4th edition, but the podcast.
Which is about 4th edition.
Answers to haters, is in itself hate speech and forbidden by the CoC.
No it's not. I don't think you understand what the phrase "hate speech" means.
Ink smearing is about the books, and not the game.
The books are about the game.
Magic Missile is about a single spell, and not the entire game.
Which is what's intended. Threads about the entire game in general will be merged. Threads about specific issues will not.
HP are not about all of 4th edition either
It's a criticism of 4th edition. Do you understand?
Gee, are some people not able to see what the topics are so they just THINK that some of those that were merged are first impressions
Gee, did you actually read my post before you responded to see that I actually responded to this point? (Apparently not.)
Some threads may have been merged inappropriately. Some may have been not merged inappropriately. Stuff like that happens in life and people who expect perfection are always going to be disappointed.
By the standards used
Well, there's your problem right there. You're making assumptions that no mergings ever would have been done in error. Stop making stupid assumptions.
Which is about 4th edition.
So any review of a movie about a comic book hero must be about the comic book hero itself, rather than poor production quality of the movie.
Glad to know those things cannot be independent of each other.
That means since the entire forum is about 4th edition then it should ALL be merged into the megathread.
It's a criticism of 4th edition. Do you understand?
All too well, I'm afraid.
Hellmute is absolutely correct. If you derive that any conversation or opinion about any facet of 4e; book quality, rules, observations about playing, etc, as the mega thread does, qualifies as a "first impression" of 4e. And therefor needs to be merged into the mega thread. Then it logically follows that any conversion about 4e meets that criteria of a "first impression". Which means the that every thread about 4e should be merged there, very thing on the general discussion, to optimizations forums, everything. Since all threads would fall under discussions of; book quality, rules, observations or impressions of 4e.
However that would be asinine as the entirety of the 4e boards would be reduced to a single thread. Which begs the question as to why some threads have the vague qualification applied to them, and thus merged, while others do not. And yet if one applies the commonly accepted definition of what "first impressions" mean then clearly not all threads in the first impressions thread are first impressions. For example: a thread about the inadequateness of the core books indexes is not a "first impression". Another observation to be made is that many positive reviews of 4e are merged, yet few positive threads which are not first impressions are merged. On the other hand, all negative reviews are merged, and many threads which are not positive towards 4e, or point out one of its short comings, such as poor indexes, are merged. You may draw your own conclusion as to what that could mean.
In any event, forum splitting policy is for forums only. however if a thread is receiving approximately 71 post per day, would it not stand to reason that perhaps the topic merits it own discussion area?
Which begs the question as to why some threads have the vague qualification applied to them, and thus merged, while others do not.
I have two suggestions, that I already made in this thread, and which you ignored, but I will repeat them in the vain hope that you won't ignore them.
1. Your analysis that they should have been merged was not shared by the VCLs (who make such determinations). Differences of opinion happen and if you're unwilling to accept that and move on, you're going to have a frustrating existence on this world.
2. Mistakes happen and sometimes threads that should (or should not) be merged are (or are not). If you cannot accept that mistakes happen then once again, you're going to have a frustrating existence on this world.
however if a thread is receiving approximately 71 post per day, would it not stand to reason that perhaps the topic merits it own discussion area?
Nope. That doesn't stand to reason since the analogy of threads to forums is a false one, as already expressed and to which you vaguely indicated you understand.
So any review of a movie about a comic book hero must be about the comic book hero itself, rather than poor production quality of the movie.
That is the logical fallacy commonly knows as "False Dichotomy"
A criticism of a comic book's production is a criticism of the comic book as well as a criticism of its production. A criticism of the comic book's story is a criticism of the comic book as well as its story. Both are subsets of the larger grouping of "Criticisms of the Comic Book".
That means since the entire forum is about 4th edition then it should ALL be merged into the megathread.
No. Specific criticisms that can be discussed civilly should remain separate. General criticisms should be merged. The difference is both elementary and, apparently, beyond your ken.
