Our ReVolt Pub

As the pub is getting a bit of improvements.....

I think that the RV 1.2 forum section (+bug report) needs it's own forum such as "Our Revolt Future"
And some of the topics need to be thinned out, reorganised into other topics with specific thread info, as some are to big to read from beginning.

The update thread could be split into the years in which the updates were released.
The suggestions thread could be split into specific areas such as cars, tracks and frontend, just to help clarification.

These are just suggestions and the staff's feedback or alternate suggestions are surely welcomed.

I totally agree, that's something I have in mind too for quite some time, but nothing really planned yet, except to make a v1.2 own section with 3 forums:
- News / general discussions / questions
- Bug reports
- Suggestions

If I ever released my Blender plugin publicly, I'd do quite the same for it.

For other topics I don't know yet. Too much sections like on RVLive don't look like a good solution to me. To give a better exposure to all recent topic I prefer the "Latest Discussions" dedicated section approach, but it's a bit awkward on invisionfree...

So, any reorganisation idea is worth being shared.

Unless anyone has any objections, I was thinking we should remove/delete the forum 'RRR Rant & Rave Room', as it serves no purpose and the actual RRR forum does not exist, well, not active.

Yeah, last post being dated 2009, you can safely delete it right now.

DONE !!

What do yo think to asking for a new Administrator.
I suggest this only because GWC is sadly no long with us, and I was going to remove him from the Administrators list.
Could we do with another administrator or is what we have enough ?

Yep, as sad as it sounds removing GWC from admin has to be done.
Don't know who is eligible to this task though... Do you have any idea, or did you just plan to make a public call?

Well, I haven't been around for a long time and am unsure who could be classed as eligible or reliable.
Would you like another admin team member ? what about Huki ? he's already a Staff member.

Yes, Huki would be a safe choice for sure, but I'm not sure giving him this extra workload is actually a good idea. It's better than he can concentrate on the v1.2 /RVGL project. Anyway he can read this section, so he'll let us know himself...

OK, valid point's.
So we need to advertise the position, get a list of interested members then make a POLL, inform the full member list via email (you personally )and then let the members vote, yes ?

How about a new mid Staff - Administrator position, say Staffmod ? has full forum access and edit but no access to Admin CP.

Hmm what kind of task does an admin usually have? For now I can't really say whether I can handle it or not. But feel free to advertise the position and call for a vote...

MM wrote:How about a new mid Staff - Administrator position, say Staffmod ? has full forum access and edit but no access to Admin CP.

You mean a Global Moderator? Yes, depends on whether we simply need someone to manage posts in all sections, or give additional control over the themes and scripts too. I see the Global Mod post is not yet taken by anyone.

Admin is like Global moderator but with the task to manage the theme and options as well.

I was thinking BTW that maybe we could make anyone in the staff global mod, instead of having arto for the online section, Zach for the cars, Huki for the v1.2, and instead of creating a new mid Staff - Administrator position...

jigebren @ 18 Feb 2015, 12:29 AM wrote:... instead of having arto for the online section, Zach for the cars...

Sorry, but I had already sent both these guys an email asking if they still want their current member status, and they both have said a similar " we are currently to busy with other personal real life project's, so you can find someone else to moderate their sections".

So advertise it is then.... this should be fun... NOT !

Can I suggest that the forum "Authorized Personnel Only" should moved to the Re-Volt v1.2 section, as it is bug reporting directly related to RV1.2 developments.

Yeah, I'm not very surprised for Arto and Zach... anyway the idea was also to get rid of the "Forum Led by:" line which looks a bit useless to me. I also had in mind that if someone can be trusted as a moderator then I presume he can be trusted in all the forum sections... though it's more true for old members like eg. Arto / Zach / Huki than for newcomers we don't really know yet.

I would no really care about the Authorized Personnel Only section for now. It 's here to be used when needed, but not necessarily for v1.2 only. And as very few people can see it actually it's not even worth moving it IMO.

This is deviating from the original topic, but since we started the moderator discussion here... Well, currently, to me the more prone to become mod here looks to be Skarma, I don't really remember the way he use to be / behave but he's been here for even longer than me. It sounds a bit weird for me that he's already moderating on RV-Live as well, but why not after all.

Apart from him, pawer126 has proved to be quite helpful but I don't remember much of his posts, and RV_Passion showed that he would get more involved on the pub, so that could be a good idea too (though I'm afraid his English level may not be the best we can see here...).

Yeah, Skarma seemed the best of the applicant's to me also. But we are leaving it to a vote right ?
As to RV_Passion or anyone else with poor/limited English (me included ), that doesn't really matter to simply moderate, they do not need to give reason or excuse's as long as they help fellow members follow the basic forum rules, and if they don't then edit/delete as appropriate.

The Emoticons list window display is too narrow, you cannot see the icon's unless you scroll or resize the window.
Other option would be to put the images/icon's on the left and the code on the right.

Also, why have you removed the 4 extra clickable icons from the basic list ?

