These forums

[Peacemaker7]

Yes but I can understand why SI wouldn't people being banned left right and centre. Some people should be banned because there is simply no hope for them, but you can usually spot these kinds of people from the off.

Other people may get off to a bad start, and end up being decent posters if they are given a bit of time and patience, not just from the mods but also from the more established users of the forum. It's not just up to moderators to ensure forums run smoothly that just a lazy user base.

People will ask annoying, repetitive questions on here. There is nothing can be done about that, because in general this is the first forum where new, enthusiastic people will flock - before the really clever ones end up in FMS or LLM. Patience is the key.

There is of course a huge difference between a new user who naively asks a question which to them is something new and interesting yet to others has been asked a million times before, and the kind of user who just posts to cause disruption.

[Rashidi]

I'm all in favour for showing patience to people for being repetitive or perhaps even for missing out on reading the forum rules, in all honesty though, I sometimes find it hard to accept abuse and derogatory remarks. There are some who post racist remarks and then abuse other forum members for not sharing their point of view. There has to be a limit somewhere.

Good behavior rewarded, and bad punished. Temperance is the key of course and good sense has to prevail, which is why we have a warning system in place.

[medievalist]

Originally posted by Peacemaker7:Y

People will ask annoying, repetitive questions on here. There is nothing can be done about that, because in general this is the first forum where new, enthusiastic people will flock - before the really clever ones end up in FMS or LLM. Patience is the key.

If that's going to be the accepted state of affairs then the answer to Rashidi's question about why quality posters avoid GQ will be an easy one: because it is filled with nonsense.

If SI doesn't want to take action against lazy new posters - even by just rapidly and consistently locking the threads - and other posters disciplined for their frustrations then GQ will, in my opinion, become empty in a hurry.

I think SI needs to tackle both sides of the issue. They need to cut down on the backseat moderating and hostile posts, but they also need to address the behavior that is causing those posts. Prompt, consistent enforcement of the rules will do that.

[Oz]

Originally posted by Jimbokav1971:

Has the World gone mad?

What you are suggesting is rewarding people for normal behaviour.

Has it really gone that far that you feel incapable of moderating the forum without a carrot dangling on a stick to entice people to behave themselves.

1. Decide what the rules are going to be and set them out clearly for all to see.

2. If someone breaks a small rule, issue them with a warning. If they break it again, ban them forever.

3. If someone breaks a serious rule then that's it, ban them there and then forever.

It's this nicey nicey approach where threads get closed and no action taken, that has left the forum in the carp state that it's currently in. I think the problem is that SI don't want to ban people because they are their target audiance, and alienating potential customers is just plain stupid. Well SI need to decide what they want to do and then do it.

I've lost count of the number of times in this thread where people have said that the only thing that needs to be done in here is enforce the existing rules.

The nicey nicey approach will not work.

you aren't serious, are you? Do ypu want to be the only person on the forum?

If people make a couple of mistakes, and do stupid stuff, so be it. Banning them straight away, or after 1 warning, for something like swearing or posting in the wrong forum is just ridiculous. Give them a chance and maybe they'll learn and will become decent posters.

I think you've gone waaaaay over the top with all this - ignoring 300 people, and wanting people banned so quickly? you need to chill out a little - its only a forum, for goodness sake.

[Hitesh]

Something that has just come to mind which may prevent some pointless posts..is having an up to date FAQ section. Something which could be updated on a regular basis by mods and with submissions by users (verified by mods!)

For example, earlier today someone posted about where they can buy FM! Its common sense that you look on the forums already but some people are lazy so having this FAQ might help. They also have no excuse then! I wouldnt mind updating it on a weekly basis.

[Peacemaker7]

Originally posted by medievalist:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Peacemaker7:Y

People will ask annoying, repetitive questions on here. There is nothing can be done about that, because in general this is the first forum where new, enthusiastic people will flock - before the really clever ones end up in FMS or LLM. Patience is the key.

If that's going to be the accepted state of affairs then the answer to Rashidi's question about why quality posters avoid GQ will be an easy one: because it is filled with nonsense.

