NationStates Jolt Archive

With increased moderation, stricter rules and stiffer punishments the general character of the forum is becoming one in which any heated discussion is immediately declaimed as flame or flame-bait and locked without significant thought in the name of the preservation of peace. The restrictions placed on the speech of people on this site not only degrade the quality of the debates which take place here, but spit on the memories of the outstanding debates that once graced these pages. As the rules become stricter the thickness of the skins of forum members thins, and with the thinning of that skin the need for more rules becomes evident. The reccurring cycle is leading inexorably to a forum that is simply not worth spending time on. It's a slippery slope worthy of an issue and the proper steps to prevent the ultimate demise of this forum are not being taken. I implore all those who enjoyed this forum before it began is sad slide to join me in calling for an end to the steady increase is thoughtless moderation and a return to the days when intelligent people debated here.

*calls for an end to the steady increase is thoughtless moderation and a return to the days when intelligent people debated here*

I agree that it has gotten worse recently, but I don't know if its because of the modding or because the quality of debate has simply worsened. But I can think of some examples of harsh modding back in the day too, so.... I dunno.

<Snip>...join me in calling for an end to the steady increase is thoughtless moderation and a return to the days when intelligent people debated here..

*calls for an end to the steady increase is thoughtless moderation and a return to the days when intelligent people debated here*

Heh...they look almost identical.

I find your arguments to be quite the opposite of reality. With our increased moderation it would seem to me that todays discussions have the ability to be much better than before. There is no more Marathons to come in and disrupt everything, and debates can proceed undistrupted from griefing, spamming, or otherwise malicious content.

I believe the main problem in the degradation of our debates, is mainly in whom is debating. No offense, but todays nations are not what they used to be, in grammatical structure, writing skill, creativity, or much of anything. Frankly, if you want to find a good debate, nowadays you have to plan it beforehand because most who become involved are just plain insane.

Don't blame the moderation, blame the debaters.

I can't really agree. Sorry, but stricter Moderation? Last time I checked, a guy went around for several days making one-line race-hate flame-bait comments in topics at random, and he was given several gentle warnings before a final one and a deletion. He had time to clock up what was it? 70 posts? And I seem to recall people being quite happy to see him go. No way. And look up some America debates conducted just before Christmas. I took part in around four fairly long ones, and boy were they heated, but I stayed with them and somehow restrained myself from locking them at the first derogatory comments about the French. And really, the continued existence of Labrador speaks volumes. I really think this is a bit exaggerated.

<Snip>...join me in calling for an end to the steady increase is thoughtless moderation and a return to the days when intelligent people debated here..

*calls for an end to the steady increase is thoughtless moderation and a return to the days when intelligent people debated here*

Heh...they look almost identical.

it's called copy & paste

-self edited-

I find your arguments to be quite the opposite of reality. With our increased moderation it would seem to me that todays discussions have the ability to be much better than before. There is no more Marathons to come in and disrupt everything, and debates can proceed undistrupted from griefing, spamming, or otherwise malicious content.

Certainly you are correct, we are now free of the hassles of Marathon and his ilk, but we are also free of the fine debaters who felt that the changes in the forum were too great to allow for them to stay, and we are also free of the ability to becoming involved in debates without fear of moderation at any slip. Sure we don't have to worry about stupid people messing up otherwise fine debates because they're all gone, but the other people in those fine debates can't say anything meaningful for fear of going the same way as the senseless flamers.

I believe the main problem in the degradation of our debates, is mainly in whom is debating. No offense, but todays nations are not what they used to be, in grammatical structure, writing skill, creativity, or much of anything. Frankly, if you want to find a good debate, nowadays you have to plan it beforehand because most who become involved are just plain insane.

Don't blame the moderation, blame the debaters.

Absolutely blame the debaters. Of course I blaim the changes in moderation for the changes in the class of debaters, so I feel that, by extension blaming moderation for the changes in the quality of debate is safe enough.

Yep...you're right. All the good debaters left...

