Hannah very confused. Hannah change talk now. Hannah sound better to Let'sFightingLove? :amazed
want to go back to my cave and have intercourse?
You failed to grab Hannah by hair and drag into cave. Hannah escaped now.
PS. Good night Kenneth. I hope you read what I wrote, but I gotta go now. :sleepy
You... Should not have started mouthing off about the big 3 thread's rules when it was your intention to talk about being able to post light-hearted, not-so-serious threads about pairings in the HoU. That's different. That's something I completely agree with. However, I will have to talk about that with the rest of the HoU mods first.
No. But that's an entirely different matter and has absolutely nothing to do with the rules in the pairing threads. Go ahead and create it, I don't really care. If it proves to be decent enough I might just sticky it.
I'm sure a lot of people would love to explain why they believe Konan would cook the best meal for Chouji. I don't care about that. That is something you'll have to discuss with Rinoa.
There are subsections actually. :3
If you would actually have said that from the start (and especially, that it wouldn't be a serious debate thread, I would have been agreeing with you from the start. Instead, you omit that part, and rip into me and the rules. Do you see where the confusion comes from?
I'll say this: I see no problem in having light-hearted topics like your example, Chouji and the cooking thing. In fact, I rather liked those, even if they often became... Very odd threads. I agree that those may get their own thread. They're fun and those threads actually require almost no moderation most of the time.
Ridiculing an argument doesn't necessarily mean you are in the right.
Also, double posts are merged when we see them, unless when they break the 10,000 character limit. We are fair. But you view us as the final villains. Fine, be that way then.
... More like we are HoU section mods that rather use an efficient and smart system than just blindly waiting for the next thread that should be deleted. And we don't want everyone to post in one topic. This section is about more than just pairings. Maybe you should try to see that for yourself, sometime.
Yes, unless you really did believe we enjoy breaking up fights 24/7. We have just as much time in life as you do. We choose to prevent rather than to cure.
Dysfunctional... And I created those conditions? Did you just ignore what I said about not even being here when those rules were created?
And refusing what work? I've been discussing this with you for 3 hours now, while modding three sections. I've done what I'm supposed to do. What more do you want? A rep for every post? A fanart for every thread? Am I supposed to mow your lawn after you click on "reply to post"?
I'm not enforcing any wishes. The fuck would my wish even be?
Thanks for that. Your posts always manage to make me feel a bit better about what I do.
I'll go and discuss your idea of allowing light-hearted pairing topics with the rest of the staff. I'm sure they won't have a problem with it, nor will I. The decision will likely be a positive one.
You could have averted this confusion, this waste of time by simply saying "am I allowed to post pairing threads that aren't about debating, or silly light-hearted threads about pairings" instead of "OH GOD I CANNOT CREATE TOPICS ABOUT PAIRINGS, DAMN IT YOU AWFUL MODS".
I would have said "yes". Nobody would have cared. I might have to explain myself to my peers, but that's about as bad as it could have gotten.
But you didn't. You went ahead and just shat on me, this piece of shit good-for-nothing lazy mod.
Second thread is not only to debate, people can bring there other light-hearted pairing topics..
hannah the rules are subject to change when are being presented certain problems on a regular basis.
Problem hannah is when even the OPs of such no debating threads start to act as such debaters and debating as well along with the no debaters users leading to the same problem as always and becoming a photocopy of the Debate thread and going out of the topic introduced in the thread.
This is a problem that this section always presented, independently of the actions and warnings from the mods in the past and that led to the restraint of pairings threads for the time being and to before post any pairing thread in the section, should first PM a section mod with the OP, for the latter to be approved or not.
Yet all the threads with pairings as a topic end as a second debate thread in the section and rarely does anyone seem interested in reporting or not feed it.
Our decisions are also a reflection of the users.
I still say burn the place down, Kenny. It's not like anything of value will be lost.
Let's not start that again please, this is the place to talk about the rules and the threads of the section.
We've all been through this before guys.
I was only answering a question.
No. They can bring light harted pairing posts.
I repeat. One big merged blob of lame.
Not the same thing.
Just because you made change to solve a problem does not mean you did right, if after solving it you made another problem. And what I was advocating against, is not right by all means.
Same thing. Punish the OPs. Mod for heaven's sake.
Just because an ENTIRE area of conversation can lead to more more rule-breaking on NF does not mean you should ban that area of conversation. That's not the fair solution derived from common sense.
Forums are full of trolls. By that logic you should just close down the forums all together. How hard is this to grasp?