If SI doesn't want to take action against lazy new posters - even by just rapidly and consistently locking the threads - and other posters disciplined for their frustrations then GQ will, in my opinion, become empty in a hurry.

I think SI needs to tackle both sides of the issue. They need to cut down on the backseat moderating and hostile posts, but they also need to address the behavior that is causing those posts. Prompt, consistent enforcement of the rules will do that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But the thing is, GQ IS the place for new posters. And new posters WILL ask repetitive questions because - they are new. The onus is actually not on the new poster, the onus is on the established posters to show a level of maturity in their response. What will make the forums become empty is when new users are shouted down and abused for asking a question that to them is new. They'll just leave.

[medievalist]

Originally posted by Peacemaker7:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by medievalist:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Peacemaker7:Y

People will ask annoying, repetitive questions on here. There is nothing can be done about that, because in general this is the first forum where new, enthusiastic people will flock - before the really clever ones end up in FMS or LLM. Patience is the key.

If that's going to be the accepted state of affairs then the answer to Rashidi's question about why quality posters avoid GQ will be an easy one: because it is filled with nonsense.

If SI doesn't want to take action against lazy new posters - even by just rapidly and consistently locking the threads - and other posters disciplined for their frustrations then GQ will, in my opinion, become empty in a hurry.

I think SI needs to tackle both sides of the issue. They need to cut down on the backseat moderating and hostile posts, but they also need to address the behavior that is causing those posts. Prompt, consistent enforcement of the rules will do that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But the thing is, GQ IS the place for new posters. And new posters WILL ask repetitive questions because - they are new. The onus is actually not on the new poster, the onus is on the established posters to show a level of maturity in their response. What will make the forums become empty is when new users are shouted down and abused for asking a question that to them is new. They'll just leave. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think there is an onus on new posters to 1) learn the rules of the forum they have just learned and 2) make at least a minimal effort (reading the thread they're posting in, looking at FAQs/headers). Not bothering to do that is lazy and shows little regard for the community they're 'excited' about joining.

I agree that cutting down on impatient replies would be a good thing. But Rashidi was also wondering why quality posters do not post in GQ and are off in OTF and other places. If GQ is allowed to be a wasteland of lazy nonsense posts then no, it won't be popular. And then new posters won't get their questions answered because the veteran players will be avoiding GQ like the plague.

[medievalist]

Originally posted by medievalist:

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think there is an onus on new posters to 1) learn the rules of the forum they have just learned and 2) make at least a minimal effort (reading the thread they're posting in, looking at FAQs/headers). Not bothering to do that is lazy and shows little regard for the community they're 'excited' about joining.

Should be 'just joined' obviously. No edit.

[Jimbokav1971]

Oz. You think I'm going waaaaay over the top wanting to ban people who break the rules, and you suggest that I would be on my own if that was the case.

I've checked your posting history, (or at least attempted to). I went back 10 pages of your history and you haven't made a single post in here. I'm sure you have your finger right on the pulse as far as GQ is concerned.

You advocate giving people a chance much like many others have done. The reason the forum is in this state in the first place is because Mods were instructed to "give people a chance" rather than enforce existing rules.

I can see the direction this is going so I think I will leave you all to it.

Good luck.

[Peacemaker7]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think there is an onus on new posters to 1) learn the rules of the forum they have just learned and 2) make at least a minimal effort (reading the thread they're posting in, looking at FAQs/headers). Not bothering to do that is lazy and shows little regard for the community they're 'excited' about joining.

I agree that cutting down on impatient replies would be a good thing. But Rashidi was also wondering why quality posters do not post in GQ and are off in OTF and other places. If GQ is allowed to be a wasteland of lazy nonsense posts then no, it won't be popular. And then new posters won't get their questions answered because the veteran players will be avoiding GQ like the plague.

I actually agree with that to an extent. Hence when people come into FMS for example and post something like 'Where's the Continue button' or go into LLM and ask about a player or a tactic they quite rightly get shouted down. The rules on those forums are more specific, implied even in the forum name and description before you enter.

GQ however is the place to ask questions. It's not much fun coming into a forum as a new user, thinking this is the place to ask where the continue button is, only for a million people to swear at you that it's been asked a million times before instead of just telling the guy either where to find an answer of the answer.

