Forums → Support Forum → Moderators
| 206 | 27258 |
I am not here to argue because that would imply that am doing anything less than stating facts. And I just wrote this all before and it all god deleted because I backed up the web page and AG is the only poorly enough coded site that it doesn't auto keep my text on so I am keeping this way shorter than the last.
The problem with mods these days is that they are poorly picked, because we have a shortage of mods and instead of waiting for the right people to show up the wrong people get picked. This doesn't work. You should have a quota of mods, that makes no sense on a site that has to wait for mod-worthy people to come, you can't do that. If at one point you have 5 qualified mods, then that sucks for them, lots of more work, but if there is 15 why then not take them all instead of saying sorry we full.
But the latter isn't the issue, it is the former. An issue is that the distinction between a great user and a moderator doesn't exist. It actually does, me. I am a quality user that is not a mod, but many other mods just like me who fit in same category shouldn't be there, and I won't mention names, but everyone knows who I am talking about clearly, even the mod themselves, because even they realize they shouldn't be mods. Yes you, you all know who you are. These people are great users with great content and you've turned them into mods which has not only made them worse, but you ruining the community as well.
Anyone who is awesome you've swept from the AG community and turned into a moderator who shouldn't be there because they are power tripping and think anyone who criticizes them should be banned, and instead of letting kids deal with their problems just instantly ban half the populous. Most of the best community from the past, all the old users, have left. When I talk to them on MSN about why they left, almost every single one left because of the poorly manages mods, who were either nonexistent when needed or took action where they should have stopped nosing around.
These mods, who instead of spending their time posting fun threads and letting users do what they want, they ruin users fun because it's not constructive to the site. Take a step back, who are these rules meant to be helping? Oh right the majority of users. What happens when the same majority of users want to do something like make a spam thread or do something fun? They get banned. That doesn't make sense, this isn't US congress, laws aren't irreversible or inflexible. But instead of being normal people and letting small things slide, they act uptight(even though they were the exact opposite when normal members) and power trip and ban all the good users. Almost no one from the past is here on AG anymore and for a good reason.
The mods are suppose to be here to facilitate fun and help the community progress and all they do nowadays is deter that. You seem to forget that just like police you are here to serve and protect us, not harp over us and ruin your own community.
Also, once a mod is chosen I have never seen a single one be fired(except maybe 1). You guys are way to passive. There is no way on earth that every single one of the mods ever chosen have all been perfect. The same thing in a company, people hire others, realize it was a mistake and fire them. Not let them go AFK and sit there being useless or being a bad mod ruining the community and wait until they resign. You need to grow a pair, grow up, and take lead and fire other mods, stop being so passive towards each other you are just ruining armorgames.
Now I know this thread will just be ignored or locked by the mods. Because the one thing I always realize with you guys, is that you have lots of criticism for everyone else, but when ever so clear problems with you guys come up, you ignore it or delete and/or ban users who were completely in their right. I have tried for countless years to have anything done and nothing ever does because everyone is too scared to speak out and stop being useless.
The mods list right now is in terrible shape, stop ignoring me, stop telling me I am wrong with no reason and just banning me. Instead, try doing something, stop being little whimps and actually do something for a change, maybe you will finally make a right decision and stop ruining the community you are suppose to be supporting. This forum is so tiny compared to others I am on, it is insanely surprising to me how you have so much trouble dealing with such a small group of mods. But then again, I am not so surprised because it is a circle. Hiring terrible staff who wont admit when wrong and rectify errors leads to the best community-lead users hating the staff, making them leave,and these good players who make the community thrive leave, the community dies more,less good mods to chose from, and staff has then to pick from more shitty people to become mods, then we have more shitty mods.
Someone needs to break the cycle or else this site will keep getting worse. And if you don't like how brash I am being then I suggest someone finally either brings me to somewhere I can deal with this myself with someone who can actually do something or do it yourself. Because I don't say this for nothing, I say it because I know better.
- 206 Replies
Rating games shouldn't give AP, just thought I'd add that..... continue your arguments.