However, I doubt it's because of over-moderation. Perhaps they got frustrated with the number of differing viewpoints allowed to remain here. Perhaps they got tired of the same circular arguments (I know I did).

Maybe they just ran out of topics to debate as all the topics were run into the ground.

Seriously though, if you see such a problem with the debates currently going on, I think the only advice that can be given is to well...start one yourself! Don't whine about a lack of debates, start one up, and see whom we now have here who can replace those who left. Seriously, just because much of the older generation has left, doesn't mean that the younger nations cannot be good debaters. We all had to start somewhere.

Yep...you're right. All the good debaters left...

However, I doubt it's because of over-moderation. Perhaps they got frustrated with the number of differing viewpoints allowed to remain here. Perhaps they got tired of the same circular arguments (I know I did).

Maybe they just ran out of topics to debate as all the topics were run into the ground.

I would say that there is little question that all of these things played a role, but I can think of nothing but the changes in moderation that is significant enough and coincided so neatly with the dispersion of so many players to satisfactorily explain what happened.

I hope you appreciate that I fault not specific people, but the attitudes of all the moderators and all the players in this matter and I could see how you might percieve it as an attack against yourself. I have counted you as a friend since we first spoke here and I hope I can continue to do so still.

Seriously though, if you see such a problem with the debates currently going on, I think the only advice that can be given is to well...start one yourself! Don't whine about a lack of debates, start one up, and see whom we now have here who can replace those who left. Seriously, just because much of the older generation has left, doesn't mean that the younger nations cannot be good debaters. We all had to start somewhere.

I have started debates and few see a second, much less a third page. To some degree this must be attributed to myself, but I had much greater sucess in the past. Sure there are people around now, both new and old who are worth talking to, but they are few and far between and the massive population of newbs with nothing on their mind but the spam at hand make it very difficult to be hopeful when starting a discussion.

I've noticed that I have been getting more and more frustrated with posting here. I didn't think anything of it until I read this thread.

The thing that makes me mad the worst is when people use false logic and circular reasoning to support their claims. Also, most debates I get into turn into them calling me names or telling me I'm naive (and most can't spell it right).

Kudos to you two; this is probably the most interesting thread I've posted in in a month!!! 8)

this is probably the most interesting thread I've posted in in a month!!! 8)

I'm not sure if I should be proud or depressed at that fact.

this is probably the most interesting thread I've posted in in a month!!! 8)

I'm not sure if I should be proud or depressed at that fact.

True, quite true.

Be proud, I guess ;0)

Yep...you're right. All the good debaters left...

However, I doubt it's because of over-moderation. Perhaps they got frustrated with the number of differing viewpoints allowed to remain here. Perhaps they got tired of the same circular arguments (I know I did).

Maybe they just ran out of topics to debate as all the topics were run into the ground.The erm, small amount of self interest aside, Neut has a point. You had a kind of debating royalty, of whom not so many are left either in number or integrity. No-one has quite stepped up to replace them...

As I posted in the thread on this in general:

The biggest problem is that no one debates anymore - they simply start accusing each other of being from the other camp and being from the other camp as being the reason that they're arguing the way they are.


That and circular arguments.


Until YOU debaters fix those problems, and quit pulling that crap, you'll always have worthless debates.

Until YOU debaters fix those problems, and quit pulling that crap, you'll always have worthless debates.

This is a prejudice which simply cannot be stood for. I have never on this site, not once, had a debate in which I attempted to attack my opposition's points by stating their label and calling it stupid. I have never participated in any flaming of a prejudicial nature and I have never spoken harshly to anyone in a debate who was not hurting the quality of that debate in some form. I have never degraded a person for their ideas except where those ideas were logically (and I don't mean that like some people do when they say "liberals aren't logical" because logic is a simple mathematical principle that cares nothing for partisan politics) flawed, and neither have many of the former debaters on this forum. And yet the quality of debate suffers and I cannot help but ask myself what else has changed to cause that. Absolutely there are people who "debate" with nothing but flame and partisan mudslinging, but for the rest of us there must be some explanation of the changes that took place.