Ok.. Let's see here.
These threads use to make up half of HoU and be a lot of work for you.
They were cause of a lot of rule breaking.
Rules are there to create a harmonious community and in extension benefit the users.
No user had a problem with occasional rule breaking, which does not mean they condone, they just don't care.
On the other side people loved those topics, because if they didn't, they wouldn't be a problem in the first place...
So of course, logically... The solution is to keep moderating more strictly, letting people know the distinction between a pairing debate thread and non-pairing-debate thread, even making your debate topics is a solution, while retaining half the reason people used HoU.
Wait, it's not. It's to just shut everything down. It's not to be fair to the fans of the forum for whom your moderating is suppose to be a greater good in the first place. It's not to just punish the retarded culprits and manage just the debates. No. Let's ban everything and call it better.
It is better, but only for you. No one else.
And I am not cheering lets torture and overwork the mods. But your solution is not good just because it means less work for you.
Kenneth just made a case of stating the opposite. Who do I believe?
This ENTIRE time while I was explaining to you what was wrong, you really weren't reading.
And all the reasons I for which called you irrational, unjust and selfish don't actually exist? And you didn't tell me that because you really weren't reading what I was talking about...
My mocking of debate threads had its purpose in explaining my point. I put it there for a reason. What else was I suppose to do? Colorize my text?
And now after the misunderstanding has been cleared up, you continue to reply to my posts accusing me of misunderstanding you and being unfair myself..
Don't play dirty. You know very well that if we share an opinion on this like you say we do, the posts I addressed to you regarding that topic no longer apply. So don't respond to them as baiting me to continue a debate that no longer exists between us.
I did create it. It was quickly deleted and the reason was: let's not post pairing threads right now.
I know. I wasn't mocking, I was saying making a particular-debate-only thread makes sense because it is like dividing the entire NF. I know there are subsections, that's good.
But making one topic for all pairing discussions is what I was talking about because by the same logic you can make one topic for all Naruto discussions. Where does the merging stop?
I never just ridicule. I ridicule and disprove.
"Can I create a pairing poll thread, or would it be possible to allow light-hearted pairings threads in the HoU again?"
Hey it almost looks as if this one small sentence contains a concise, polite question that can be answered rather easily. That's awesome. That's how you ask a question. You don't ask it by adding completely redundant ones that are about the rules in the big 3 pairing thread, or the inability to create topics on "pairings". That's too generic. You don't add a heap of mocking, baitish, pointless remarks.
Also, I already typed much of that until I got to the point where you talked about that poll. I thought I'd just keep the stuff where I was agreeing with you, hence why the first part of your post is gone. It's not debating, it's agreeing, for the most part.
"you should have been clear from the start".
Kay, what part of this says you misunderstood me? What part says that you are being unfair? Stop putting words in my mouth.
Oh I'm sorry, I had forgotten how courteous and pleasant you were in my conversation with you!
So, let's drop this, now. I'm tired of this, really I am. If you still feel like sending me some of your bile, send it to me in a PM.
I didn't need to ask that. That was loudly answered already. And the answer was NO.
I came with another question. It was: why?
I thought your modding was based on bad principles and that your solutions were lousy. I said it and I explained why. I did not want a favor and a permission, I wanted an explanation and a reason for your actions. And if there is none, then a change in modding.
And I know you say you agree with me, but when I say you I mean all moderators including the ones who delete all pairing threads, be they debate threads, or not.
Stop taking this personally Kenneth. I may even like you but on this topic here you are just a moderator to me. And I agree you should not go after hurting moderator's feelings either, so I'm sorry if you're hurt, but I will address you as a part of the staff in charge. And if I criticize the staff, you will see it.
I was. Nothing I said here is unclear.
The only mistake I made was addressing an issue that never existed. You accommodating the whiny children of NF. While, according to you, you never do this.
Well mere replying to my accusation says that you think I have wrong perceptions of moderators which means I am being unfair and that I am misunderstanding you, while it was already cleared up I did not know you agreed with me.
Nothing to do with courtesy. I meant that it is mean because it is frustratingly unnecessary. My feelings aren't hurt by your accusation. My mind is.
I don't feel like sending you anything. This has nothing to do with you and everything to do with all HoU moderators and all HoU users. This conversation is as much for them as it is for me, if not more.
Also... It's a little fishy to me that you say you agree with light hearted topics now, when a light hearted topic being deleted was the in the first post I made on this thread.