Yes, pretty much. I'll gladly admit we have too few active mods. Pointing that out is redundant, solving it is rather hard.
Why is it then that we cannot do something about this? Most of our veteran users know the drill: a moderator must be this, must be this, and we look for users that are this, yadda yadda. They have done the "expectations" of a mod for so long now, that it is like a psychological or moral requirement , eg. they do it all the time, wherever, whenever, and maybe sneak a few hyucks in when the thread calls for it.
We have so many people right now that can take up the reins and be a respectable, hard-working, and helpful mod, even if it was just for a few weeks or months. High School juniors and seniors who have almost all their core requirements done and have little work to really do. College or University students with off days that can be used moderating the sites. If you look around, there are people that can do this. Hell, look at this THREAD! What's wrong with what is being shown here? This thread is basically a calling of candidates; Klaushouse has graciously assessed many "roblems" with the site and those that use/police/administrate it, and look! All these people who have had enough care in their hearts to discuss it, provide solutions, overall being THE answer to some if not the majority of the problems.
Some of you have pointed out a specific person whom we all recognize around here and what she does. Carlie, who is a community manager, oversees this site and reports anything necessary to the actual staff of Armorgames and has the power to perma-ban any user that needs it. What is not as common is that she also looks around for any potential user to see whether or not he or she can be able to moderate. I'm pretty sure the mods help Carlie with any suggestions on that detail. All these powers, and yet she is only one person. Do we need more community managers? I know that's asking for a lot, but it definitely could help in the days ahead. I also realize that Community Managers require an EXTREME amount of trust from the staff, much more so than mods. If anymore could be just for the sake of awarding well-deserved merits, carrying out the official bans of users, and looking for potential mods, then it is well worth the trouble of getting more. If it is for simply a better future, then it is worth it.
Some of you also mentioned merits and the merit system. Merits are awards given to those who have either won a contest or have posted a very strongly-written review about a game, in a nutshell. The first way is easy; all you have to do is win a contest, and you can basically say "HAY I WUN A MERIT GIME GIME GIME" to any mod, and they will have to give one to you. The last one is hard; you must first type out a review. Things such as length, grammar, vocabulary, and coherency are basic expectations of a merit. If you have already submitted a merit, then you must wait; no shoving merits into mods' faces. Things such as quick comments and spam, however, hide the merit-worthy review into older pages. If a mod actually sees the review, he or she must then "like" it. If not worthy enough, the mod ignores it for another mod to see the same one and decide again.
@ above paragraph. There is seriously something wrong with this. Don't lie to yourself; the true reason why people go out of their way to type reviews is to receive merits for their troubles. Yet their reviews are hidden by spam and quick comments and whatnot. Your opinion of it is fine, it's just this that irks me. Why can't reviews be separate from the rest of the comments, out of the way of spam, and be reviewed by mods right there where they can see it in plain daylight? I'm with the "no shovin' in faces" deal; that's silly. However, with this, all a mod has to do is decide to check out some games, maybe delete a few spams, and see if there were new reviews written. A mod can check it, decide if they like it, and if they do, write it up for a merit and maybe congratulate the user on a job well done. What's wrong with this? I know mods hate lookin' for reviews under piles of trash; they don't need to lie.
"If you would like to become a moderator, you first need to show that you are responsible on the site; show a good posting record and maturity and you may be granted these exclusive rights! We will usually hand pick moderators, but if you feel you have what it take, contact us on the Contact page... we are really, really picky though!"
And what is wrong with this quote, from the personal "Moderators and Merits" sticky, that basically allows us to contact the admins and say I'm mod worthy? Because it's contradictory to what you've been teaching us all this time about not requesting to be a mod? I personally like this idea. Submitting a form for a request to be a mod is fine; you still aren't going to be a mod lickity-split. If a user decides that they are worthy of being a mod, that is fine. If they can show it for a long period of time, then maybe it is their privilege to do something greater. Have the mods and the community manager(s) watch them and look them over. If they personally feel that they can hold the reins of a moderator, then by all means let them. Even if it is for a few weeks or a few months, that is great. They just have to tell somebody that they are going to be inactive or retire. Users are notified that potential mods need to be supremely-active for a long period of time, yet when they are modified, they leave for a year and go missing without a trace? I say users can be mods for as long as they want, so long as they tell us when they are going to be inactive (again), even if it is just a few weeks or a few months.