Has it finally come to this? Debating the nature of the debates? We've hit a new low my friends...

Has it finally come to this? Debating the nature of the debates? We've hit a new low my friends...

In formal debate this is the most fun you can have and it's the most effective way to win a debate. Critiques on the nature of debate are far more interesting in general than discussion of politics or religion or current events becuase no one enters them with a predetermined set of judgments and a mandate that they must stop at nothing to spread those judgments to others because they are correct.

I have just two points.

1. The problem is not the Moderators the problem is petty persoanl shots people taking instead of engaging in actual debate.

2. This site does not belong to you, we as users of this site have no rights over it. This is Max Barry's site and he can impose whatever rules he chooses. Don't like it, leave.

Until YOU debaters fix those problems, and quit pulling that crap, you'll always have worthless debates.

This is a prejudice which simply cannot be stood for. I have never on this site, not once, had a debate in which I attempted to attack my opposition's points by stating their label and calling it stupid. I have never participated in any flaming of a prejudicial nature and I have never spoken harshly to anyone in a debate who was not hurting the quality of that debate in some form. I have never degraded a person for their ideas except where those ideas were logically (and I don't mean that like some people do when they say "liberals aren't logical" because logic is a simple mathematical principle that cares nothing for partisan politics) flawed, and neither have many of the former debaters on this forum. And yet the quality of debate suffers and I cannot help but ask myself what else has changed to cause that. Absolutely there are people who "debate" with nothing but flame and partisan mudslinging, but for the rest of us there must be some explanation of the changes that took place.

Our Earth, I really don't think that Neut was attacking you directly, but was instead referring to many of the debaters in general. As you, yourself, have noted, there are people who "debate" like that, and that was who Neut was referring to.

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/salusasecondus/salusasecondus2.jpg
SalusaSecondus
Tech Modling

2. This site does not belong to you, we as users of this site have no rights over it. This is Max Barry's site and he can impose whatever rules he chooses. Don't like it, leave.For some reason, people seem to find this little catch all phrase really ingenuitive or clever. It works fine for the swastika thing, but surely you don't believe it is MB's intention that all debate on these forums suck? If it is, then I think I might well leave.

I have just two points.

1. The problem is not the Moderators the problem is petty persoanl shots people taking instead of engaging in actual debate.

2. This site does not belong to you, we as users of this site have no rights over it. This is Max Barry's site and he can impose whatever rules he chooses. Don't like it, leave.

To your first point the only result of the petty personal attacks employed by some of our less savory members is an increase in moderation applied as a blanket over all players. The saying "a few bad apples spoil the bunch" comes to mind, but I've always thought that to be a terrible saying. The idea that the actions of a few fools should destroy the experience of a content and respectful majority disgusts me. I do not believe that I, or anyone else should have to suffer for the actions of some who I had no control over. I do not belive that restrictions should be created and enforced without thought in the name of "fairness." I cannot believe that the most important thing to the members of this forum is equal treatment even over reasonable treatment.

To your second point, I have said the same a number of times, but it should be noted that I am not commenting on the rules themselves here, but on their application and the reactions to that application by the general forum public.

Until YOU debaters fix those problems, and quit pulling that crap, you'll always have worthless debates.

This is a prejudice which simply cannot be stood for. I have never on this site, not once, had a debate in which I attempted to attack my opposition's points by stating their label and calling it stupid. I have never participated in any flaming of a prejudicial nature and I have never spoken harshly to anyone in a debate who was not hurting the quality of that debate in some form. I have never degraded a person for their ideas except where those ideas were logically (and I don't mean that like some people do when they say "liberals aren't logical" because logic is a simple mathematical principle that cares nothing for partisan politics) flawed, and neither have many of the former debaters on this forum. And yet the quality of debate suffers and I cannot help but ask myself what else has changed to cause that. Absolutely there are people who "debate" with nothing but flame and partisan mudslinging, but for the rest of us there must be some explanation of the changes that took place.

