I'm sleepy. Which could explain my confusion/broken english.
Sorry. My next post will be after I get some sleep.
- Paid, third-party, disinterested moderators (closest thing you can get to objectivity)
- The owners of the site (biased, but they get to choose the character of their space)
- No moderation (the community decides the community; the inmates run the asylum)
- Appointed volunteers (idiots who use their powers to win personal arguments, but with a patina of editorial control)
- Non-appointed volunteers (idiots with over-inflated egos)
Why are volunteers picked from the community worse than no moderation? Because you can either participate in the proceedings or you can moderate them. You cannot do both, because such is a clear conflict of interest.
The sort of Almighty Ra delusions coming out of the Conclave is quite frankly abhorrent, and even if this forum needed a mod, you are not it. As for arranging things myself, if you haven't noticed, I have quite pointedly not asserted unwarranted authority over the proceedings of this forum because it is not my role to do so. Would that you would take the hint.
you could be right. however, if you had read all of that, then you know its not much more than a priority report system. which it is staying.
also, I like to imagine that people like shoooop and some others chilled just by pointing out that they could be cooler than falling for the old kad is evil shtick again, and I didnt even pretend to have power over anything here for that.
but I definitely agree with "participating != neutral enough". jim gets to listen to my drivel before he acts on anything anyway, so I like to think it's doubly verified before acted on.
Dont get the reference.
Wow, this will not end well. I'm guessing this is in response to John's article about those useless statistics? Yeah, waving a red flag at a bull there Quanta... I do not want to be here when (if?) he sees this.
*Runs for hills*
He's seen it and replied already. Dont think Im provoking him.
I assume he'll just ignore it instead.
ugh. no, not at all. I want to know if theres something that doesnt annoy you about the gaming world, because it seems like you hate pretty much all. (I also seem to remember you mentioning one time that you dislike most indie games, that could be wrong though)
Essentially, is there something you find POSITIVE about current gaming development and its products?
You shat all over the BF4 reveal declaring that no ones interested in the single player (even though it's a better showcase for the tech Vs some random MP footage ) yet judging by your battlelog account, you've not logged one single hour of BF3 ever.
One suspects that if they'd shown just MP footage, the complaint would of been 'Why show us MP, and not give us hands on?'
Thats not helping. Nor is it what Im really asking.
Quanta, this thread is like some kind of unwanted open intervention. It's like you've told John you're bringing him for ice-cream and then end up in the church basement at an AA meeting.
If he wanted to vent he could use twitter or even the main page (it's partly his site). If you're worried about him or something, just fire off an email.
yeah. doubt hed answer as it seems like all I get across is apparently that I hate him and want him to explain himself.
maybe jams would be so kind and lock the thread?