Dang.
I also realize that Community Managers require an EXTREME amount of trust from the staff, much more so than mods.
This position would probably go to a long-time mod or staffer rather than just have a user with no AG moderation experience become an administrator with full-blown powers.
If anymore could be just for the sake of awarding well-deserved merits, carrying out the official bans of users, and looking for potential mods, then it is well worth the trouble of getting more.
I've thought about this for quite a while and I agree, we do need more than just one community manager. Having only one puts extreme pressure on that one person, as well as endless responsibilites that can only be taken care of by that one person. Having two or three community managers would be great, because it would allow much more community development in a much quicker amount of time.
If not worthy enough, the mod ignores it for another mod to see the same one and decide again.
That isn't very modly of them. They should at least notify another mod and ask them for their opinion, but just ignoring it doesn't solve anything.
Don't lie to yourself; the true reason why people go out of their way to type reviews is to receive merits for their troubles.
As true as that is, the more people do this, the more real feedback the game developers receive. It's very hard to make a sequel for a game when you don't know what to improve, and the more feedback given, the better the sequel becomes. Sometimes a user will just give one or two lines of feedback to the developers, which doesn't really work because it just looks like all the rest of the spam on the page.
That brings me to the next point: when a merit is rewarded, it becomes big and bold. This can be used to help the developer out when looking for ways to improve the game without having to sift through all of those spam comments.
If, however, merits do not get awarded, it will be a lot more difficult for developers to find ways to improve their game, because all the text will look the same. Usually the "worthy" comments are much longer than the spam comments, but it's still a lot easier for the developers if the merit-worthy comments stand out completely from the rest.
Submitting a form for a request to be a mod is fine; you still aren't going to be a mod lickity-split.
That's the way most other sites do it, and those other sites have a much better moderation system than this one. I think it's because of the qualifications and the hand-picking that the moderation system here is terrible. If there were to be applications for the job, and AG wasn't so picky, I guarantee the moderation system here would improve amazingly.
This position would probably go to a long-time mod or staffer rather than just have a user with no AG moderation experience become an administrator with full-blown powers.
Of course! I'm not crazy like that Crazynaitor fella
That isn't very modly of them. They should at least notify another mod and ask them for their opinion, but just ignoring it doesn't solve anything.
I probably went a little far on that one. I'm sure they do, but we don't know for sure whether they discuss it with others. Afterall, according to the T&C's, a mod acts at his or her discretion; if they merit the review, great; if they ignore it, that's up to them; if they want to discuss it with other mods, that's fine.
If, however, merits do not get awarded, it will be a lot more difficult for developers to find ways to improve their game, because all the text will look the same. Usually the "worthy" comments are much longer than the spam comments, but it's still a lot easier for the developers if the merit-worthy comments stand out completely from the rest.
That's what I'm getting at here. We each need to do our own part in helping AG be even better than it already is. We, the normies, create reviews that we give to the developers. The mods, if thinking the reviews are essential for the developers to look over, merits the review. In meriting the review, the developer has something to look at and we walk away with 25AP AND know that if we do the same thing again, we can get another merit. However, mods cannot just go merit merit merit on home, because even though the reviews appear to be merit-worthy, they can act on a negative retrospect.
Now, I'm not saying that the mods don't do this; I'm sure they do as much as they can. What I'm saying is that a greater quantity of mods and community managers will make a SUBSTANTIAL difference in the website as a whole.