Our Earth, I really don't think that Neut was attacking you directly, but was instead referring to many of the debaters in general. As you, yourself, have noted, there are people who "debate" like that, and that was who Neut was referring to.

It would not surprise me if he was not speaking specifically of my actions, but there is no doubt in my mind that I am included in "YOU debaters." The idea that all debaters are responsible for the actions of a select few is saddening, and I hope we can agree on that.

2. This site does not belong to you, we as users of this site have no rights over it. This is Max Barry's site and he can impose whatever rules he chooses. Don't like it, leave.For some reason, people seem to find this little catch all phrase really ingenuitive or clever. It works fine for the swastika thing, but surely you don't believe it is MB's intention that all debate on these forums suck? If it is, then I think I might well leave.

I agree that it would be unreasonable to believe that that was Mr. Barry's intention, but the results are the same either way. As is I have already announced that I intend to spend less time here because it's simply not worth it any more. I'm glad, at least, that people were willing to discuss this manner while avoiding some of the tactics which are so often employed in other debates. That's the beauty of a non-partisan debate I guess, though a few people have tried to bring politics into it.

I wonder also if part of the problem could be the greater number of nations that post on the forum, I would imagine that in the past it would have been easy to get a small group debating a certain topic, which in turn would keep it pretty much on the level.
Now everyone wants to get his 2 cents worth and a lot of that would also include spamming and flamming.

I wonder also if part of the problem could be the greater number of nations that post on the forum, I would imagine that in the past it would have been easy to get a small group debating a certain topic, which in turn would keep it pretty much on the level.
Now everyone wants to get his 2 cents worth and a lot of that would also include spamming and flamming.

The sheer size of the forum certainly doesn't help. It's hard to keep track of conversation when new material is being written faster than you can read it.

There are plenty of folks who will cry 'flamebait!' whenever a view with which they disagree with draws their attention. It has become a terror tactic used to silence fellow forumers who have seen this disturbing trend.

2. This site does not belong to you, we as users of this site have no rights over it. This is Max Barry's site and he can impose whatever rules he chooses. Don't like it, leave.For some reason, people seem to find this little catch all phrase really ingenuitive or clever. It works fine for the swastika thing, but surely you don't believe it is MB's intention that all debate on these forums suck? If it is, then I think I might well leave.

I agree that it would be unreasonable to believe that that was Mr. Barry's intention, but the results are the same either way. As is I have already announced that I intend to spend less time here because it's simply not worth it any more. I'm glad, at least, that people were willing to discuss this manner while avoiding some of the tactics which are so often employed in other debates. That's the beauty of a non-partisan debate I guess, though a few people have tried to bring politics into it.And thats what I'm saying. Because its clearly not the owners intention to stifle debate, we are justified in saying that we want it differently.

Spherical objects
Powerbroker


Founded: 21 Jun 2003
Posts: 2760

Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2003 4:19 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our Earth wrote:


I haven't noticed a particular group of new people spreading thoughtless hate, but I try to ignore them, so maybe I'm just blocking it out.

The link I am making between the early deletions and the changes in the site is this: From the time of those deletions everyone has been someone more attentive to their own posting, worried that they might go the same way that Marathon and Philandrea did. This worry has only been agrivated by what would otherwise be very slight rules adjustments and the increased workload faced by the moderators without increased capacity has led to far more snap judgments and quick actions where longer thought and different, or no, action would have been more appropriate. All these events taken together have created an atmosphere in which many of the former members of this forum did not feel comfortable and in which serious debate is difficult at best to find. Much of the time it seems that a serious debate starts and is invaded by a few mindless flamers and the entire thread is locked and the debate is destroyed. Like I said before (or maybe in the other thread) a few bad apples does, but shouldn't spoil the bunch. Serious and respectful debaters should not suffer because of the antics of a few idiots.


