Removal of the Regiment Reservation threads in the Mod section.

[Joseph Graham]

Being a hypocrite and riding a high horse doesn't make me anymore keen to care what you are saying, nor would i want to PM you.

That's quite alright, I'd hate to be cornered in a private conversation as well. No hard feelings, eh?

And the problem wasn't that individual users would have to update their reservation threads. I was thinking that if there were rules, as to how the moderators would get around to having time to check if the threads were following rules etc. (Example: The mod has to atleast have a Beta released to be able to have a reservation thread.) It would be a waste of their time, so the easier solution is just to remove those threads and just keep all things related to that mod under development, in one thread. Simple, organized, no clutter. There's no reason to have an elaborate set of rules to further compicate things, but if the moderators have time to do it, which they will probably say they wont since they are busy people, then they can do that instead of removing the threads who comply with the rules.

At the end of the day time is an issue; like I said before, if you don't have the time to commit it's time to pass the torch on to someone else, rather than throwing a hissy because people expect you to do work you yourself know you don't have time for. I don't see any reason why there couldn't be a set of rules in place; all it would take is an individual or two to enforce them, hence why most other forums have board moderators - something which, if I remember rightly, is in place here on one or two of the existing boards.

Clutter does seem to be the main issue. I'd still say keep it to two threads, however that's it; hell, even have a sub-section of the development board for them with a required level of progress before being able to post one there, i.e, the beta suggestion you made. The issue I see with having it all condensed in one thread is that eventually you'll see the reservation posts disrupting the general flow of conversation about the mod, which is the last thing you want.

That said, that's just my two cents. I see no reason why they can't be kept, however I'd say they could benefit from increased moderation. The issue is, and this is a problem for the devs, whom.

[kpetschulat]

Guys, let's take it easy, come together for a big group hug, and put this to a nice democratic poll. See what people think?

[Archduke Sven]

Guys, let's take it easy, come together for a big group hug, and put this to a nice democratic poll. See what people think?

Well it's up, deadline in 10 days, lets see how it goes.

[Duuring]

An accidental post I just can't seem to remove...

Now I'm forced to make a vote, aren't I?

[Desert Thunda]

Has my approval.


But it will probably cause issues like with the 51st name, no one knows which idiot took the name after the original disbanded.

[Archduke Sven]

Has my approval.


But it will probably cause issues like with the 51st name, no one knows which idiot took the name after the original disbanded.

I don't see the problem, this is for the reservation threads, not for the actual regiment thread when the mod gets released.

[Oakenshield]

Mod developers who want to have a regiment reservation thread should have to get permission from a moderator, only those mods which show serious progress should be allowed to have these threads.

[Archduke Sven]

Yeah but then there is the question as to how to get the moderators to constantly check if the mod has permission to post that thread, as we know the moderators are busy. We could use a board moderator, that would solve it.

[Joseph Graham]

I don't see any reason why there couldn't be a set of rules in place; all it would take is an individual or two to enforce them, hence why most other forums have board moderators - something which, if I remember rightly, is in place here on one or two of the existing boards.

Oh my. Did I post that? But yes, the issue can be worked around by implementing a board moderator or two; the issue being whom, mainly, however that's down to the devs.

[Archduke Sven]

I don't see any reason why there couldn't be a set of rules in place; all it would take is an individual or two to enforce them, hence why most other forums have board moderators - something which, if I remember rightly, is in place here on one or two of the existing boards.

Oh my. Did I post that? But yes, the issue can be worked around by implementing a board moderator or two; the issue being whom, mainly, however that's down to the devs.

It's still not the best idea since it just makes things more complicated, and more complicated just leads to more things to go wrong. It is way better to keep it simple, just to remove them.

[Joseph Graham]

It's still not the best idea since it just makes things more complicated, and more complicated just leads to more things to go wrong. It is way better to keep it simple, just to remove them.

The only complication is whether or not the addition of new people to an existing moderating team is going to cause any issues, such as whether or not they can be trusted, the extent of the role they fulfill, etc; and to be frank, simple isn't always best. I can see where you're coming from; it ultimately creates more work for someone, which is a bummer, but it resolves a fair number of issues at the same time.

At the end of the day I'd rather see a board moderator or two responsible for the section than having to see Ewan or Mal waste valuable time that might be better spent elsewhere. That's the entire point of a board moderator. It's been done well on other forums, why not here?

[Oakenshield]

It wouldn't be that complicated, anyone who doesn't ask permission before posting a reservation thread gets their post locked, simples. 

[Archduke Sven]

So, poll is done, do you moderators have an opinion?

[Wismar]

Let the clensing begin

[Colbac]

I'm a little late to the party it seems, but instead of entirely removing them, why not just combine the original thread with the regiment reservations? It would get rid of a thread but still hold the same premise.