The Emoticons list window display is too narrow

I noticed that too. I don't know what decided which size has to be used here, and I'm not sure there's much we can do (there's no way to add javascript hacks in this page).
BTW, has it changed recently or has it always been like that? I can't remember...

why have you removed the 4 extra clickable icons from the basic list

You mean the 4 ugly icons that disrupted the harmony of the basic array?

I try to keep that list filled only with basic and most-used emoticons. It looks better, and we should avoid using icon with different size here (even the height is a bit too much - and this one is not much used BTW) as it would change all the array flow.
I also prefer not to push user to use extra animated icon like
It's good when needed, but abusing it may soon become so annoying... So better place them in the extra list.

jigebren @ 27 Feb 2015, 02:11 PM wrote:BTW, has it changed recently or has it always been like that? I can't remember...

Just recent since you move the sidebar icons to closer left.

... we should avoid using icon with different size here (even the height is a bit too much - and this one is not much used BTW) as it would change all the array flow.
I also prefer not to push user to use extra  animated icon like
It's good when needed, but abusing it may soon become so annoying...

OK, I see your point, so could you meet me halfway ? exchange & for & . Not animated and not meaning any deep emotion.

I find it a bit too bad to have only same-style round and yellow emoticons and to add those two unsightly thumbs... But well, I don't want to sound like the aesthetics nerd, so ok, we can do that - but only if it's really a matter of life and death for you.

I may have a few other icons to add BTW. And I have search for better looking thumbs that-doesn't-look-like-the-facebook-one either but found none...

More and better icon's, sound's good. sorry I meant

Any idea's on what you may have changed to upset the icon list ?

Manmountain @ 27 Feb 2015, 11:24 PM wrote:Any idea's on what you may have changed to upset the icon list ?

Look at }env#§!${-whatever's post in the Board update topic. He answered already...
I just have to do the update.

Not really better icon BTW, just a few more emoticons I found yesterday...

And that's good, the Smiley array does not look too much disfigured.

Hmm I wonder why "revolting" was made moderator of "Outside the pub" section. Don't know, maybe he wanted to take the responsibility but there's something weird about Abc's post in the Christian topic that makes me think he's abusing his power.
I swear it was originally:

Abc wrote:we don't care. we're not obsessed like you are.

But now it reads:

Abc wrote:we care we're like you are.

The post has been edited in a weird way to remove just the negative words...

I have no idea why revolting was made as offtopic moderator either, anyone? I can't find any post about this anywhere.

Abc's post sounds indeed odd and doesn't make much sense (at least by Abc 'standarts', heh). I was too late to see his unedited post, so I can't really prove it, but Abc would never say like this.

All post edits by moderator are usually marked (I always do), so if it was really revolting's work, then his action wasn't very appropriate.
I can't really go deep here, maybe Manmountain (I presume he gave mod rights), didn't explained basic moderating rules to him.

Ah, I noticed the change in Abc's post but:
- I actually found it weird but the fact revolting himself edited it hasn't -shame on me - occurred to me.
- I wouldn't have remembered Abc's original post.

Anyway, now that you mentioned this, the reason appears in a very clearer way, and I'm positively sure Abc's original post was the one you posted (or very very close).

I too have no idea why revolting was made a mod, I didn't even really understood why MM treated that this way (but he may tell us when he's back ). Anyway I think we all agree that, all the more now that this topic is closed, it makes no sense to keep revolting his mod rights, don't we?

I go away for a few week, come back with the flu and finally come back to the pub to find this.

I gave revolting mod permission of the 'outside the pub' section so that he could remove/edit offensive post's that relate to religion. As I do not wish to be involved or included with any more religious post's/threads.

If Abc has been taunting revolting, then he get's what he deserve's, IMHO.

I suggested and gave permission to revolting to post any religious thought's in that section and felt it was only logical to let him moderate it.

Do any of you wish to be embroiled in religious debate ?

Manmountain @ 7 Apr 2015, 08:35 PM wrote:If Abc has been taunting revolting, then he get's what he deserve's, IMHO.

Not really. Revolting put different words in Abc's mouth without any notice, this is definitively not what mod rights are for.

Anyhow, the simplest way not to be embroiled in religious debate, neither you nor Vaid not me, is simply not to allow them. It's already hard to have a constructive discussion about Re-volt here, so about religion... really, it's not the place.

jigebren @ 7 Apr 2015, 09:07 PM wrote:

Manmountain @ 7 Apr 2015, 08:35 PM wrote:If Abc has been taunting revolting, then he get's what he deserve's, IMHO.

Not really. Revolting put different words in Abc's mouth without any notice, this is definitively not what mod rights are for.

Anyhow, the simplest way not to be embroiled in religious debate, neither you nor Vaid not me, is simply not to allow them. It's already hard to have a constructive discussion about Re-volt here, so about religion... really, it's not the place.