Ideally, having an FAQ would be great, but it still won't cut out new people asking old questions, although it will give more established users a chance to say, I refer you to the this part of the FAQ.

[Rashidi]

Having an FAQ is a good thing. It at least gives people somewhere to go first. Ignorance coming from not reading the FAQ cannot be an excuse.

The two strictest sub-forums are LLM and T&TF and the quality of the posts there are high, credit to the posters but that wasn't always the case. It wouldn't have been that way if we didn't have an FAQ and a strictly "policed" forum to protect good threads.

I don't advocate capital punishment as people can be reformed, but we do need to make sure the forums are policed effectively.

I must say this has been the best discussion in GQ in a while

[cms186]

something that could be useful is to introduce a " senior members " group who have no moderating powers, but who are formed out of useful and interesting posters who can:

A: be relied on to provide answers to "newbies" and other people without ripping their throats out

B: be someone who the mods will listen to ( so a "senior member" could be granted access to "the mods room" to discuss anything which needs the attention of a mod )

It would be more useful to have different senior members for different forums ( i.e. Peacemaker would be a good senior member for the FMS forum, but not for the OTF )

[Hitesh]

Originally posted by rashidi1:

Having an FAQ is a good thing. It at least gives people somewhere to go first. Ignorance coming from not reading the FAQ cannot be an excuse.

The two strictest sub-forums are LLM and T&TF and the quality of the posts there are high, credit to the posters but that wasn't always the case. It wouldn't have been that way if we didn't have an FAQ and a strictly "policed" forum to protect good threads.

I don't advocate capital punishment as people can be reformed, but we do need to make sure the forums are policed effectively.

I must say this has been the best discussion in GQ in a while

Agreed! If you give people a chance to be refored then fair play but if they continue to send bad posts then they should be punished otherwise they think they can get away with it. And IMO, an FAQ is one way that can help users avoid getting a warning.

[Peacemaker7]

Originally posted by cms186:

something that could be useful is to introduce a " senior members " group who have no moderating powers, but who are formed out of useful and interesting posters who can:

A: be relied on to provide answers to "newbies" and other people without ripping their throats out

B: be someone who the mods will listen to ( so a "senior member" could be granted access to "the mods room" to discuss anything which needs the attention of a mod )

It would be more useful to have different senior members for different forums ( i.e. Peacemaker would be a good senior member for the FMS forum, but not for the OTF )

Yup thats about that I was thinking cms. If there was a way to allow more senior members a bit of responsibility, and also means giving them a reward if you like for good behaviour.

I can see Jimbo's point, people really shouldn't need to be rewarded for behaving like normal human being, but sadly that isn't the way the world works. Besides, we all need to be appreciated and have some nice awards to our name.

A an FAQ would be good - in fact I thought there already would be one, didn't there used to be? However go into FMO, they have a whopping great header, an FAQ and a million closed threads.

[medievalist]

Originally posted by Peacemaker7:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think there is an onus on new posters to 1) learn the rules of the forum they have just learned and 2) make at least a minimal effort (reading the thread they're posting in, looking at FAQs/headers). Not bothering to do that is lazy and shows little regard for the community they're 'excited' about joining.

I agree that cutting down on impatient replies would be a good thing. But Rashidi was also wondering why quality posters do not post in GQ and are off in OTF and other places. If GQ is allowed to be a wasteland of lazy nonsense posts then no, it won't be popular. And then new posters won't get their questions answered because the veteran players will be avoiding GQ like the plague.

I actually agree with that to an extent. Hence when people come into FMS for example and post something like 'Where's the Continue button' or go into LLM and ask about a player or a tactic they quite rightly get shouted down. The rules on those forums are more specific, implied even in the forum name and description before you enter.

GQ however is the place to ask questions. It's not much fun coming into a forum as a new user, thinking this is the place to ask where the continue button is, only for a million people to swear at you that it's been asked a million times before instead of just telling the guy either where to find an answer of the answer.