First (and I DON'T want get political on this excellent thread), those deliberate hatist provocatuers do exist believe me. However, I think I get your drift now. Why don't we petition the mods / max for a kind of 'long service, members only' forum. IE a forum where only posters with a clean record can log in and if even then , some people become agressive flamers or whatever, they are suspended for a time period. This would mean that only people intent on 'serious' discussion would get in at all in the first place. It could be pass-worded by the mods and maybe even have a dedicated mod. Strict rules as a sticky on entry and off we go. Whadja think?

A link from the General for your consideration ladies, gentlemen and knights of the realm.

Yeah, cuz, it's not like Marathon and Philandrea were notorious for flaming those they didnt agree with as opposed to merely passionately debating...

I'm as guilty as the next of making close minded posts. It's part of having opinions, and sometimes speaking about them before you're calm and thinking lucidly. Nevertheless, something that has really bothered me on the forums is incredible amount of circular topics, and topics that really have no fundamental validity to them. Nation-bashing would be at the top of my list of things that bother me. Without making my own personal gripe list, how's this for an idea? Within the forums, simply set aside certain areas, and within those areas, stipulate that certain topics simply won't be discussed. Or to take it even further, simply categorize more clearly the areas of discussion. And most importantly, make it clear that blatantly negative themes (Nation Bashing, obtuse arguments about religion, race, sexuality, etc.) are not just unwelcome, they really serve no purpose. Nation States amuses me as a game, is retarded as a simulation, and is awe-inspiring when it comes to the sheer number of educated, opinionated, and inspired people. Perhaps if Nation States were just a little better defined and managed, the Forum could really become the brain trust I see it as.

Yeah, cuz, it's not like Marathon and Philandrea were notorious for flaming those they didnt agree with as opposed to merely passionately debating...

Oh the pain...............

Hey, you did it to me until I got you to actually debate w/me.

Hey, you did it to me until I got you to actually debate w/me.

True. I sent you the flowers and chocolates, what more do you want?

I have to agree alot with Neut's first post on this. When I first started on NS, all of what I did was in general, and a good portion of it was debates. More recently (since around 1.1k posts), I've spent less and less time in general mostly because I've already debated everything. A couple times. And even when I do go into debate topics, I rarley post more then a couple times.

I also think that there are certainly some debaiters far to willing ot cry 'flaimbait' on almost anything. If someone gets the slightest bit out of line when talking to them, a thread pops up in moderation (I've seen this many times). That definetly contributes to the "fear of getting out of line" that you are talking about, and doesn't help the general quality of debates at all.

On another note, I'm sorry to hear that you won't be spending as much time on NS, since when I do feel like debating something (usually when there is some new issue to talk about - most recently the "What to do with Sadam" topics, plus a couple random debates) your topics and posts are among the most well thought out/most original/all around best there are.

As a Mod and (occasionally, although more offline) a debater, I can certainly say that there are more people making what I'll call "silly" posts than there were, say, 6 months ago.
By "silly" I mean such things as responding to the initial post in the 10-page topic which has already moved beyond the original topic (for example, from a discussion about whether or not Saddam should be executed through to a discussion about the morality of retributive versus rehabilitative justice). This is the sort of thing which will invariably cause problems, as the (quite rightly) infuriated people who'd been carefully arguing for rehabilitative justice as a principle must then turn around and patiently explain to the new poster that the debate had moved past that point.
Were it not for the fact that it has been a gradual progression, I'd be tempted to say that it's a direct result of Christmas and the associated holidays and an influx of people with more time than sense. However, that can't be the case over a 6-month period.
My honest opinion is that NS is simply becoming a victim of its own popularity. As more people hear about and decide to take advantage of a free web-based game, more people appear on the forums and do what I've outlined above. As more of this (as well as spamming and so on) takes place, the increase in "moderator activity" to compensate is viewed as a more heavy-handed approach to moderation.

One last thing (based on Enodias response). I don't think that it's entirely becuase of the holidays that this is happening, but I think they might be amplifying it a bit more. I realise that waiting is a pain and a half, but I think (or hope at least) that it'll get better in the next few months (or at least not drop as fast).