@ above paragraph. There is seriously something wrong with this. Don't lie to yourself; the true reason why people go out of their way to type reviews is to receive merits for their troubles. Yet their reviews are hidden by spam and quick comments and whatnot. Your opinion of it is fine, it's just this that irks me. Why can't reviews be separate from the rest of the comments, out of the way of spam, and be reviewed by mods right there where they can see it in plain daylight? I'm with the "no shovin' in faces" deal; that's silly. However, with this, all a mod has to do is decide to check out some games, maybe delete a few spams, and see if there were new reviews written. A mod can check it, decide if they like it, and if they do, write it up for a merit and maybe congratulate the user on a job well done. What's wrong with this? I know mods hate lookin' for reviews under piles of trash; they don't need to lie.It's been suggested before. I'm starting to like the idea a lot.
They just have to tell somebody that they are going to be inactive or retire. Users are notified that potential mods need to be supremely-active for a long period of time, yet when they are modified, they leave for a year and go missing without a trace? I say users can be mods for as long as they want, so long as they tell us when they are going to be inactive (again), even if it is just a few weeks or a few months.This would be great, but it's impossible to enforce. Life happens?
That isn't very modly of them. They should at least notify another mod and ask them for their opinion, but just ignoring it doesn't solve anything.We all know what the merit standards are. We may be drawing the line of "merit worthy" in slightly different places, but no, not awarding a merit to a good comment is not unmodly. Good comments that don't receive merits aren't ignored, they're simply not rewarded.
Don't lie to yourself; the true reason why people go out of their way to type reviews is to receive merits for their troubles
That's actually something that bothers me a fair bit. People write reviews to get merits. They should write reviews because they want to/have something to say, and only be happily surprised if we happen to reward them with a merit for it. It's this "I deserve merits, why aren't you giving them out anymore???" mentality that makes people think we aren't awarding them anymore at all. No, all the games don't get stalked by a mod. But perhaps, just perhaps, you're just not going to get a merit for the comment you wrote.
Sometimes a user will just give one or two lines of feedback to the developers, which doesn't really work because it just looks like all the rest of the spam on the page.Two full lines actually stand out a fair bit. Most spam is less than a line.
About the big, bold text of merits: Yeah, that's kind of the point of why that even happens. A sort of "look here, this is well written, give it attention" thing.
Got a bunch of random thoughts, so I think I'll say each one.
From my experience, it's a wonderful thing that AG is so picky, and that there is no current process for people to vote for moderators. It really does avoid a bunch of undue drama. In addition, I'm sure the moderators here would really like to do something more modly rather than, say, read a bunch of fail-plications from adolescents thinking that modship is just swinging a big old hammer here and there and tossing out the merits like Santa Claus.
The other solution is to vote, like Wikipedia's RFA, for administrators. This brings up a whole set of evils that I do not believe AG is able to afford.
I do concur that many around here would fill the role with aplomb. However, I do believe that AG is right to realize that solutions looking for problems are A Bad Idea (c).
There is one thing that Wikipedia realized (quite correctly) early on: Being a moderator is not a big deal. Notice the wording. The moderators of a forum are the ones who dictate the atmosphere of the site and ultimately determine its success. The role of a moderator and who becomes one is extremely important. However, being a moderator is not a big deal. Mods still talk and participate in our AG shenanigans and debate. But if you really think that being a moderator is the Viagra to boost your e-peen, then you'd be quite mistaken. Nor does it really give you more authority to boss people around.
Another thing to consider is efficiency. Picture a bell curve. Our goal is to reach the very peak of efficiency. Too many or too little, and we have inefficiency. There are some who argue that we are on the left side of inefficiency. Perhaps, but by the same token it is very difficult to see how the addition of more people will shift our position on the curve. Our situation right now is an economic one, where we have the graphs and the trends before us, but we have little idea how much or how little change we will wreak should we tweak the parameters.
TL;DR: Carlie and the mods are not stupid, nor do they have their fingers in their ears. If they realize they need more mods from the modly perspective, they will find new ones.
This would be great, but it's impossible to enforce. Life happens?
You could always message/email Carlie and say "hey, I'm going to be inactive" or "Hey, I don't want to be a mod anymore" and end with "so it might be a good idea to look for a replacement".
The other solution is to vote, like Wikipedia's RFA, for administrators. This brings up a whole set of evils that I do not believe AG is able to afford.