But maybe you just overlooked it by accident. It happens apparently.
HoU pairing threads: The ONLY two threads in all of NF where we can discuss pairings. So I'm assuming pairing discussion relevant to the latest chapter also goes in these two threads.
If not, please delete my post, but don't ban me
Discussions about the latest chapter will have to wait till monday. The only place where you can discuss what happened in the chapter would be the Telegrams... Or the Blender.
... Okay, and the fanclubs. But that's less scary.
If you have doubts about when and where you can posts spoilers, check out X.
Kenneth you said you'd talk to rest of the staff about light hearted pairing topics?
Are they allowed now?
We're still discussing that. Shouldn't take much longer now.
Would it be possible to have more harsher punishment for the baiters/flamers ?
Thing is, there can be some really interesting discussion about pairings but it always takes the wrong turn of events if someone just throws oil in the fire and ruins everything.
We've added a more severe punishment in the Big3 thread, that there will be no more warnings depending on the offense and the users are subject to a direct section or forum ban.
If coming to exist any other/s pairings threads in the section, the same will be applied to that thread.
So I'm back from along journey of self discovery... or rather, back from Telegrams, where pairing threads are constantly closed, without exception.
Coupled with what you said just now Kenneth about how we cannot discuss latest chapter material in the two pairing threads of HoU, this means
there is a void, a short period in which pairing topics related to the latest chapter cannot be discussed anywhere on Naruto Forums at all!
Except fanclubs, but each have their own rules and followers, and it's impossible to hold a debate on the full range of topics with the full range of audience.
Now, that's not gonna kill me. I'm a rather casual pairing fan. But it's a lot of work for the KT mods, who have to keep locking pairing threads. So, did you guys think about this already? Is this void on purpose? Maybe it's something you should discuss.
It's a general rule that goes beyond the topic pairings, is a rule that has always existed and as far as i know it's not on purpose at all, until the telegrams are clean we can not talk about the last chapter out of that section, and any thread is closed and the user banned for posting spoilers outside of telegrams.
Maybe you can expose it to the moderation of the section, since during this period of time is forbidden to discuss any matter of the last manga chapter in some other sections, and i guess it's not our call to meedle with that.
We can take this post to them, but always worked this way so far, without any problems.
I also remember that sometimes are left open some threads in some manga events related to this topic in there and are not all closed, at least while remained acceptable.
To my knowledge, it isn't on purpose. It's always been like this, from when spoilers used to be fine to post about on sundays instead of monday (might have been saturday).
Why turn this into a second Telegrams section? Or would it just be for that one thread? I might be fine with that, but I'm not sure if that would be our call to make. Every section out there besides the fanclubs can't talk about the chapter, including the library. The section that's actually about the manga.
Alright I'll expose it to the moderator of KL as Rinoa suggested.
Who knows, maybe he's aware of it but really likes locking threads
Bonta here are the other sections (bolded) where post-RAW manga spoilers are allowed provided that it's made according to the rules of each section.:3
An image of a snail would have been more fitting. It appears that we still have to wait for one staff member to pop up. I'd say "24 hours from now, pinky promise" but if I did that and 25 hours pass, I'd be a lying prick.
Oh. Well pairings discussion in Fanworks and Battledome would be kinda off topic (except pairing wars are kinda a combination of fanwork (wishful thinking by fans) AND battles (because we like to attack each other so much) hahaha).
So do you think we can discuss latest chapter pairings in Translations?
Edit: Nope. Telegrams is:
"This is not a discussion section for actions or events within the manga. Any question or discussion should be related to the quality of the scanlation or translation *only*."
So we're back to square one, watching members create tons of pairing threads which mods close as fast as they can. It feels like a kindergarten in KT sometimes . Anyway, I posted in the KL suggestions thread, so my meddlesome work is done for now until a mod over there replies. Danke sch?n und auf Wiedersehen.
Edit: Who Jizzed all over the pairing debate thread?
It feels like another section before some restrictions.
Jizz...Who else could have been? ^^
I don't even know what that's about!
I just can't stop..!
The Popularity thread seems to be like, not going well.
Kenneth you should have seen this coming.
I did, remember? But I'm also in favor of giving things a fair chance.
I think it's had a fair chance, but it's ultimately up to you! However even the OP isn't even following the OP's demands so I'm just putting that out there. I think we both knew there were never any "noble" intentions behind the idea.
Oh yes, because a fan forum for a young boy's cartoon is the ultimate pinnacle of scholarly research. Six Path Sage forbid that we compromise this "nobillity" to have some fun.
