• If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
  • 📅 February and March 2024 are YE 46.2 in the RP.

NTSE Issues

Status
Not open for further replies.
The best solution would actually be making the kind of negative behavior in the NTSE punishable. And then enforcing those punishments. That way there is actually a deterrent. But for some reason people seem strongly opposed to being punished for having bad behavior.
 
The problem with locking a thread is that it still slows down and delays a submission, making it more of a hassle for both submitter and reviewer.
Do any other NTSE reviewers who are still NTSE reviewers feel the same way about it? It's a duty you've all volunteered for, and it's good that you're personally taking a break if you can't handle it anymore. But the job itself and review system should not bend to your preferences.

If you don't want the job then just let it be. Trying to construct this false narrative about everything changing around you amounts to nothing more than a weird attempt to maintain your own perceived power.
The best solution would actually be making the kind of negative behavior in the NTSE punishable. And then enforcing those punishments. That way there is actually a deterrent. But for some reason people seem strongly opposed to being punished for having bad behavior.
I agree with this. But bad behavior is, in fact, moderated and the perpetrators punished. The staff know that criticism isn't inherently rude, though, so it may seem like no moderation is occurring to those who continually take offense. But people get warning points and their posts deleted on this board all the time when they actually deserve it.
 
Should there be some kind of prioritization in place depending on a submissions input into the NTSE? Such as mods having to clear whats been started before picking up a new thread?
 
The thing is, how do you turn that into a quantifiable rule that's enforceable Syaoran? I've had people make the most pedantic, by-the-books, rule mongering posts about topics that are so obviously not a concern or a problem - I just don't see how it is possible to come p with another rule that isn't inflexible or circumventable. Your previous idea of allowing NTSE moderators approve posts for public viewing is far better, since it is flexible, being capable of adapting to changing circumstances.
 
will you two shut up? All you seem to be doing is busting cadet over the exact same chops over and over again, it's getting old, tired and annoying. If you want to keep at being annoying jerks, at least vary your harassment to keep it entertaining.

Edit - this wasn't aimed at @CadetNewb or @Syaoran but at @raz and @Legix
Thanks for ensuring people knew who you were coming back into the thread to insult and treat like we're villains. I got told I had to be ignored and have only been responding to Cadet using examples I have. If I had other examples (such as when I conceeded that Ame had potentially even been passing over submissions as Cadet has), then I'd use them. This isn't me busting the exact same chops. It's me trying to keep us focused on fixes and trying to explain my own opposition to proposed things like increased NTSE staff powers. I wouldn't trust any of the NTSE to do that. Except Fred, but he had been staff first, AFAIK, and is primarily staff. This isn't me trying to go after one specific mod. It's simply trying to highlight the issues using the experiences I have and know of.

So please stop acting like I'm trying to assblast him. It's far from it. I simply want us to make better decisions than just giving people more power and likely causing even more drama when someone slips up and has one questionable use of it.

Should there be some kind of prioritization in place depending on a submissions input into the NTSE? Such as mods having to clear whats been started before picking up a new thread?
I would actually fully support this idea. This is a genuine good idea. It'd really help eliminate the issue that we have with things like Frost's month+ wait time or the articles you had that went 2-3 weeks without pick-up.
 
I agree with this. But bad behavior is, in fact, moderated and the perpetrators punished. The staff know that criticism isn't inherently rude, though, so it may seem like no moderation is occurring to those who continually take offense. But people get warning points and their posts deleted on this board all the time when they actually deserve it.
You're right that is moderation, but moderation isn't the thing that's the issue. Moderation is not a deterrent if it's just erasing post. While yes people need thicker skin to take criticism, that doesn't mean people should just take a "I can be as rude as I want as long as there's valid criticism" approach. If they actually have valid criticisms, there is no need for personal attacks, passive aggressiveness, in and a lot of the other behavior that happens. And there is no need to overlook that behavior because of valid criticism is thrown in with it. A person who states a valid point can still be punished for being toxic as well. "correct information" and "toxic" or rude behavior are not mutually exclusive. I could state a bunch of facts about the NTSE and how to improve them, while at the same time insulting people's families and throwing out racial slurs. Just because valid information along with it doesn't mean my behavior was appropriate.
 
I have no problems with giving mods the power to punish people for being disrespectful. I think kicking disruptive people out of a thread is a great solution. NTSE abuse would lead to the NTSE mod being temporarily suspended the first time and stripped of their banner the second. As long as the rules are applied equally. If we have mods that can't be trusted to do that they should not be mods.
 
If they actually have valid criticisms, there is no need for personal attacks, passive aggressiveness, in and a lot of the other behavior that happens.
Do you not understand that there generally aren't personal attacks or passive aggressiveness currently coming in the form of criticism? Can you not see that all you're talking about is giving people an excuse to say "that's rude!" on things they simply disagree with more than they do now?

Isn't it obvious to you that the same people pushing for a weird "nobody can comment" review system are the same people who pretend to be offended by criticism?

Like, it's obviously fake outrage because if these people truly didn't care about the opinions given to them and truly didn't respect the actual people behind the criticism then they wouldn't feel bad at all! You don't feel bad when you believe someone is wrong and you think everything they say is trash.
 
Okay, how about this:
  • Anyone can post a setting submission
  • Anyone could post a reply
    • Replies from non-moderators would be filtered via a moderation queue and would need to be approved by a moderator before they appear. Only posts that positively contribute to the thread would be approved.
 
Sounds great. Easy fix that everyone should find no issue with.
 
I really like that! ^-^

Can we have a way to decide who is a moderator, as well?
 
Follow-up: Could submitters request an unlocked thread still? Or that all posts get approved?

I've personally always enjoyed waiting for any critique of my submissions. Formulating responses to such beforehand (which can also help perfect details in the submission before posting) is always a lot of fun, and I wouldn't want anyone feeling even a little discouraged that their thoughts might not make it to me.

Just wondering!
 
I would assume it'd be the setting submission mods that review and approve posts? This is the area we're overseeing to review stuff anyways, and I don't see why we'd pass that extra work to other mods who are higher up the chain.
 
I would assume it'd be the setting submission mods that review and approve posts?
Except then we have people like me who sign off on submissions, but aren't "Setting Submission Mods." Maybe we could get a role on the site that's basically like a "Setting Submission Helper" so we can still speak in submissions but can't approve posts?
 
Before I head out for a few hours I will say I do vote for the use of a approve before displayed posting method for the NTSE as Wes listed. It's not my favorite solution but a compromise I'm fine with.
 
The only problem I foresee occuring is that, well, not all of the moderators on Star Army have the same definition of "helpful" - and in my opinion a few of them believe that some help is "more equal" then others. In the event someone's post is rejected, @Wes, would it be possible for that person to see who rejected their post?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top