I'm going to go ahead and say there is no way on Earth that we can do this, mainly because the majority range of users on AG are in their teens 13-18. Wikipedia can pull this off, because they can expect better things from their users. We really can't.
Perhaps, but by the same token it is very difficult to see how the addition of more people will shift our position on the curve.
The main argument about Quality over Quantity is that if the staff mods too many users, they may have picked pre-maturely and that a couple are not fit to be mods. I can see why. However, there really is no harm in modding more people; in fact, in my opinion, I say it can be beneficial.
A quote I forgot.....
That's actually something that bothers me a fair bit. People write reviews to get merits. They should write reviews because they want to/have something to say, and only be happily surprised if we happen to reward them with a merit for it. It's this "I deserve merits, why aren't you giving them out anymore???" mentality that makes people think we aren't awarding them anymore at all. No, all the games don't get stalked by a mod. But perhaps, just perhaps, you're just not going to get a merit for the comment you wrote.
Some of us really don't care whether or not we get points for the things we submit. My egotistical side out of the way, I have submitted about... ~20 reviews throughout my AG life, usually submitting them towards new games and games that strike my fancy, in order to make better use of my attention span and criticism. Now I didn't get merits for those I submitted, but I did get a message from a developer saying "thanks for the review! I'll consider what you have typed out for me!" or something along those lines. To me, that's a reward in itself, knowing that the developer of the game is taking time to look over what I criticized.
The main thing that would help the Triangle of AG (TAG) would have the dang reviews separate from the quick comments. Gamefaqs organizes these reviews by having coded requirements that make up whether a review is a review or just a comment. The staff can determine what is required of the reviews, but some suggestions can be size, length, and width. Size will determine whether a review is submitted, or a comment that is blocked because it wasn't lengthy enough.
So erm...now that I got this all behind me...are we drifting away from the topic, or are we good?
The main argument about Quality over Quantity is that if the staff mods too many users, they may have picked pre-maturely and that a couple are not fit to be mods.
I don't feel that this is a big issue. If those users aren't cut out for the job, they will just end up demoted any way. The worst they could do is ban someone for 7 days. It isn't like they could destroy the entire site just with the mod tools.
Well, theoretically they could, but surely they would be stopped in their tracks by other mods and/or admins.
Okay, I get your point. We need new mods, but before we appoint new mods, we need some better new mods.
are we drifting away from the topic, or are we good?
Before we start discussing the holes in the merit system, we should first add some more mods to help fill those holes, rather than just changing the whole merit plan. Then, if the new mod system doesn't work out, we'll go back to discussing it.
(my buttons are missing....*searches* I can't find them...)
I don't feel that this is a big issue. If those users aren't cut out for the job, they will just end up demoted any way. The worst they could do is ban someone for 7 days. It isn't like they could destroy the entire site just with the mod tools.
The problem with banning is the effects of banning. Those that are banned either go away and forget AG or come back later and complain/flame/troll. To prevent unnecessary bans from unnecessary emotions and irrationalities, we need cool-headed mods that are evenhanded and carry judgment...well, cooly.
Before we start discussing the holes in the merit system, we should first add some more mods to help fill those holes, rather than just changing the whole merit plan. Then, if the new mod system doesn't work out, we'll go back to discussing it.
Agreed. But good ones like you said. It's not like we are asking for 1000 mods like Newgrounds has; we are asking for more than half a dozen.
The problem with banning is the effects of banning.
I think AG can tell if someone is cut out to be a mod before they become a mod. They don't just pick names out of a hat (e-hat?); they have the power to say no if it doesn't look like a user is not qualified for the job.
It's not like we are asking for 1000 mods like Newgrounds has; we are asking for more than half a dozen.
15-20 active ones would be nice. At this point, 30 would be too many, but 10 wouldn't seem like enough.
AP is nessasary for 90% of the users. If it gets deleted, most users will go, maybe even including me. and the hundreds of newbies and users that aren't active a lot are very importand to the forums. Only guys with more than a 1000 posts(real posts, including those that don't give AP) will stay in AG, asnd it will get rather boring.
