Avatar of Dion

Status

Recent Statuses

4 days ago
Current bbbbbbbbbbbbomboclat
2 likes
7 days ago
the real crime is trying to get people to play league of legends
8 likes
7 days ago
its a bit ironic coming from me but be nice to new stupid people. they're new and stupid and this forum is too dead to chase away every stupid new person
2 likes
8 days ago
DE POLO OP MIJN BODY ZIT VOL MET BLOED VAN STERVELINGEN TERWIJL IK 8.6 DRINK
11 days ago
i won't lie i got a foot fetish, but i can never taste defeat
5 likes

Bio

i like being on the most active roleplaying community oriented forum on the interwebz.

Most Recent Posts

@Ruby I meant your re-appointment, as in, the time you came back. The 2nd time if you will. Unless you're saying you'd never spoken to him then?
@Odin if you don't mind me asking, what precise appointments would you point to as cases of nepotism?


First of all: any appointment of a new moderator is going to be influenced by a little bit of nepotism. Denying that is ridiculous. If you think that you were selected 100% for being a good moderator, then you're doing yourself a disservice. Whoever selects moderators (I imagine Hank + Mahz + the rest of the moderator team is allowed to pitch in) is naturally going to have a preference for people they like.

Whether that is because they just like them, or because they would fit well in the team, that is another matter, but ultimately nepotism is bound to play a role to a lesser degree. It's more problematic when it occurs in larger degrees. As far as I know we've not reached that point yet and I'd like to keep it that way (hence, I'm not really looking to have moderator elections).

Secondarily: appointments where nepotism played a larger role than expected/usual would probably be that of Ruby. It's not really a secret Hank and her get along and it didn't take too long for her to be re-appointed. Call me a cynic but I don't believe she was approved for re-entry just because she's, according to the rest, a good moderator. It definitely helped her case that a lot of the moderators know her and like her.

Your own reappointment also comes to mind although that event was far less publicized so I have even less of an idea how that all played out. If it was you returning and saying 'hey I got time again, make me mod again please' then clearly that's not the process it should've been. But, as usual, nothing was really said about it, so I'm not sure.

Besides that I am unaware of recent appointments as all the other members of the moderator team have been there for quite a while. But.. do note that you're inferring that I said there was nepotism involved in the current staff. I never said that. I said we should beware of that. There's a difference. The nepotism on Newguild is far less rampant than it used to be in my eyes and I want to keep it that way too.

The key point I was trying to make and that I am sure you'll agree with is that elections for moderator positions are ridiculous and stupid and invite nepotism.
<Snipped quote by Odin>
I'd like to see you try, if it means that you'll finally reply to my points.


Jesus christ.

<Snipped quote by Odin>
Here's what I posted:

@catchamber Dude you seem to just be lacking in common sense. Do you want me to go point by point to explain why and make you look stupid, or are you going to reflect on the questions and look for yourself?
Yeah, I'm not really sure if we need section specific mods. The mods themselves have stated that their primary issues with doing things on this list are just because they can't. Adding section mods might relieve them of their attachment to 'moderating the sections' but as it stands that is only a fraction of their work anyway. It'd alleviate a burden that currently has no need to be alleviated.

Rather I'd add more moderators like we currently have to relay the administrative tasks and keep people focused in the right direction. If the mods want to maintain their status as janitor staff, then that is fine, that's their choice no matter how much I disagree with it. But fact of the matter is, more hands are needed, more janitors are needed, not because there's so much rules being broken (according to the staff, since there's not many reports apparently) but because A) there is no vision for the future and if there is, it's not unified and every moderator has a vision for themselves and B) they need people to take over the slack that inevitably arises when Mahz is not present.

So, having section moderators will probably just make things more complicated than they have to be.

And that is entirely unrelated to elections, which is imho just a bad idea. I'd rather have a system where there is a form you can fill in to 'apply' for a moderator position where you include things like past experience, motivations and other relevant information which will then be evaluated by the admins and I suppose other moderators.

That way you ensure that everyone can at least have a shot to put their name in the basket. It doesn't mean that we won't end up with nepotism in terms of picking other mods, but that is something that no matter of process can prevent anyway unless we literally start drawing random names for the positions - which would be awful and don't do that.

@Project well, the vote last time went against PVP, so I'm assuming we will predetermine it.

Except I get the feeling it'll be hard to satisfy the ego's involved.
@catchamber My mans, you realize that 99% of the questions you asked are answered in the front page? Like, instead of always saying 'hey, can you give me source for x? hurrrr' you could actually bother to read and see that the answer to the question 'who suggested it' can be found in the link on the first post.

So no, I can't be arsed to help you because I would rather not answer questions that could be answered if the person asking it took five seconds out of their time to look for answers themselves rather than relying on others to do their work.

@Project @j8cob @spanner @altered tundra @reflection

To avoid coming to a standstill perhaps it's smart to host the question here where everyone can see - will we predetermine the fight outcome or will we play it all out and see who wins.

We've already voted but Project wasn't there and now Kiku and Shizuka are dropped from the fight (well, Shizuka can still come back but Kiku already made it clear she was running away).

Personally, I'd rather predetermine the outcome. We can satisfy the needs of both parties and work to a compromise rather than arguing for hours about hurt ego's and whose character has the best made up jutsu. It'd be faster and way cooler because we can write in scenes that are far nicer to read.
Pretty sure there's two "Casual" RPs in the Casual RP section that don't belong there.


This discussion has been had like 20x now and every time said people come and say their RP is more complicated than it looks.

We're better off rolling our eyes and nodding at this point. Let the kids have their playground.
I don't know, are we doing correctly to what the purpose of the page is? For all I see is a group of people mocking each other. Some say other are guilty, some defend themselves and made others look guilty. I subscribe this to see change but it seem that all I see is another " In Defense of Genre 2" Mk 3.


You're new to these threads, aren't you? This is the way it goes when not enough people chime in and give their suggestions and instead it's the same four people arguing. The moment I noticed nobody else was suggesting things, I knew it'd go down this road. I'll quote from someone unaffiliated with the current discussion:

Its a funny phenomenon. People think all is okay. Once a few group of people start speaking out with well reasoned criticisms and evaluation of the system, the others then associate you as some kind of psychopaths out to cause some damage to the community-- disregarding or stepping aside actual arguments that should be considered.


The issue I see here is that people are quick to throw away all critiques because they disagree with a few of the others. Or they are going hunting for reasons not to do certain things (''what we have now is FINE! We don't need to improve it!'') just for the sake of argument. I'm not interested in that, I'm interested in discussing the few ideas that are there and seeing what other people think of that.

I think that point got lost in translation somewhere and we ended up with a back and forth. It's not surprising but a bit sad perhaps.
© 2007-2026
BBCode Cheatsheet