Vrael's a good moderator. I've been moderated by him plenty of times, and I rarely can disagree with his reasons for moderating me. Lite Discussion is unnecessary. Null is fine for it, and topics stay on the first page several weeks without new posts, nowadays.

From what I've seen, your SD argument/post quality isn't fantastic. This could just as easily reflect on you as a discusser (Even I've only been moderated by him 5 times, and I'm far more active than SD, so you being moderated 'plenty of times' says a fair amount) as it could on Vrael as a moderator.

Keep in mind that if the Light Discussion forum is created, even those disagreeing with it won't lose anything. It's purely a gain thing. The only disadvantage to anyone is the relocation of several topics from SD to LD and the requirement for new moderators and rules. Other than that, no one is hurt, and many, like me and Corbo, would be happier.

EDIT: Removed moderator bashing as phase one of my 'charm offensive'.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 24 2010, 12:31 am by Centreri.

Vrael, you're the best SD mod there is ! I still disagree with you from our msn arguement, and I will make that thread eventually...

Alright, I made a list of your claims Cent, mainly so I could read them in a nice linear fashion:


Basically you don't like listening to authority. I can't find any other explanation. This isn't about efficiency because if it were you would have just changed your post to add in name quotes since that would be easier than what you're doing, and this isn't about making the SD a better place because you don't want the SD to be a better place, you want a change in moderation. It all comes down to you just wanting to do what Cent wants. Unless you were to moderate Lite Discussion, I don't think you would be happy with anyone that has to put their foot down when you try to exempt yourself from rules.

I'm sorry Cent, but I don't actually think a Lite forum is plausible. I wanted you to realize that it would be near impossible to moderate effectively, and even harder to find a good moderator to do the job. This is because the Lite forum has even stricter rules than the SD due to having more parameters for acceptable posting (assuming both Lite and SD exist, and the Lite wouldn't be redundant). In the SD, there is a certain quality of posting required, but you can't get into trouble for having an exceptionally high quality of post. In the Null, you can't really get into trouble for having low quality of posts (within reason). Both the SD and Null basically have a single parameter of posting required, whereas Lite would require two parameters; the forum shouldn't get too serious and it shouldn't be too spammy. So unless a completely redundant form of Lite Discussion were to be created (Or SD was obliterated) then the Lite forum would be a very strict place indeed. It would be strictly lax, otherwise it would just be SD #2.

Although you have a few quotes in this post talking about topic starting. I'm willing to consider making modifications to rules about topic starting as I can see that there isn't exactly a place for topics like the "How would you take over the world". I would be willing to help come up with clever rules regarding SD topic starting in order to make things more lax in terms of discussion material, without encouraging low-quality or spammy posts.

This isn't about me or my reasons for wanting Light Discussion (except when those reasons correspond to a reason others might agree with). Stay on topic.

Quite a 180. We had a Light Discussion forum on v4 that functioned fine. I recall no significant defects in moderation, and believe it was simply removed in v5 because it was seen, again, as redundant and unneeded. Since there is demand for it and no one would be hurt, I'm proposing to bring it back. If you want to start whining about how hard it would be to moderate, bring up a list of actual problems with moderation. Additionally, you're wrong in saying that it shouldn't get too serious and it shouldn't be too spammy. The way I see it, any topic that would fit into SD could fit into LD; the actual requirements would actually be lower, so moderating it would be no more difficult, and probably easier, than moderating SD.

Sounds promising, but I'd prefer a Light Discussion forum so you don't end up rejecting every one of my suggestions. Additionally, some may prefer the SD in its current incarnation, so creating Light Discussion is a win-win.

You are right now pressing for a LD forum to be made more than anyone. Your reasons for are going to be a primary factor in considering any sort of change; it isn't off topic at all. We all know that, including you. If you want me to stop analyzing your reasons then I can back off the entire topic, as that is basically what this topic is about: people's reasons for wanting a LD forum.

Again, that is redundant (bolded text for clarity). The main reason you prefer to create a LD forum is:

A change in moderation. I don't think wanting a change in moderation is a good reason at all for creating another forum, it is however a decent loop-hole form of an argument in allowing you to piggyback your resent on. Wanting a change in moderation is a good reason to ask for a change in moderation however, which is exactly what I just offered last post: consideration of more lax guidelines for starting topics.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 10 2010, 9:38 pm by CecilSunkure. Reason: Bolded text.

I have reasons for wanting Light Discussion. You don't approve of those reasons. That doesn't take away from the plausibility of the idea. Attack the idea, not the proposer.
It isn't redundant, as it disqualifies every criticism of the idea that you and Vrael have proposed so far.
Attack the idea, not the messenger. Pretty simple concept, Cecil.

I have a feeling that I'm being too discussiony about this. It would be great if more people chipped in and said that they supported a new Light Discussion forum, because that shows that people want it and increases the chances to be implemented. Alternately, I'd love to shoot down any criticisms of the idea to show that it really is a win-win.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jan 10 2010, 10:59 pm by Centreri.

The only thing I liked about Lite Discussion was that people could discuss news there without having an argument and without having the thread drowned out by the more spammy threads in null *cough*whatareyoulisteningto*cough*

I support the idea of a Lite Discussion thread. It would be a nice place to bounce idea's without have to get too serious about it, while still keeping a slightly serious aspect about it.

At the very least, we could create a Lite Discussion trial-run kind of thing. If it doesn't get enough activity in a week, or a month or so, then you could just rid of it again, as it served no purpose. This way, both parties get what they want. Those who are against it could, possibly in the next few weeks, could be proven that it is redundant and useless, whereas those that are for it, like me and Cent, might get a chance to prove that it could be a useful new section to this forum.

There's still the issue of moderation.

Ignoring the massive Centreri-vs-the SD moderators flame war, I actually think it would be nice to have a Lite Discussion forum again. Whether for the better or not, it is undeniable that Serious Discussion has become pretty strict and it would be nice to have a place to have more laid-back discussion. Whether there is really enough content to warrant it could be seen with a test of having a forum.

But to everyone claiming such discussion can be had in Null, I disagree. Null is much more a forum for cultured spam than relaxed discussion (and such should indeed have a place). It's for somewhat goofing off, and the standards are lower than what LD was.

Honestly, I don't think IP should've gotten rid of Lite Discussion in the first place.

The streets have spoken!

I approve of LD idea.

Thank you for rationally examining the idea despite the dramatization of the issue by others and, admittedly, (a bit) me.

DeVlin, which problem would that be? I believe that I responded to that already. Anything that fits into SD would fit into LD. Standards will be essentially lower across the board. It would be easier to moderate, not harder.

Oh, sorry, I meant in terms of specific moderators. I think the current mods of Serious Discussion are wonderful, but perhaps you guys who aren't a fan of their strict work wouldn't like them as Light Discussion moderators.

And just where have you /b/een?

I approve of LD, because Falkoner and I had a nice little religious talk on the shoutbox, and I feel that it would have been better suited in an actual thread.

Oh, and I can get real ideas for playing with rocket fuel. Hydrazine + N₂O₄ ftw. I think if I posted that in Null it would get stuff like "MAKE IT GO BOOM" and such, when I actually kinda want a real talk about possible ideas.

Honestly it couldnt have been said better.

No. That already exists and is called "pretty much the rest of the damn internet." And that will not be SEN on my watch.

Yes it could have, actually:

What you fuckers should have is an unlisted, members-only forum without rules.

There.


I shouldn't say need because technically none of us need anything on this entire forum, really.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 12 2010, 5:09 pm by Tuxedo-Templar.