Ideally, having an FAQ would be great, but it still won't cut out new people asking old questions, although it will give more established users a chance to say, I refer you to the this part of the FAQ. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right, and I guess what I'm trying to suggest is that GQ needs rules as well. Obviously these would be much more relaxed rules than anywhere else on the boards but there should still be clearly laid-out rules that are then consistently enforced. It could be as simple as:

1) Usual forum rules re: textspeak, racism &c.

2) Read the FAQ before posting (and then have a regularly updated FAQ thread).

3) Do make an effort to see if your question has already been asked and answered. The search function is not perfect but repeat threads may be locked. (There is no reason why all those endless 'when is the demo' threads should have been tolerated)

4) We have full confidence in our moderators; enforcing the rules is not your job. If you find a post that you believe breaks the rules please simply report it.

Enforcement of rules does not even really have to be unfriendly. 'Your thread has been locked, the answer to your question is in the FAQ' is not being unkind.

To me, just because GQ is the forum for all sorts of questions from posters of varying levels of experience does not mean there should be no standards enforced at all. It will be a much better forum if there are rules that everyone understands and the rules are consistently applied. If that means appointing more mods, then so be it.

[Bigwig]

Hence when people come into FMS for example and post something like 'Where's the Continue button' or go into LLM and ask about a player or a tactic they quite rightly get shouted down.

Sorry, but why are they 'quite rightly' shouted down?

Isn't it easier to just let someone know they're in the wrong place and point them in the right direction rather than treat them like they've just killed your family?

I think the forum police are more of a problem than the people asking the 'wrong' questions.

[Peacemaker7]

Originally posted by Neil Purvis:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hence when people come into FMS for example and post something like 'Where's the Continue button' or go into LLM and ask about a player or a tactic they quite rightly get shouted down.

Sorry, but why are they 'quite rightly' shouted down?

Isn't it easier to just let someone know they're in the wrong place and point them in the right direction rather than treat them like they've just killed your family?

I think the forum police are more of a problem than the people asking the 'wrong' questions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Erm they're politely told they are in the wrong place, nothing at all wrong with that. Can't speak for other forums but FMS had always been a self-regulating forum and it's worked well for over 7 years but thats not really the issue of this thread.

[medievalist]

Even in the infamous LLM forum they are told, firmly but politely, to read the headers and FAQ the first time. The only people who get 'shouted' at are the ones who try to argue.

And they deserve it.

[mark24cde]

How about a newbies only forum - with maybe a week or two week probation before automatically being allowed access to the other forums.

and conversely maybe a forum for the older users who seem to think there mods - I read earlier that one user had 290 people on their ignore list - sounds to me like there the one with the problem surely all of those 290 people couldn't have hacked him off that much

[Rashidi]

Originally posted by Neil Purvis:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hence when people come into FMS for example and post something like 'Where's the Continue button' or go into LLM and ask about a player or a tactic they quite rightly get shouted down.

Sorry, but why are they 'quite rightly' shouted down?

Isn't it easier to just let someone know they're in the wrong place and point them in the right direction rather than treat them like they've just killed your family?

I think the forum police are more of a problem than the people asking the 'wrong' questions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Forum Police have been around for as long as the forum has been, and Neil is absolutely right that senior members should not resort to "shouting down". There is a right way and a wrong way to do this.

Moderators usually have tonnes to do, and we do appreciate responsible forum members who help and guide new users. What we shouldn't encourage is people "shouting down" and foul and abusive behaviour.

GQ is a forum which will attract all kinds of users...and we will definitely attract a lot of young users as well. And we need to understand that as well when we deal with them

[Rashidi]

Originally posted by mark24cde:

How about a newbies only forum - with maybe a week or two week probation before automatically being allowed access to the other forums.

and conversely maybe a forum for the older users who seem to think there mods - I read earlier that one user had 290 people on their ignore list - sounds to me like there the one with the problem surely all of those 290 people couldn't have hacked him off that much

I don't think he's entirely wrong in doing what he's done cos he does want to see posts that are constructive and if Jimbo has resorted to doing that it's just a symptom to a larger issue that needs addressing.

