The Times, They Are A-Changin'

[Sifu Blackirish]

wow...

Just a few quick comments here...

1) I do all my political ranting on Facebook, so there is no need to bring back the Pit. There were, however, a lot of good 'discussions' there, so it would be nice to bring it back for archive purposes.

2) We all need to give Hunter a VERY PUBLIC "THANK YOU" for his hard work these many years. Without CotI my TRAVELLER flame might very well have gone out forever. No other board has the appeal this one has, warts and all. BTW, what is Hunter doing now?

3) Every once in a while I try to wade through an entire board to collect what looks interesting. Fascinating, but tiring. Are there still restrictions on 'spiders' or 'bots' making an image of the boards so they can be perused offline at leisure?

 

[Supplement Four]

Skipping around topics...

I've seen that happen a few times here, but not to the point where I'm personally offended. The closest I ever came to a "flame war" with another Traveller was when I got all Fan-boyish about "The Phantom Menace" or S4's mercenary contest some years back.

I've got the typical caveman disease of forgetting what we were arguing about 15 minutes after the argument. Drives women nuts, trust me.

So, forgive me when I scratch my head in wonder with no clue about S4's mercenary contest. What was that?

But we were a very prolific bunch of banting rastards :devil:

Witness the one statistic you didn't include, the post count. It's still number 4 in the top 5 forums list, despite being mostly shut down over the life of the board

I still think it served as a magnet for off-topic hot issues, keeping the board that much saner. And for a large part was an interesting forum. Some had problems keeping The Pit separate from CotI and such which was a shame.

There's no place for the Pit on this forum. All it does is create a storm of crap. Man, it can't be pleasant to be a mod over such a forum, either.

I vote we keep it closed--because I'll probably be kicked off the board if we open it again.:devil:

Sounds good to me.

That sounds great to me too, if I've got your word that you will take complaints seriously, endeavor to weigh the facts with a fair hand without favoring the mods, and, indeed, get back with complaintants to tell them the outcome.

 

[CosmicGamer]

1) Yes, thank you to Hunter and everyone else that has made this web site possible.

2) Regarding Avatars: I understand that allowing people to load up images would require someone to oversee that the image is appropriate. Time which moderators may not have or would be better suited elsewhere? Not like these people get paid, right? Maybe start by making more avatars available to select from. Would simple alterations be possible? Let people create more customized, unique avatars by selecting a colored border, background, and foreground.

3) Regarding the Pit: I'd rather moderators spent their time on more Traveller centric tasks. I vote for not bringing it back. Don't know if my vote matters.

4) Regarding disputes with moderators: I agree that airing things out is not appropriate. The post(s) should be all that is needed. A person explaining a point of view after the fact only proves that the original post could be miss interpreted. I'd say that a post should be looked at by a moderator immediately if it is reported. Perhaps if no moderator reviews the offending post in a timely matter there can be an automated removal/hiding of the post in question. Perhaps if over some number people report a post, it could be automatically removed/hidden. The moderators should still review the reported post. This is just a suggested mechanism for getting a problem post off the forums quicker before it inflames more people.

Perhaps it should take 2 moderators to agree before an infraction can be imposed.

If a poster wishes to contest a ruling, again, no lengthy explanations are needed by the infraction poster. It is the post being judged, not the poster. I can understand moderators who need to work together not wanting to criticize each other so perhaps a more faceless approach can be done. The post is made available to the moderators to review (perhaps with posters identity withheld) and the violation and ruling of the original moderator (identity withheld) are included. Moderators vote, again anonymously. I have no idea how many moderators there are or how often they are available so I can't suggest how many moderators need to chime in for a final ruling.

5) Please post about all changes. My bookmark takes me straight to 'New Posts' and I don't often stray elsewhere.

6) Suggestion: Beef up play by post. Dice roller, aliases for posting in character, multiple threads under one game...
See www.rpol.net for an example.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Skipping around topics...



I've got the typical caveman disease of forgetting what we were arguing about 15 minutes after the argument. Drives women nuts, trust me.

So, forgive me when I scratch my head in wonder with no clue about S4's mercenary contest. What was that?

Heya S4, I think it was back in 2005 you had a mercenary contest to see who could draw up the most thorough and well thought unit for hire; their kit, size, what they charged, base of operations and so forth. At the time I was going back to finish my degree and had one hell of a time at university and at work, and therefore wasn't in the mood for completing my entry.