I sort of agree, but editing someone's post's as not to offend other's is what a mod might need to do. Changing a post to make fun of the postee might be over stepping the mark depending on the response.

As to the second point, I already made that point which created quite a big hoo-ha with conflicting opinions, which is why my resolution was suggesting revolting posted in the 'Outside the pub' section and gave him mod control so he can deal with non RV relevant issues.

If you feel revolting has over stepped the mark, then I hope you have verbally warned him and increased his warn level so he get's the message, otherwise you could remove him from being the mod of that section and take full responsibility yourself.

Well, we just can't let mod rights to a guy who is one of the few guys we had to moderate the most here... and this is a fact, even though except his religious content revolting would not be troublesome. As for the Warning stuff, I don't like it, I find it too heavy, and giving Warning to a mods doesn't really make sense anyway.

otherwise you could remove him from being the mod of that section and take full responsibility yourself.

Ok, no problem for that.

jigebren @ 12 Apr 2015, 10:13 PM wrote:Well, we just can't let mod rights to a guy who is one of the few guys we had to moderate the most here... and this is a fact, even though except his religious content revolting would not be troublesome. As for the Warning stuff, I don't like it, I find it too heavy, and giving Warning to a mods doesn't really make sense anyway. 

otherwise you could remove him from being the mod of that section and take full responsibility yourself.

Ok, no problem for that.

Too heavy ? the warning system is there to make it easier for us admin to try and keep members in line. Closing topic's and making direct statement's is heavy. IMO. That is why I activated it, as I was sick of having to get heavy to make a point.

As revolting was not an actual full access Moderator but rather had limited mod control of just one minor section of the forum, then keeping him in line would have been more productive than just closing him down, IMO. Giving him mod control of the section that I allowed for his religious waffle meant that we admin would not have to moderate him across the whole forum as we were doing.

As I did not see the original full post's, I can not make an objective statement, but I'm sure if you had to do what you did it must have been OTT.

Maybe closing that topic was a little bit rough thing to do.
Originally, Jigebren came up with this idea. We had a short discussion and decided to close it. Quite honestly, I easily agreed on his decision, probably because I couldn't accept it anymore with what was happening in that topic.
I have nothing against any religion or something (I'm christian myself, FYI, so not a hater here), I just find it weird to see such discussion in this place. It makes me feel awkward, and I think even more to guest forum visitors. Religion topics is not something we would want to see here, right? Don't ever start a topic about politics either, pretty please.

Manmountain decided it's okay to have quotes in "that" topic, I'm quite fine with this too.
But, Revolting did post a link (I didn't find it very appropriate, but left the post untouched). After this post (which had the link already removed), he posted this time with an embedded picture. It sorta looked like an "advertisement" thing, (again, I left post untouched). Then, Jig contacted me and suggested to close the topic and remove the picture. Well, as I've mentioned before, we agreed and I removed the picture from the post.
Anyway, I really don't want to put all blame to Jigebren here . Just saying what happened.

I would agree with unlocking the topic again, as long as it would contain just the quotes and no links or pictures. If you think it should be opened again. My consent here, just in case.

As far as with revolting having 'off topic' sub-forum mod privileges, I wasn't against it. Though, he could have mentioned that he edited abc's post, that's all I was "being picky" for really.

Haven't seen revolting for awhile here. Maybe, closing the topic scared him a little bit? Well, his last visit was Apr 5, but it seems he stopped posting, at least for now.

First paragraph of Vaid's answer resume quite well what I think. And to make this discussion short, this topic didn't belong here in first place.

I don't feel like coming here and having to check "what's going on in the Religious topic today", then having to wonder "do we have to moderate this or that or is it ok this time?"... I definitively and perfectly assume our action, and as far as I'm concerned I don't even think neither about reopening this topic, nor about giving revolting mods right again. He is still welcome if he wants to come back to discuss about re-volt, but not to take any opportunity to regurgitate his religious commonplaces (even though it was sometime rather funny).

Yep, I find the Warning system heavy, not for user but for us mods - well, I thought that was obvious... It may be nice if the only thing you have to do is fill a form to justify your action each time a member goes wrong, but as far as I'm concerned I don't feel like spending my time with such tasks. Clear public warnings let everyone know at once what is not tolerated and avoid to repeat the same warning in private again and again.

The rules are kept simple, and if one pretends not to understand the first warning and feels like trying again, then one gets banned. Next time one will likely think twice about it.

I totally agree with both of you without any argument.

But remember that I came to my initial way of thinking because of publicly addressing the issue of religion in any form on this forum, and that seem to stir up a bit of a hornet's nest, remember ? I was trying to be fair and friendly.

Publicly addressing an issue with an individual can sometimes back fire and create a monster of a debate which ends up being nothing to do with your initial point, which steal's thge focus of the forum and create more hassle than was intended, so sometime's an occasional private/personal warning could be a better/easier option.

I don't have an issue with your final decision, and if revolting has not defended his post's or his action's then I would like to consider the whole religion topic closed.