[Peacemaker7]

Well perhaps shouted down was the wrong term of phrase but I know what I meant and the point I was making is, there is a difference between this forum and others in the sense that this forum is the gateway if you like.

Theres actually nothing at all wrong with 'forum police' as long as it's done right. I think the correct level is, if someone on the street asked you the time, or can they have a light, you wouldn't punch them on the nose. Unless you were a psycho.

Your last point is probably the most valid rashidi.

[mark24cde]

whs

[gavnoble]

What happened to the age limit that used to be on the forums or did I dream that in the past you had to be 16 or over to join?

[birdy123]

gav - iirc the age limit is 12. Could be 13.

[Arkim]

The age limit doesn't really do anything does it? All you have to do is just make up a date. There is no way of confirming someone's age while registering. Unless I'm missing something?

[earmack]

As a new user the problem is stark and obvious. This is the first time I've posted so bear with me.

I have no idea about the demographic audience of the game but a huge guess would say that more older (29+) people play this(type of) game than other popular game genres. I would suggest that 90% of the problems lie with these people. People who have been there done that, they know the rules, they know when the new games are coming out, they know pretty much everything and they don't take kindly to newbies asking 'stupid' questions. They feel they have a right/they are doing a good thing by fielding queries with statements such as 'ohhhhhhh god not another one, read the rules.........' or something similar. In fact all they are doing is alienating new users. NO forum should encourage cliques of 'super' users and this seems to be what has happened on these forums(not just General Discussion). Really you have to ask yourselves do you want a forum of people who have been here for 3+ years who know everything about the game and only post on things they find 'ironic' or a forum where people can go for help with their queries. If you want the latter start banning (rolling bans ) older members when they break rules or are simply rude and or abusive. In no circumstances should a new user be berated in the way I have seen and the only solution i feel is massive punishments.

[Jimbokav1971]

mark & OZ. You've commented on by banned list so I will tell you who I put on it.

1. Anyone who continuously breaks the rules. They may only be small rules but what they are doing is sticking 2 fingers up to the rest of us and saying "I don't have to live to your rules".

2. Anyone who abuses anyone else in a manner that I consider more than light-hearted banter.

3. People who I have seen make serious rule breachhes but whom SI/Mods decided to turn a blind eye to.

4. People who I have reported for rule breaks to the Mods. Rather than see what action, (if any), the Mods are going to take, I just put them on my list and forget about it. As soon as they go on my list it becomes irrelevant what action the Mods take or what posts they make in the future.

5. People who re-load a game when they lose. (It's just a pet hate of mine and I have no intention of talking to them if I can help it).

6. People who I believe are just posting trying to get a reaction out of people.

Now I'm not doing this for antone's benefit other than my own. I used to have a VERY short temper. It is better now, but one way of dealing with my short temper is taking myself away from situations in which I might lose my temper. Adding people to my "ignore list" I suppose is an extension of this. The only thing that bothers me is that when someone on my list makes a new thread I am still able to see the opening post.

I used to spend A LOT of time in here and many of the people on my list were added around the release of the last 2 issues and the respective demos. I would hazard a guess that many of the people on my list are banned or are posting under an alias, but surely that is exactly what the ifnore list is there for.

Maybe if everyone used the ignore list rather than entering into slanging matches, the forum might be a far nicer place than it actually is. I'm not embarrassed at all by the number of people on my list. Maybe it's a sign of how much reading I do in here compared to posting.

Interesting that both of you seem to spend the majority of your time in OTF and not GQ.

[Ackter]

First offence: warning and linked to the forum rules

Repeat offence: 3 day ban

Repeat offence: 2 week ban

Repeat offence: 3 month ban

Repeat offence: Lifetime ban

The first three are the most important as it gives a user enough time to see that the forum is worth sticking around in but at the same time shows them there are rules to be respected.

Obviously with the possibility of leaping a few steps if the offence is severe.

Remember that if users were never given second chances then some of the SI team wouldn't be at SI now.

[Ackter]

Maybe if everyone used the ignore list rather than entering into slanging matches, the forum might be a far nicer place than it actually is.

Some people enjoy the slanging matches - for some I'm sure that's the only reason they're still here.