The pairing debate thread discusses the canonical basis for the parings themselves, and the pairing popularity thread seems to have become a discussion about the fandoms. There's some factual posts about relative popularity of pairings internationally vs in Japan, and Facebook figures. That's enough, IMO, to allow discussion in this thread.
To minimize the insults, Kenneth and mods can make large warning posts followed by gratuitous use of banhammer for anyone continuing to break the rules. That tends to get things civilized again.
One post per user rule minimizes insults too, but I think it will kill discussion entirely. Plus, how is OP supposed to guide the discussion if she only gets one post?
Also, with the exception of this one-post-per-user rule, I don't see OP ignoring any other OP rules. No one active's going to see the one-post-per-user by the way, because no one goes back to double check the OP, except us because we're talking about it here.
"Six Paths Sage forbid"?
This has nothing to do with what I stated at all.
People cannot and will not be able to conduct themselves because any poll like this becomes some absurd race for votes.
I'm questioning if the thread should have existed to begin with. Why is it with certain people the mods seem to bend so easily to demands? The inevitable shitstorm should have been obvious.
The OP is like, being part of the problem. How can you expect an OP that doesn't even follow their own demands to guide it at all?
except for baiting, and fandom bashing, and trying to rile a debate that has little to do with simply casting a vote.
No, no one reads the OP of a thread most of the time; not even the OP allegedly in this case.
It's instead of "god forbid". It's a joke genius.
Who would have thought you have the ability.
So? Nobody cares. Punish people who break the rules and move on. You can't stop human stupidity, you can only stop breaking of rules you clearly stated.
If a shitstorm may occur it may occur, you take care of the shitstorm, you don't close down the forums.
I had one demand. No pairing debates. Until the second demand came into light, I followed what I asked for.
You can point at anything and say "baiting! Whaa! WHaaa!". A discussion is the fun on a thread that can occur. So can a flame war. But if you stop any discussion, any joke by calling it war potential, you're being a whiny little girl.
And leave Bonta alone!
I know. Just why?
Obviously someone does considering the pains to restrict pairing discussion in this section in the first place, so to claim that is clearly untrue. You can't stop people from being people, but you can do something about the outlet they use to express such things.
Although this is why I think it was a mistake to bend to your demands. I really don't think it sets good precedent that if a person metaphorically speaking, kicks and screams enough, they'll get their way.
Then you abandoned your own standards completely.
I'm not against an outlet entirely, I just find this one particularly pointless. We already have two pairing threads, no point in having another.
I am almost flabbergasted they gave into your demands. More disappointed than anything though, as it should've been clear what it would lead to.
Not someone Seto. You care.
And most importantly for the wrong reasons.
No you can't do something about people's outlet. If you are doing something about their outlet without any rules that back up your decision, you are being unfair and inhumane. You know what they call that on a grand scale? A communist dictatorship.
Lovely. Call everything I say kicking and screaming and you will be right. I'm tired.
That WAS my standard.
Translation: If I point a finger at it and call it any bad word I can think of, like "pointless", it needs to be deleted!
And I'm kicking and screaming?
It doesn't matter what it might lead to. I explained this.
Such hyperbole. Well, I wasn't the one that mandated the restricted pairing discussion, so goes back to my point, obviously enough people cared to do something about it.
Also you mean authoritarian dictatorship.
It is though.
I'm aware. I'm saying you abandoned them.
Yes you are, as were your demands for the thread you were allowed to make. This entire response is one overreaction after another. Like I stated there's already two pairing threads, I see no need for another.
But it does as that can defeat or undermine the purpose.
No, they cared because it's become common to accept such whining as standard behavior. It still doesn't mean it's based on common sense.
No I don't. Authoritarian dictatorship acknowledges a dictatorship under one person as such openly, and bases it's structure on retarded ideas like "the ultimate goal justifies the means" or "my feelings". While communism is meant to be the rule of the people, to serve the people for their benefit only.
Communist dictatorship is a paradoxical product, of an attempt to reach this utopia "Communism", since communism should be a society free of any kind of oppression.
This right here is also paradoxical since the rules created to benefit the structure of a forum and the users, only meant to punish the culprits, begin to "be builded upon" and end up ruining the forum and punishing everyone.
And I'm saying I didn't. Not for one moment, did I discuss pairings.
Rules have the purpose of creating order.
Bypassing the rules and shitting on them, to get to that desired order, undermines the rules, instead of the purpose. That's even worse.