Also, there is a little bit of a chain effect happening. One of the more popular posters leaves, and as a result someone else decides to leave. The same thing is happening with the general forum chat threads. Some of the royalty leaves, it isn't quite as good for the others and they start leaving, too. Economics come to mind (even though I dislike them and know little about them) with the cyclic economy. NS grows up, gets some royalty, some of them leave, a couple others leave, it starts going down hill, more leave, then some new people start getting popular and it starts going up hill.

That's an optomistic opinion, and I know it, before someone says something. It's kinda the way thigns seem to me, but I also kinda want to say it's all just me hoping and hit "ctrl-a, del" right now.

I suppose that Or Earth has a point, but comapred to what state the forums used to be in I would say that the moderators are/have done a good job for the better. However, I must add that some are becoming too strict, IMO.

I hope that Naleth is right. Theoretically, that cycle should always happen.

Back in the days when I'd just joined, there were a whole bunch of nations who I really looked up to - Kitsylvania being the best example. After they all died off, I thought NS would never be the same, but others came through - and again and again. I don't know who'll take over as the "royalty" after the current crop leave, and that's partly what makes things interesting, just waiting around to see who can be the next incarnation of X.

Anyone out there who's listened to The Twelfth Man - "The Final Dig?" might appreciate the analogy that just because there's no real second-in-command for the CCP doesn't mean that people won't try to take that position over.

I hope that Naleth is right. Theoretically, that cycle should always happen.

Back in the days when I'd just joined, there were a whole bunch of nations who I really looked up to - Kitsylvania being the best example. After they all died off, I thought NS would never be the same, but others came through - and again and again. I don't know who'll take over as the "royalty" after the current crop leave, and that's partly what makes things interesting, just waiting around to see who can be the next incarnation of X.

Anyone out there who's listened to The Twelfth Man - "The Final Dig?" might appreciate the analogy that just because there's no real second-in-command for the CCP doesn't mean that people won't try to take that position over.

That makes it sound very political - you know, like someone eyeing to take over the top position. But then I suppose it is.

It is very true that a lot of old people have left. I have been on NS for over a year and the 'royalty' has changed alot and I guess it will continue to do so.

--Double post--

General has ruined lives.

General has ruined lives.

How?

Infact, They would like general if it wasn't for all the people who do the things that they don't like.

Don't be anti-general.

General has ruined lives.

How?

Infact, They would like general if it wasn't for all the people who do the things that they don't like.

Don't be anti-general.

I know people who have had their lives ruined by it. I won't post names, for privacy's sake.

I know people who have had their lives ruined by it. I won't post names, for privacy's sake.

Lives ruined by general. That's quite sad.

That's crazy! If your life is ruined by an online forum like this then you really have no life to begin with.

(Not meaning to be rude or offensive).

I know people who have had their lives ruined by it. I won't post names, for privacy's sake.

Lives ruined by general. That's quite sad.

That's crazy! If your life is ruined by an online forum like this then you really have no life to begin with.

(Not meaning to be rude or offensive).

UPerhaps true, but some people do take it a bit too seriously.

UPerhaps true, but some people do take it a bit too seriously.

To have their 'life' ruined by it though - you'd have to take it very seriously.

UPerhaps true, but some people do take it a bit too seriously.

To have their 'life' ruined by it though - you'd have to take it very seriously.

Anyone who's going to allow their life to be "ruined" by an Internet discussion forum has to have serious mental issues in the first place, so it's probably not actually the forum that's to blame.

UPerhaps true, but some people do take it a bit too seriously.

To have their 'life' ruined by it though - you'd have to take it very seriously.

Anyone who's going to allow their life to be "ruined" by an Internet discussion forum has to have serious mental issues in the first place, so it's probably not actually the forum that's to blame.

That's what I was thinking.

BTW, glad to see you're still here! :D

UPerhaps true, but some people do take it a bit too seriously.

To have their 'life' ruined by it though - you'd have to take it very seriously.

Anyone who's going to allow their life to be "ruined" by an Internet discussion forum has to have serious mental issues in the first place, so it's probably not actually the forum that's to blame.