At least I thought it was you. It was either you, or someone who noted themselves as being an intolerant GM (i.e.; social faux pauxs, no matter how minor, were cause for not getting invited back to the next session, and so forth). But, having said that, and just thinking about it as I write this post, that doesn't sound like you.

Oh well

Onto other topics; the Political forum... meh, I just went and saw "Agora" last night at one of the local art-house theatres. That movie reminded me of why I can't stand politics, and why I embrace science and its entertaining offshoots; i.e. Traveller

 

[Thunderbolt]

I hope that the Pulpit is not restored.

I was looking for a shortwave radio forum recently (having just bought one off eBay) and one was full of ravening anti-Obama posts and the usual incendiary replies; I fled a mile and joined a nice and respectable one instead, that just focused on radio in all it's forms.

I can follow the political fortunes of foreign countries and their presidents through the BBC thank you, and at least I will learn something about them at the same time.

 

[Jeff M. Hopper]

If the PP is brought back, considering its contentious nature, you might consider having it be unmoderated or choose a moderator who is used to working with free speech/free fire forums like the RPGpundit.

 

[abomination]

I don't see the need for a political / off topic / rough house forum here. If there were such a forum I'd keep the no politics / religion rule

However IMO the best forums I've seen like this are moderated by sarcastic bigots who will alter posts because they think it's funny. One I used to frequent randomly appointed users to become guest mods, and the swear filter was used creatively. ie Cxxk became Man Utd Supporter, & Wxxkxr became Terry Christian*



* an annoying UK TV presenter

 

[atpollard]

A rule banning links to competitive websites made sense on a QLI website.
Perhaps it should be lifted for a FFE website.

Just something to think about.

 

[Space Hamster]

A rule banning links to competitive websites made sense on a QLI website.
Perhaps it should be lifted for a FFE website.

Just something to think about.

I would like to see it lifted for all appropriate sites. As Marc make money from all sales of Traveller there should not be a ban on that. Any site that offers enhancements to the game is a benefit and encourages sales of Traveller products.

 

[far-trader]

A rule banning links to competitive websites made sense on a QLI website.
Perhaps it should be lifted for a FFE website.

Just something to think about.

<sigh>

There never was such a rule. It's misrepresentation by some disgruntled poster(s) and misunderstanding on the part of others. There are more than a few who respectfully linked to sites and never had a problem doing it. And there were a very few who frankly did it out of nothing but malice and in such a way that it was a problem.

If you don't believe me I suggest reading the FAQ.

 

[spinwardpirate]

Oh sure, it does, but the escalation on this BBS seems to be rather tame compared to the some of the old SJ Games... forums I'd occasionally skim.

I find the current SJGames forum to be nearly flame free. In fact, it's one of the most friendly places I've encountered on the web.

 

[Supplement Four]

Heya S4, I think it was back in 2005 you had a mercenary contest to see who could draw up the most thorough and well thought unit for hire; their kit, size, what they charged, base of operations and so forth.

Sorry, it was some other intolerant GM. :smirk:

That wasn't me.

It was either you, or someone who noted themselves as being an intolerant GM (i.e.; social faux pauxs, no matter how minor, were cause for not getting invited back to the next session, and so forth). But, having said that, and just thinking about it as I write this post, that doesn't sound like you.

It wasn't. I do have a rule that everyone plays or no one plays. I don't run the game with missing players. If figure if someone doesn't want to be in my game, then they can find another that will allow that type of behavior.

That may make me pretty strict in some opinions, but I figure if I'm going to dedicate that time it takes to be a GM, my players can at least have the courtesy to show up for my games.

 

[atpollard]

<sigh>

There never was such a rule. It's misrepresentation by some disgruntled poster(s) and misunderstanding on the part of others. There are more than a few who respectfully linked to sites and never had a problem doing it. And there were a very few who frankly did it out of nothing but malice and in such a way that it was a problem.

If you don't believe me I suggest reading the FAQ.

"7) No advertising for commercial sites, even Traveller ones, without Hunter's approval. For clarification, it's ok to mention other sites and products in discussions, but don't do things like copy and paste parts or all of a press release or similar. If you are unsure of whether or not it's appropriate to post, email me or PM a moderator first. Links in your sig to your own sites or your personal favorite sites are ok as long as they don't link to adult content or otherwise less than tasteful content."