Why is it then that we cannot do something about this? Most of our veteran users know the drill: a moderator must be this, must be this, and we look for users that are this, yadda yadda. They have done the "expectations" of a mod for so long now, that it is like a psychological or moral requirement , eg. they do it all the time, wherever, whenever, and maybe sneak a few hyucks in when the thread calls for it.
Even if the veteran knows, the drill or whatever, how it goes. It would still depend on how active he or she is. Because he/she being inactive isn't helping us at all. So, AG would have to look into that in order for promoting. But yeah...
We have so many people right now that can take up the reins and be a respectable, hard-working, and helpful mod, even if it was just for a few weeks or months.
Well, we would probably need a couple of more mods for AG 3.0. Dan will "upgrade" the site to WWW and will advertise is all over so there will be a bit of chaos around. But it will not be out of hand. AG will maintain it...Many people think AG is going to get taken over by trolls and spammers. That is just ridiculous in my opinion. Have faith for the AG staff for once.
Some of you also mentioned merits and the merit system. Merits are awards given to those who have either won a contest or have posted a very strongly-written review about a game, in a nutshell. The first way is easy; all you have to do is win a contest, and you can basically say "HAY I WUN A MERIT GIME GIME GIME" to any mod, and they will have to give one to you. The last one is hard; you must first type out a review. Things such as length, grammar, vocabulary, and coherency are basic expectations of a merit. If you have already submitted a merit, then you must wait; no shoving merits into mods' faces. Things such as quick comments and spam, however, hide the merit-worthy review into older pages. If a mod actually sees the review, he or she must then "like" it. If not worthy enough, the mod ignores it for another mod to see the same one and decide again.
Getting a merit either way will be hard. You'd have to use all you can to think. Many other people have really really good poetry skills. So it's pretty hard to get one that way. But getting a merit from a game comment will be quite harder as you mentioned.
I know that's asking for a lot, but it definitely could help in the days ahead. I also realize that Community Managers require an EXTREME amount of trust from the staff, much more so than mods. If anymore could be just for the sake of awarding well-deserved merits, carrying out the official bans of users, and looking for potential mods, then it is well worth the trouble of getting more. If it is for simply a better future, then it is worth it.
It is worth it as in my opinion. Carlie hasn't been very active. And we can get another Community Manager. But talking about the qualifications. AG can promote a really really really well trusted mod to admin, to work with Carlie.
This position would probably go to a long-time mod or staffer rather than just have a user with no AG moderation experience become an administrator with full-blown powers.
Gah...nearly what I said before. But I'd have to agree. Promoting a user up to admin right away, instead of promoting a mod wouldn't be the best idea. That user can just go powertripping...:/
That's what I'm getting at here. We each need to do our own part in helping AG be even better than it already is. We, the normies, create reviews that we give to the developers. The mods, if thinking the reviews are essential for the developers to look over, merits the review. In meriting the review, the developer has something to look at and we walk away with 25AP AND know that if we do the same thing again, we can get another merit. However, mods cannot just go merit merit merit on home, because even though the reviews appear to be merit-worthy, they can act on a negative retrospect.
Yes, a review can be long but it would be just a scam to trick a mod into giving the merit. This is pretty much why, the mod would have to look into the whole comments. To check.
And about the developer stuff. It's always good to explain why the game sucks so the creator can fix it rather than a dumb comment. < Don't get me started on that.
But you know what? I'm pretty sure the developer doesn't have enough time to scroll through all of the pages and seeing just spam...I know there will be a couple of merit-worthy comments out there that weren't really looked into.
To the people who want a merit, who cares about it? If the developer says Thanks for the review. You'd feel already accomplished. Look at yourself, you did SOMETHING to help the developer rather nothing. There are a very few amount of people who never really gave a honest and well-thought review....
That's actually something that bothers me a fair bit. People write reviews to get merits. They should write reviews because they want to/have something to say, and only be happily surprised if we happen to reward them with a merit for it. It's this "I deserve merits, why aren't you giving them out anymore???" mentality that makes people think we aren't awarding them anymore at all. No, all the games don't get stalked by a mod. But perhaps, just perhaps, you're just not going to get a merit for the comment you wrote.