[mark24cde]

Why the last comment - does it matter where we post or are you just letting us know you've been checking our posting history

[Ackter]

do you want a forum of people who have been here for 3+ years who know everything about the game and only post on things they find 'ironic' or a forum where people can go for help with their queries.

Which is why I really think a Help (GQ) forum and a Suggestion/Discussion forum could be worth another trial.

A lot of those users would stay in the Suggestion/Discussion forum - while those who want to provide help can venture into the Help forum from time to time as well.

It would also make it slightly easier for SI and the mods to manage imo.

[Ackter]

Originally posted by mark24cde:

Why the last comment - does it matter where we post or are you just letting us know you've been checking our posting history

It's just one of Jimbo's 'Shall I ignore him' process. Looking through the first few pages of someone's past history can give a very good image of the type of poster that person is, and whether it's worth talking to them or simply ignoring them and moving on.

[Jimbokav1971]

Originally posted by mark24cde:

Why the last comment - does it matter where we post or are you just letting us know you've been checking our posting history

What part did you not understand?

I find it interesting that both the people who mentioned my ignore list spend the majority of their time in OTF.

[Jimbokav1971]

Originally posted by Ackter:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mark24cde:

Why the last comment - does it matter where we post or are you just letting us know you've been checking our posting history

It's just one of Jimbo's 'Shall I ignore him' process. Looking through the first few pages of someone's past history can give a very good image of the type of poster that person is, and whether it's worth talking to them or simply ignoring them and moving on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah. I do that a lot.

[saved_by_barry_horne]

Originally posted by Rcjuk:

Look lads, I'll be a mod if you want?

Highly respected poster round here and I tow the line, just drop me an email.

Can't wait to ban nelly.

[mark24cde]

Originally posted by Ackter:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mark24cde:

Why the last comment - does it matter where we post or are you just letting us know you've been checking our posting history

It's just one of Jimbo's 'Shall I ignore him' process. Looking through the first few pages of someone's past history can give a very good image of the type of poster that person is, and whether it's worth talking to them or simply ignoring them and moving on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the explanation it was feeling a bit big brotherish but I can see the logic in that now tbf

[gavnoble]

Originally posted by Ackter:

First offence: warning and linked to the forum rules

Repeat offence: 3 day ban

Repeat offence: 2 week ban

Repeat offence: 3 month ban

Repeat offence: Lifetime ban

The first three are the most important as it gives a user enough time to see that the forum is worth sticking around in but at the same time shows them there are rules to be respected.

Obviously with the possibility of leaping a few steps if the offence is severe.

Remember that if users were never given second chances then some of the SI team wouldn't be at SI now.

I like the three strikes and you're out approach as it gives people a chance to change accordingly. Obviously there will have to exceptions for severe offences when an automatic ban is justified.

As for those saying you need to give new users time. I agree slightly but when I look back to when I started posting I made sure that I was aware before I posted what was within the rules and what wasn't. That's either common sense or part of my own ethic - not sure which.

I also took the time to read the forum header, which back in the CM days had a small, non-ovepowering list of what you could post etc i.e. no player naming etc. While not everyone reads the forum headers, it did give people a point of reference to refer to in posts as the FAQ, when compiled first by Liam Harper and then by myself used to.

It's quite encouraging to see that most of the people offering constructive suggestions are the people that I highly regards as posters anyway, with many sharnig the same view of myself that this place isn't like it used to be so that's why the majority of us (myself included) don't post very often in here anymore.

Towards the end of my regualr time in here I was starting to lose patience with the same questions asked multiple times on the same pages and the constant slanging matches.

The FM Forum has the potential to be as good as the CM Forum was in what I think was it's hayday with posters like Liam Harper, Caleyjag, jedimonkey, cleon, Herman Bloom and many others of a similar ilk. It seemed that back then people were slightly more tolerant of new users but also the new users weren't as impetuous either.

I know I mentioned it earlier, but I think the fact the CM Forums had its designated moderating team made a big difference to how the forum operated and it seems that a good proportion of people posting in this thread agree that it would be a step in the right direction to have a similar team in place here.