While I haven't recommended the merging of any threads into the mega-thread for a while, I did more than my fair share at the beginning of 4E. Here is my feelings on two of the major reasons why the 1st Impressions Mega-Thread was created:
- Time on the front page
When 4E first dropped, in the weeks immediately following, the front page of General discussion had an extremely high turnover rate. To the point that there were times when a thread with a new post would spend less than 90 minutes on the front page before being bumped off to the 2nd or third page.
Once discussion topics get bumped to the 2nd page, the amount of participation in the thread will drop dramatically, as a significant number of people will *not* go to the second page to look for a topic. - Edition Wars
All of the posts would end up in the same place. Pro-4E would enter threads where someone had expressed a general dislike of 4E and tell them (the OP) how wrong they were. At the same time, anti-4E people would enter threads that expressed a like of 4E and tell them (the OP) how wrong they were.
Both situations above result in the likelihood that a new user to the forums will participate dropping dramatically. For an online community that is built through discussion with other posters, this is *not* the way to build the community.
Thus, the decision was made to merge the threads. A similar decision (to merge into one mega-thread) was made for the untold number of Pros, cons and opinions threads.
The threads that were left unscathed tended to be discussions of very specific topics. In other words, the exact opposite of the topic of the "General First Impressions mega-thread". Topics like:
- Hp and its meaning in 4E;
- New wounds system for use in 4E; and
- Do the mechanics of 4e encourage or discourage RP.
Threads on a specific topic like this tned to encourage more discussion. When there are a number of different topics on the front page, the new user looks in, and sees a wide variety of topics, and is encouraged to stay. They will also be more likely to see topics on something that they wish to discuss.
I have two suggestions, that I already made in this thread, and which you ignored, but I will repeat them in the vain hope that you won't ignore them.
You seem to be getting upset by this discussion. Perhaps, if it is to close to home, so to speak, maybe you should avoid future participation with it. i really did not intend to offend anyone with it. However, I will respond to your comments, but again I mean no personal offense.
1. Your analysis that they should have been merged was not shared by the VCLs (who make such determinations). Differences of opinion happen and if you're unwilling to accept that and move on, you're going to have a frustrating existence on this world.
I have many differences of opinions, with many people. But that really isn't the issue. Also I'm not really sharing, or not sharing an opinion with the VCLs. I am however confused by the method through which said VCLs choose threads to be merged. For example, on the general board, alone, there are currently 7 threads which are very similar to ones that are already merged. (4th ed less magical, finally played my 1st 4th game, 4e is a lot like:, 4th - anyone changed the minds?, answer the haters: 4e and role-playing, ink smearing, and, 4e PHB quality) If the VCLs have judged these threads to be different then their many counter parts whom have been merged, what is different about them?
2. Mistakes happen and sometimes threads that should (or should not) be merged are (or are not). If you cannot accept that mistakes happen then once again, you're going to have a frustrating existence on this world.
Mistakes happen. I know this. however many of these mistakes have now exceeded multiple pages, and have been on the general board for days. That and there number of them is more then an honest mistake. If it is simply an innocent mistake, then this many innocent mistakes is now in the realms of incompetence. I can tolerate mistakes, but incompetence should be dealt with.
Nope. That doesn't stand to reason since the analogy of threads to forums is a false one, as already expressed and to which you vaguely indicated you understand.
So how much traffic does a thread/topic have to receive then before it gets it's own area? Or would something like that ever happen? and if not then why bother splitting out any of the threads, or forums. Everything could fit under the generic topic of D&D, in which case wouldn't it just make sense to merge everything into one thread? (By the way, from when I first posted this thread, until when this was typed out the mega thread has grown by 20 replies.)
That is the logical fallacy commonly knows as "False Dichotomy"
A criticism of a comic book's production is a criticism of the comic book as well as a criticism of its production. A criticism of the comic book's story is a criticism of the comic book as well as its story. Both are subsets of the larger grouping of "Criticisms of the Comic Book".
Read again which you are so apt to blame others for not doing. Not the word MOVIE in the section you quoted.
Let be bring in more in line with these very forums.
People say the 1st D&D movie sucked. Therefore using your concept, D&D sucks because people thought the movie and story presented in it was a representation of D&D, rather than just a poor movie.