It was THIS official rule that I thought might need revision.

 

[aramis]

<sigh>

There never was such a rule. It's misrepresentation by some disgruntled poster(s) and misunderstanding on the part of others. There are more than a few who respectfully linked to sites and never had a problem doing it. And there were a very few who frankly did it out of nothing but malice and in such a way that it was a problem.

If you don't believe me I suggest reading the FAQ.

Hunter specifically banned SFRPG's links, since it was being billed as "COTI's Replacement." He never updated the written rules, but he did ban people for it. Under the "Other actions detrimental to the Community" clause.

 

[far-trader]

Thanks for the clarification atpollard. I misunderstood your point. Yes, I expect the generaly rules editing (on the list of things to do as I understand it) will change that from Hunter to Marc, as well as fixing some other issues.

 

[far-trader]

Hunter specifically banned SFRPG's links, since it was being billed as "COTI's Replacement." He never updated the written rules, but he did ban people for it.

Could be, not the way I recall it though. Yes, there were bans for abusive linking, and some were SFRPG links. However, under the site rules permitting site owners to link to their site, SFRPG still does. Though Gruffy felt he had to disguise it to avoid being lumped in with the bad linkers (I guess). I've thought for some time he could change it, might be an idea to invite him to do so.

 

[Blix]

Hunter specifically banned SFRPG's links, since it was being billed as "COTI's Replacement." He never updated the written rules, but he did ban people for it. Under the "Other actions detrimental to the Community" clause.

o:

Do you honestly think that it's "detrimental to the community" here to post a link to another discussion forum that people might be interested in? Do you not think your userbase is smart enough to make their own judgements about the merits of this and other boards? Or maybe you just do not trust them to make their own decisions about that? I've looked at the SFRPG boards and they certainly do not strike me as being a "replacement" for anything, they're just another place to talk about science fiction roleplaying games, including Traveller - and a very civilized one at that. I think you've just prompted me to register there, in fact. Oh, what damage have I done to this community!

I am also troubled by the arbitrary nature of this "rule" that was never made official, particularly given that it involved banning people. If you ban people for mentioning that board, then why not ban people for mentioning others (including Mongoose's own Traveller boards)? I myself have opined that Mongoose's Traveller boards are a better environment to discuss Traveller than here, as have others; are you going to ban me (and them) for that? Seriously? I would hope that the new management is not so paranoid (and vindictive?) to allow this to continue, and that they immediately rescind this policy and allow people here to judge forums on their own merits and post links to other boards freely.

And even if people do want to "move" away from here to other forums (for whatever reason), then who are you to limit their options? If you don't want them to move away from here then I would say that it is up to you to give them positive reasons to stay. Now that there is new management in place, you have a perfect opportunity to make some changes that can do just that.

 

[far-trader]

Read the FAQ again Blix. Appropriate links are fine. What you missed were raving posts about CotI being this and that, everyone should leave and go there instead. And that's putting it politely and mildly. Those crossed the line, on several occassions and earned their bans. Just as many more links have been no trouble at all, never caused concern, nor bans.

I've looked at the SFRPG boards... a very civilized one at that.

I think you need to look closer. Or we have very different definitions of very civilized.

I think you've just prompted me to register there, in fact.

Nobody's stopping you. Enjoy, there is some good stuff there.

 

[Blix]

I think you need to look closer. Or we have very different definitions of very civilized.

Hm. On their active topics list I see people talking politely and reasonably about Doctor Who, the Darrians, gas giant satellites, their own versions of Traveller, and Star Wars... I also don't see anyone bullying anybody else, or being rude or snarky, or even any reason for the mods there to get involved in any threads. So yes, I guess I can see why you wouldn't call that "very civilized".

 

[Spinward Scout]

Under the "Other actions detrimental to the Community" clause.

I got the impression that it was more of a gaming politics thing. There was a lot of bad blood going around at the time between MJDs tirade (which should have never been posted here unless he was trying to cause trouble), the opinions of the Mongoose products, and all of the animosity that was created in the Pit and crossing over onto the other forums. I always had the feeling that Gruffty's site wouldn't have been blocked if all that wasn't going down. Too much pissing and moaning, and not enough Traveller talk at the time. As I've said before, once I put a handful of people on Ignore (a small but overly vocal group), I didn't have to deal with most of it.