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.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.
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.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.
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.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
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.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?
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 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.
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?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.
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?I would assume it'd be the setting submission mods that review and approve posts?