No. The subject matter doesn't necessarily suck because the presentation did. Unless all those people trying to get me to "try 4th edition because it plays better than it reads" are jsut a bunch of trolls on these very forums.
AKA not judging a book by its cover.
So in the part I was talking about, the podcast, The people were talking about how it sucked as a whole. Not very many peopel were attacking 4th edition, but the production quality of the video podcast itself.
I can not see how you would think that is a judgement on 4th edition. If other online videos are bad does it make them inherently saying that D&D is bad since D&D has a video podcast? NO. Does it mean the subject matter presented in the vdieo is bad because of poor presentation? No.
As for your VCLs making the choices, then maybe they are not fully qualified to make these decisions if like you they think that the comments made about poor production value of the video podcast is against 4th edition rather than just saying the video podcast was bad.
Again, another case of people reading what they want into something rather than reading it for what it is. Overthinking something like Vacini from the Princess Bride, if you will.
Someone saying the video podcast sucks, means they think the video podcast sucks. Not that they think 4th edition sucks.
You seem to be getting upset by this discussion.
I'm not sure why you think that since I haven't used capitals, emoticons or other font tricks that normally indicate emotion. Are you claiming to possess some sort of telempathic abilities?
Mistakes happen. I know this. however many of these mistakes have now exceeded multiple pages, and have been on the general board for days. That and there number of them is more then an honest mistake. If it is simply an innocent mistake, then this many innocent mistakes is now in the realms of incompetence. I can tolerate mistakes, but incompetence should be dealt with.
Except you ignored the other option -- that you and the VCLs differ on what is appropriate for merger. Some of them may be mistakes and some of them may be differences of opinion. It appears that you and the VCLs have a very wide difference of opinion.
So how much traffic does a thread/topic have to receive then before it gets it's own area?
A single thread? I don't think a single thread should ever have its own area.
A topic? If it's a productive and substantive topic, then it should use the standards in forumwatch. But I don't think creating a new "Concerns & Criticisms Forum" qualified because I don't think that was ever a serious topic. It was a sewer where rhetorical garbage was left to rot. It was an eyesore and it only encouraged forumgoers to be uncivil to one another.
So if you think the General First Impressions thread should be expanded into a forum, we're going to have to disagree. I think that as unwieldy as that thread is and as difficult as it may be to make sure only the appropriate threads go there, it is infinitely better than the situation that existed when the C&C forum was operational.
By the way, from when I first posted this thread, until when this was typed out the mega thread has grown by 20 replies.)
I'm not sure to what conclusion that factoid is supposed to lead.
Read again which you are so apt to blame others for not doing. Not the word MOVIE in the section you quoted.
I noted it. It doesn't change my opinion.
People say the 1st D&D movie sucked. Therefore using your concept, D&D sucks because people thought the movie and story presented in it was a representation of D&D, rather than just a poor movie.
No, that's entirely backwards and not what I've said at all. I said making a general comment about D&D is different from making a specific comment about a facet of D&D (such as the movie). Yet you keep stating that I said the exact opposite. Odd.
I can not see how you would think that is a judgement on 4th edition.
Are you under some delusion that I think the podcast thread needs to be merged?!
If the podcast thread doesn't concern 4th edition that it should be moved to off-topic. However, it's obvious that the podcast thread does concern 4th edition, and therefore should not be moved. And since it is a specific, rather than general, comment on one aspect of 4th edition, it should not be merged.
Yet, somehow, you imagine that I ever said that the podcast thread was a general comment on 4th edition, and it is not. It is a criticism of an aspect of 4th edition, which is what I always said it is.
That is the logical fallacy commonly knows as "False Dichotomy"
A criticism of a comic book's production is a criticism of the comic book as well as a criticism of its production. A criticism of the comic book's story is a criticism of the comic book as well as its story. Both are subsets of the larger grouping of "Criticisms of the Comic Book".
You went on some tangent in response to my response about the video podcast.
How am I misunderstanding what you said? You didn't even include that it was a video being discussed here, nor that the production quality was being discussed, you just claim that the whole thing was about 4th edition.