Meh, there are strange people out there.
Take a look at this. (http://www.wired.com/news/holidays/0,1882,48479,00.html)

Lets put it this way:

I met my wife online (many years ago, but the point remains). So, saying that discussing topics and meeting people online shouldnt ever affect your personal life is naive.


Regardless, we're not going off on that topic.

I'm still going to have to disagree with those who claim that just because certain nations left, the quality of discussions has gone down. For an example, I'm going to use another site I've gone to for years and years, though I'll leave out its name for the sake of anyone there whom I might offend if they read this.

Year 1: Very Little Posting. Handful of intelligent posts, but also a lot of complete gibberish. Site gets boring quickly.

Year 2: More people! Heavily Active users have no increased from a few dozen, to perhaps a couple hundred. Good debates have begun and active "royalty" has been established. Still, there are a lot of major SPAMers, and a lot of useless crap posted.

Year 3: Site explodes with people. Active users now around a thousand. Good debates and interesting posts are still there. Unfortunately pure volume dilutes them, and the board has to be split into multiple boards. This further dilutes the posts, and causes some of the old "royalty" to leave. However, at the same time a new generation has appeared and in larger numbers that continue to post well.

Year 4: The Decline. Too many people, and far too many n00bs. Post counts suddenly become the rage as the first 10,000 poster, and a member of Royalty announces a quasi-retirement. Although many great posts still happen, they become increasily impossible to find.

Year 5: It hurts. SPAMer numbers are now catastrophic. Post count is suddenly the most important thing for almost all members. Races to 1 thousand, and 5 thousand increase. Generalized crap and empty messages appear for nothing more than increased counts. Royalty begins to leave a la masse. Yet again a new generation sweeps in, but this time they turn the site at least part way around. Generally better discussion returns, and spammers are largely shut down.

Year 6: Present: Numbers although still expanding are much more diffused across the boards. Depending upon what you want, you can generally find a good discussion of it. General Board is still swamped with SPAM, but there is also fewer posts going there, and interesting posts still born. With the diffusion of people, and most of the royalty gone, there is no longer any leading posters. Post count still matters, but due to the high number of huge posters, nobody cares.

So using the above as an example, it is easy to see that really what you need is A) A good set of royalty to keep people in line.
But most importantly, the post count must become less important. I think the best way you could possibly eliminate crappy discussion, and get better, more well thought out posts would be simply to eliminate the post tallys. You could leave an ability for a nation to find its numbers of posts in something alike to the GDP calculators, but due to the fact it isn't really important, that probably wouldn't be necessary.

Seriously though, who here doubts that if you got rid of post counts, you'd get rid of a lot of the spammers?

I think the best way you could possibly eliminate crappy discussion, and get better, more well thought out posts would be simply to eliminate the post tallys.

I agree completely. In many forums I frequent, the +1 for your post count becomes the only reason for posting. I don't see the overriding necessity for keeping it, as we have the date that each nation was created.

General has ruined lives.

How?

Infact, They would like general if it wasn't for all the people who do the things that they don't like.

Don't be anti-general.

I know people who have had their lives ruined by it. I won't post names, for privacy's sake.

That is...sad. :roll:

General has ruined lives.

How?

Infact, They would like general if it wasn't for all the people who do the things that they don't like.

Don't be anti-general.

I know people who have had their lives ruined by it. I won't post names, for privacy's sake.

That is...sad. :roll:
Exceedingly so. But the fact is that it happens, and the only solution of course: Get those people some much needed mental help

No offense to author of this thread, please read full response.


I hope, and believe, the mods will leave this open so that there is Free Speech.


Personally, I'm tired of this same generic complaint over and over again, there is no reason to feed generic complaints, it adds nothing. I'm not going to post on this thread again, because arguing such a large grey area without specifics is a bit pointless, IMO, and doesn't accomplish anything. Instead, you should disucss specifics, start threads when you see inujsutice or wrongs. This sort of posts doesn't do mich for me, and to my thinking, doesn't do much to correct what you see as a problem.

Just my opinion.