[Discuss] time to scrap the moderated list

[psymann]

James wrote:
> that is what I told Psymann when he started 5 threads or 
> whatever it was all basically saying the same thing.  Each of those 
> created a lot of work load for mods and potentially slowed down the system.

That's nonsense, James.  I posted the same initial paragraphs in each, 
clearly labelled as an introduction.  It does not require "a lot of 
work" to skip past that section if you read all five at the same time. 
Given you'd managed to respond to every one of them within ten minutes 
of me even finishing posting them, I really don't think that you can 
claim that this slowed down the system.


> And the problem with this is new or newer players don't want to listen 
> to people that have played the game far longer then them. There are some 
> things that Tom has said will happen "over his dead body"

And it would seem that some old or older players don't want to listen to 
people that have arrived in the game more recently.  Just because you 
have been here longer does not make you better.  It means you may have 
more knowledge, but it doesn't mean that you use that knowledge more wisely.

I would suggest that a lot of people have said that things will happen 
"over their dead body" and then these things have happened.


>> Sometimes the mods will send back a rejection notice
>>
> I do not like to do this myself because I am scared I will offend the 
> person by not stating what I am doing just right.

If you have a valid reason for moderating something, then you should be 
able to explain it.


>>>> Item 9 is very important to remember. If a post has been rejected 
>>>> for *any* reason, any responses to that post will also be rejected, 
>>>> as will responses to them, etc. Basically, a rejected post kills the 
>>>> thread.
>>>>       
>>> And Item 9 is also a stupid rule,
>>>     
>>
>> Talk to Timothy.
>>   
> It's stupid that you don't want a post that is rejected to be put on the 
> list by putting it's reply there?

Example:

Post 1 from Bob:
Hey everyone, I wanted to ask if anyone can help me understand how you 
calculate pay of your troop?  Does it depend on training, or cohesion, 
or what size of unit you get?

Post 2 from Joe:
<replies to post 1>
Ha ha it's always size that matters lol :p

Post 3 from Eric:
<replies to post 2>
Well, yes, size does matter Joe ;) but actually there are a number of 
things to take into consideration:
- size of your troop
- type of your troop (cavalry and SF cost more than infantry and archers)
- training of your troop
etc.


So - If I wanted to run a strict regime, I would moderate this to the 
following:

Post 1 from Bob:
Hey everyone, I wanted to ask if anyone can help me understand how you 
calculate pay of your troop?  Does it depend on training, or cohesion, 
or what size of unit you get?

[post 2 deleted]

Post 3 from Eric:
<replies to post 2>
There are a number of things to take into consideration:
- size of your troop
- type of your troop (cavalry and SF cost more than infantry and archers)
- training of your troop
etc.

[Edit(psy): removed off-topic post from Joe and references to it]


You would moderate this to the following:

Post 1 from Bob:
Hey everyone, I wanted to ask if anyone can help me understand how you 
calculate pay of your troop?  Does it depend on training, or cohesion, 
or what size of unit you get?

[post 2 deleted]

[post 3 deleted]



In my case, I leave the answer to the question.  In your case, you 
delete it.  So yes, in this case, it is stupid to delete a good post 
just because it replies to a bad post.

psymann