Again, stating a video podcast sucks means nothing about the subject matter, like saying a movie about WWII being good means that WWII must have been a good thing.
They are not the same. You can have a good viideo production about a bad thing, and you can have a bad video production about a good thing.
One being good or bad, does not equate to the other being the same.
- merge all threads into on massive D&D thread; or
- Merge no threads
However, there are a number of possible options between those two extremes.
The position that you guys are taking could also be expressed as a False Dilemma.
I'm not sure why you think that since I haven't used capitals, emoticons or other font tricks that normally indicate emotion. Are you claiming to possess some sort of telempathic abilities?
Well you are being very sarcastic, and your posts seem to have an attacking attitude towards them. Also this last statement is a personal attack. Either you are upset, or rude.
Except you ignored the other option -- that you and the VCLs differ on what is appropriate for merger. Some of them may be mistakes and some of them may be differences of opinion. It appears that you and the VCLs have a very wide difference of opinion.
No actually I covered that, before the section you quoted. Which is really kinda funny given that your accusing me of ignoring what your posting. But you wouldn't do something like that, it would very hypocritical of you if you were to. You must have just missed what I said earlier, I'll repost it here for you:
I have many differences of opinions, with many people. But that really isn't the issue. Also I'm not really sharing, or not sharing an opinion with the VCLs. I am however confused by the method through which said VCLs choose threads to be merged. For example, on the general board, alone, there are currently 7 threads which are very similar to ones that are already merged. (4th ed less magical, finally played my 1st 4th game, 4e is a lot like:, 4th - anyone changed the minds?, answer the haters: 4e and role-playing, ink smearing, and, 4e PHB quality) If the VCLs have judged these threads to be different then their many counter parts whom have been merged, what is different about them?
A single thread? I don't think a single thread should ever have its own area.
A topic? If it's a productive and substantive topic, then it should use the standards in forumwatch. But I don't think creating a new "Concerns & Criticisms Forum" qualified because I don't think that was ever a serious topic. It was a sewer where rhetorical garbage was left to rot. It was an eyesore and it only encouraged forumgoers to be uncivil to one another.
There is a thread with 2,820 posts, at least 7 other threads on the front page of the general board, and at least 3 in this board, which indicate that your assessment is incorrect.
Further more posters don't require any encouragement to be uncivil towards each other, and even if they did, they receive plenty from posters like yourself.
So if you think the General First Impressions thread should be expanded into a forum, we're going to have to disagree. I think that as unwieldy as that thread is and as difficult as it may be to make sure only the appropriate threads go there, it is infinitely better than the situation that existed when the C&C forum was operational.
Again we are going to have to disagree on this one. Where you insist tossing everything into a refuse heap, I see a thread that had a noble purpose but has become so unwieldy that no one is going to use it. So instead of it fulfilling it's actual propose instead it is just something else for people to complain about, while the general board continues to get clogged with the edition wars, and fan-boys raving at the mouth attacking everything that comes in range like rabbit dogs. I also disagree that anyone who was any sort of community leader at all would not allow this to continue, with out doing everything in their power to do something about it, but actually argue that it is some how positive for this community.
I'm not sure to what conclusion that factoid is supposed to lead.
Think about it for a while. I'm sure something will come to you.
Well you are being very sarcastic, and your posts seem to have an attacking attitude towards them. Also this last statement is a personal attack. Either you are upset, or rude.
Hold on. You claimed I was getting emotional before I asked if you were telempathic. So were you looking into the future, seeing that I would ask a sarcastic question and then judging me on that basis? So you can read emotions form a distance and see into the future? Wow!
I'm not upset. The only emotion I feel right now is bemusement. You're the one trying to inject emotional ulterior motivations into what you are reading and then complaining when I don't actually comport with the presumptions you've made.
No actually I covered that, before the section you quoted.
Yes, but you failed to consider a combination of the two, which is yet another false dichotomy.
There is a thread with 2,820 posts, at least 7 other threads on the front page of the general board, and at least 3 in this board, which indicate that your assessment is incorrect.