I don't see what's sooo important about one. I know it makes you feel accomplished. But still...
People should think that there are like 1600 plus games out there and there are only like 3-5 mods active...All they want is merit. They don't think it through...
TL;DR: Carlie and the mods are not stupid, nor do they have their fingers in their ears. If they realize they need more mods from the modly perspective, they will find new ones.
Yes they are not stupid. They are trying their best. It's just life gets in their way, and yeah...The mods were picked for a reason, and good reason. And we just need more mods to help out with the forums.
The whole mod circle is not entirely wrecked, it just needs to be repaired or things need to be added to it...
Agreed. But good ones like you said. It's not like we are asking for 1000 mods like Newgrounds has; we are asking for more than half a dozen.
Well yeah, we don't need a lot of mods. It would just wreck the mod circle...We would need about 15-20 as Ernie mentioned.
AP is nessasary for 90% of the users. If it gets deleted, most users will go, maybe even including me. and the hundreds of newbies and users that aren't active a lot are very importand to the forums. Only guys with more than a 1000 posts(real posts, including those that don't give AP) will stay in AG, asnd it will get rather boring.
Uh...right now as I can see AG won't be taking away Armorpoints...But you know what? I will put out my strong opinion about it again. AP is useless. You just get ranks and armatars. What's so important about them? Hm? Taking away AP would take away points but will decrease the spam. Leaving AP will increase spam, but keep most of the users. It's AG's decision to make. I'm been tired of spam already throughout my 1 year and 3 month stay here...
And...
Only guys with more than a 1000 posts(real posts, including those that don't give AP) will stay in AG, asnd it will get rather boring.
No, not all of them. People having 1,000 plus posts doesn't mean they don't spam or actually it doesn't mean they don't care about AP. You'd have to look into their posts and see if they are quality posts. People who usually make quality posts don't care about Ap.
Uh...right now as I can see AG won't be taking away Armorpoints...But you know what? I will put out my strong opinion about it again. AP is useless. You just get ranks and armatars. What's so important about them? Hm? Taking away AP would take away points but will decrease the spam. Leaving AP will increase spam, but keep most of the users. It's AG's decision to make. I'm been tired of spam already throughout my 1 year and 3 month stay here...
What the staff needs to do is pool together all the ideas/solutions for the AP system that users like us have created and thought up together, create a strong, yet flexible new system, and add it to the list of features hinted in AG 3.0.
I don't think AP is going to disappear either; it is AG's flagship feature that makes up the spine of this site. It is just flawed and needs to be looked over to be tweaked.
What are we going to do until then?
Okay, simply stopped actually reading replies now.
One thing though:
It's this "I deserve merits, why aren't you giving them out anymore???" mentality that makes people think we aren't awarding them anymore at all.
Same reason I shut the ASC down (while also because the judge had other things to do): When people start doing something for the reward they might get, rather than for showing they can, have an idea they want to share, or generally be active.
Not only are users starting to only join merit-rewarding contests, contests also go "I will try and get a merit!" as it makes the contest legit.
As for Kirby's "RAWR ONLY MERIT FOR CONTESTS F***!": It is darn much easier to get a link to a won contest, and merit that, than go through a ton of spam to find one or two comments worth clicking the little star.
Which leads to point two, which I stated I didn't have, but w/e:
If you look at the about page, you will see we are tagged "community mods". Which would be translated to forum mods. Technically we have no reason to go look for merits, as it is not part of our field of work. We do it anyway, because who knows when the staff decides to look through it themselves/figure out to make "Comment mods" or something. That would be nice, btw.
In other news: I have thought about making a game out of cleaning games/finding merits, but all this makes it less fun to think of. I am also going to go to Ikea in a bit, and I need a shower. And my hands are full of papercuts, which for some reason doesn't hurt as much as they could, considering how deep and plentiful they are.
And making huge posts are more fun than looking through tons of spam, thus mods make huge posts instead of giving out merits
Thread is locked!