It provides a figurehead for the forum and also helps keep control to know that someone is assigned and will be keeping an eye on things.

Someone earlier (was it rashid?) mentioned using cards as a way of removing access to some of the forums. While I like this as an idea I'm not sure it would be feasible as I imagine most of the rulebreakers would really only use this forum anyway. However Ackter, mentioning bans for various lengths of time is a sensible idea I think.

Those that want to change will come back and adapt whereas those that don't isn't a great loss to the FM gene pool really.

[FungusMungus]

Lovely thread this.

[mark24cde]

Reading through this thread the overwhelming feeling I get is that the main problem is not new people posting incorrectly its the way they get told about it.

People need to be far more welcoming tbh Miles main comments were regarding bullying behaviour and not people posting in the wrong forum or continually asking when the demo will be out.

[birdy123]

As for those saying you need to give new users time. I agree slightly but when I look back to when I started posting I made sure that I was aware before I posted what was within the rules and what wasn't. That's either common sense or part of my own ethic - not sure which.

I feel the same. I think that is why I get frustrated by the same questions being asked over and over again. I always search before starting a new thread and I didn't post much in my first month or two. I got the feel of the place and started learning things, etc.

Maybe something that could be implemented is a newcomers forum. This could be the only forum that brand new users have to read before they can post anywhere else or something along those lines. In here can be threads that explain what to do, not to do, explain what forums should be used for what, etc. I feel that this would be a way to help the newcomers to the community, and also a way to help stop the same threads being posted with the same responses in.

[super_imps]

Give everyone mod rights.

[Rashidi]

One other reason why some of us haven't really been posting that much is cos we are getting a bit older, a little bit more senile too..at least in my case.

[dafuge]

Originally posted by gavnoble:

I know I mentioned it earlier, but I think the fact the CM Forums had its designated moderating team made a big difference to how the forum operated and it seems that a good proportion of people posting in this thread agree that it would be a step in the right direction to have a similar team in place here.

It provides a figurehead for the forum and also helps keep control to know that someone is assigned and will be keeping an eye on things.

I agree, the moderators are there to set the tone of the forum and act as role models for the regular users. If the moderators are around to set examples and keep on eye on people's behaviour, I'm sure people will be more amicable towards the newer / less experienced members of the forums. This seems even more important on this particular forum where there seems to be only small number of regular experienced users in comparison to the past.

[playmaker]

Originally posted by birdy123:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for those saying you need to give new users time. I agree slightly but when I look back to when I started posting I made sure that I was aware before I posted what was within the rules and what wasn't. That's either common sense or part of my own ethic - not sure which.

I feel the same. I think that is why I get frustrated by the same questions being asked over and over again. I always search before starting a new thread and I didn't post much in my first month or two. I got the feel of the place and started learning things, etc.

Maybe something that could be implemented is a newcomers forum. This could be the only forum that brand new users have to read before they can post anywhere else or something along those lines. In here can be threads that explain what to do, not to do, explain what forums should be used for what, etc. I feel that this would be a way to help the newcomers to the community, and also a way to help stop the same threads being posted with the same responses in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A lot of people will register because they have a question they want to ask. If they have to wait to get onto GQ then they will lose interest.

[birdy123]

But there could be a thread in the forum that has a list of FAQ's. And if their question is not in there, then they can post in the FAQ forum and ask there.

[dafuge]

Originally posted by birdy123:

But there could be a thread in the forum that has a list of FAQ's. And if their question is not in there, then they can post in the FAQ forum and ask there.

If they are new and their question does not appear in the FAQ, they will assume that it is not a frequently asked question and ask it in GQ anyway though.

[birdy123]

If they ask it in GQ, then that question can be added to the list of FAQ's if it is necessary.

[dafuge]

Originally posted by birdy123:

If they ask it in GQ, then that question can be added to the list of FAQ's if it is necessary.

I think that whatever is done to prevent it, you will always get a certain number of people asking the same old questions. I think the point of this thread is that people should be responding to these threads in an appropriate manner that is informative but polite and well mannered at the same time.

[Kriss]

Exactly Dafuge, or saying nothing is an option.