Not at all. The general thread should not get its own forum for the reasons I suggest. The ten active threads that are not general first impressions of 4th edition are nowhere near the number of threads that would be needed to justify its own forum, nor does it make sense to group the threads on the basis of the fact that are criticisms, rather than placing them in forums that already exist about the subtopics they discuss.
In general, the forums are divided on subject matter, not the tenor of the post.
Where you insist tossing everything into a refuse heap
I don't think everything should be tossed in a refuse heap. Only the general first impressions, whether positive or negative, of 4th edition.
Think about it for a while. I'm sure something will come to you.
Well, if you don't want to be clear in your communications, I don't know why I should do the work for you. Explain what you meant, please.
You went on some tangent in response to my response about the video podcast.
Because your response on the video podcast was itself an off-topic tangent (although you appear unable to recognize that).
I identified at least six threads on the first page (of 25 threads) that criticized an aspect of 4th edition. You claimed that none of my citations were relevant and in justifying that position, you pointed out that each of them merely criticized an aspect of 4th edition (like the production quality) rather than 4th edition generally.
When I pointed out why criticizing an aspect of 4th edition is a subset of general criticisms of 4th edition, you accused me of conflating specific and general criticisms.
When I pointed out that I never did that, you then went back to my original post where I didn't do that, and claimed that I am going off-tangent.
I'm only trying to follow your argument, and I'm afraid if I got lost it was because I was given a very meager trail of breadcrumbs to follow on that score.
Again, stating a video podcast sucks means nothing about the subject matter, like saying a movie about WWII being good means that WWII must have been a good thing.
If the movie is part of the War Department's propaganda with respect to why we're in the war than it is an aspect of discussing the war. So, yes, discussing Wizard's own podcast is discussing an aspect of 4th edition. SO it was appropriate of me to include it on the list.
My only real complaint with the megathread is that there are a lot of threads that should not have gone there....
Yep there where a couple of great threads that started as 'reviews' but within ten posts where civil and good discussions about the good and the bad in 4e. Then they and a bunch of others got tossed into the megathread and those discussions stopped flat because no one knew what the hell to do. There are some talks still going, I post there sometimes, but most of the time its about some random thing posted as any real thread that gets sent there with any 'real' discussion is stopped flat. Its almost a running gag.
Problem with splitting the thread is that if it happened would anyone care to post on those new threads?
People threw in the accusation that only anti 4e threads were merged, and this was proven false.
As I said, I'm willing to tone it down as long as it doesn't become what it was when 4e first came out.
The threads that were left unscathed tended to be discussions of very specific topics. In other words, the exact opposite of the topic of the "General First Impressions mega-thread". Topics like:
Hp and its meaning in 4E;
New wounds system for use in 4E; and
Do the mechanics of 4e encourage or discourage RP.
Threads on a specific topic like this tned to encourage more discussion. When there are a number of different topics on the front page, the new user looks in, and sees a wide variety of topics, and is encouraged to stay. They will also be more likely to see topics on something that they wish to discuss.
I just wanted to highlight this because that's the point of merging similar threads. I've left quite a few posts (both pro and anti 4e) that were different and specific enough from any sort of "first impression".
Thank you mudbunny for doing a good job of communicating in a civil manor and being accountable for what you did. I agree with you. At the beginning something needed to be done. The purpose has been served, and now it is being abused and/or misused.
For those that don't get it, try to wrap you head around what was being said. The thread has enough activity to have it's own forum. It isn't one thread. It's a bunch of threads. You can't say that one thread doesn't deserve it's own forum because it is one thread if you freakin' made it one thread from a bunch of threads. If there is too much activity in a specific topic in the general forum then make it's own forum. It's not that difficult of a concept. Either make a forum or quit merging all the threads into oblivion. What you have done is useless or even worse.
For those of you that get it. Don't try to argue. Just read the thread and see the illogical in the arguments being made. Lack of comprehension or perhaps lack of actually reading before replying. I have learned that it is just an exercise in frustrations to try to get a point across around the misapplied logical arguments and complete lack of civility. It will only get you worked up. It will never result in common understanding.
Edit: Deleted
II wonder how anyone can be a voice of a forum without ever being selected by the people they are supposed to represent.
Point of correction: My name was actually suggested by several members of the What's a DM to Do Forum, much to the chagrin of StSteven who has had a personal problem with me since long before I became Forum Lead.
Point of correction: My name was actually suggested by several members of the What's a DM to Do Forum, much to the chagrin of StSteven who has had a personal problem with me since long before I became Forum Lead.
I have a problem with rude condescension. That is all. Suggestions by several people is not selection by the community. Showing respect and listening to the people that you are supposedly representing so that you can take the group opinion to WotC is what you are supposed to be doing, not arguing in a condescending manner when someone disagrees with something going on.
I am respectful to any and all members who have been or are respectful to me. Last I checked, my position as Forum Lead doesn't forbid me from responding in kind when someone is sarcastic or rude to me. As far as I am aware, the only person who has ever complained about my selection as a Forum Lead is you. And I am certain that both Community Management and Customer Service is aware of your complaints.
Let's drop this thread de-rail, all right?
If you look back at this thread, anyone can see that the rudeness and sarcasm was brought to the discussion by you, as usual.
You know how I feel, and I will respectfully drop this line of derailment. No if you will respectfully think about your tone then we will both be happy.
Actually no...the only ones aware of my complaints are you and the folks that read this thread.
Which includes Community Management, the folks you intended to hear your complaint. So, rest assured that your complaint has been heard by the appropriate people.
If you, or any forum members, are concerned that this thread is an insufficient means by which to have your voices heard as to the conduct of myself or any forum lead, you can also post your concerns to [thread=964362]this thread[/thread]. You can also post your concerns about Community Management in [thread=960704]this thread[/thread], which would include any criticisms about the manner in which forum leads were selected.
Which includes Community Management, the folks you intended to hear your complaint. So, rest assured that your complaint has been heard by the appropriate people.
Actually, you are the one I intended to hear my complaint. I would hope that you would reflect on you leadership position and post accordingly, especially when someone is bringing a complaint to "community management" about how something is being run on this board. That is all.
To the mods that delete or edit, at least send my comments along so someone with sense in charge of this whole thing can reflect (perhaps while reading this particular thread) on choices made for "community management" and the process for selecting the "voices."
As I am not "in charge of this whole thing", I thought you meant for someone else to see this. Community Management is the group in charge and they are reading the thread. However, you can also communicate to them by posting in either of the threads to which I linked.
Sorry, but I got confused when you wrote:
As I am not "in charge of this whole thing", I thought you meant for someone else to see this. Community Management is the group in charge and they are reading the thread. However, you can also communicate to them by posting in either of the threads to which I linked.
Only if it was deleted and you didn't see it, which seems to be the modus operandi around here with any criticism.
I can tolerate mistakes, but incompetence should be dealt with.
I agree.
Last I checked, my position as Forum Lead doesn't forbid me from responding in kind when someone is sarcastic or rude to me.
Perhaps true, but it doesn't help any, does it?
Maybe you could hold yourself to a higher standard of personal responsibility.
Especially when we see things like:
Well, there's your problem right there. You're making assumptions that no mergings ever would have been done in error. Stop making stupid assumptions.
As far as I am aware, the only person who has ever complained about my selection as a Forum Lead is you.
Add my name to the list.
If you are going to be condescending, you shouldn't be in such a position.
Check yourself, and lead on, "Forum Lead."
Why don't we add my name to the list as well. Especially after being banned for 24 hours for no flaming reason. Not a very good show of leadership.
I tried sending you a PM, but your account doesn't seem to accept them. I did not report you. I have no idea why your account was suspended. You should certainly take that up with Customer Service.
Why don't we add my name to the list as well. Especially after being banned for 24 hours for no flaming reason. Not a very good show of leadership.
Just for the record, FLs have no ability to ban people. We have no "pull" with CS. We cannot influence CoC decisions at all. The only things we can do is to use the report button, the same as everyone else.
Why don't we add my name to the list as well. Especially after being banned for 24 hours for no flaming reason. Not a very good show of leadership.
There's a "ban for 24 hours" feature and it has never happened to me...this is quite surprising.