The right thing is to uphold the rules and enforce them clearly and rationally.
Not make them up as you go and wipe posts away, because they might cause rule breaking.
Mods do seem to give into whining a lot, at least from certain people. Honestly, it's what you did to get your thread and with the way you were reacting, I find it a little disappointing they gave in.
But feelings are what you stated you believe what are restrictive rules were based on, which is why you mean authoritarian dictatorship.
I'm relieved you have some awareness of communism, it is a paradoxical term, as the idea is one of a classless, stateless society. The concept of a dictatorship already acknowledges a single ruler, the dictator and cannot exist with communism. It's why there has been no true communist state, just dictatorships and collective leaderships.
They have been expanded to some broad degrees in some respects, but this is separate from my own personal feelings on that.
hannah. You attempted to exacerbate a debate, and then proceeded to rile a flame war with people in the thread.
Yes they do.
Rules and purpose are being undermined in this case.
Reasonable enough, although that depends on the enforcers' abilities on being rational and clear.
It's not a matter of "might" it's a matter of what already is.
They should not be broad. That's a problem. They need to be clear and precise. A "broad" rule is the very base for a dictatorship.
That's your subjective perception and as such it is meaningless given the fact that I did not engage in any kind of debate.
No. Rules are undermined if mods ignore them and mod outside of them. The only way they are not undermined is if they are followed and always referred to 100% of the time. If you can't refer to a rule clearly, when punishing someone, you're undermining the sole existence of rules. Basically spitting on them.
Being rational and clear is not an ability. Dumbest of the dumbest know simplicity. If anything, they know it better than people with IQ over 60. This is not about ability.
Your perception. And a wrong one at that.
No one was insulted or bashed. No pairings were discussed.
You are making any kind of conversation out to be a flame war.
This is why rules need to be clear and mods need to be clear. To prevent conclusions like yours.
Hyperbolic, but broad rules do become problematic. They have been for a while in some places.
You were confronted over your behavior, so I don't see how you can claim that.
Rules can be undermined if as you stated they are ignored, specifically, selectively applied and when people don't abide by them which brings the matter of repercussion for doing so. Particularly so in the case of those demanding or charged to enforce them don't follow. This has all occurred, which undermine them.
It is an ability, one that can be acquired and refined over time and through one's personal experiences. If it were as simple as being an inherent trait, the world would be a very different place. Simplicity doesn't equate to rationality.
No, I'm making out particular conversations that were blatantly so.
My conclusions came about observing the matter, and comparing them to the most clear rules we have on the forum. In this case, it's not a matter of the mods or the rules being unclear or anything.
Seto, WHAT did it lead to? Why are you acting like it's the end of the world? Some flaming or pairing debate broke out. What I'm saying is compared to the useful discussion about pairing fandom, it's worth a bit of flaming outbreak, which, being in one thread, is easily contained. It does not lower the quality of the rest of HoU. I think you're taking it harder than the people who actually got flamed!
I read all of OP's posts before making the post you just quoted. None of them were "pairing debate." As in, they did not attempt to argue one pairing in favor of another. So, as far as I know, OP did not break the OP rules like you're instigating.
 I can only assume this because I didn't have a chance to read the deleted posts.
 Again, only the undeleted ones.
And the Six Path Sage doth appear before BD. And He proclaimeth, "Let there be : geg." And BD heareth these wordes and doth rejoyce!
Yep, that's what I saw
I didn't read the rest of you ladies and gentlemen's tl;dr, but I might later if I feel masochistic enough. Kenneth needs to read all this doesn't he. Man deserves a medal.
Uh...would just like to point out that if you're only reading the undeleted posts, you're not getting a clear picture of the situation. The posts that were deleted are the ones that directly related to a pairing debate.
No they are not. I know what they were. I wrote some of them and I have a clear picture. There was NO pairing debate there except for one single post I myself warned into editing.
I read everything on this thread now. I can't comment on whether or not Kenneth's deletions were too preemptive because I didn't see the deleted posts, but I agree with the principles stated by Hannah here.
Communism is an economic system, [sp=really off topic lol]not a government system. You can have any government with communism. Communist democracy, communist dictatorship. None of it has ever worked, and probably the best chance of communist success is communist meritocracy whose ultimate authority is a supercomputer, due to information being unable to flow through prices as with a free market system. If Tazmo creates a legal document naming the members of NF as its owners, then NF becomes communist...[/sp]
but anyway, I digress. A LOT. The point of this communism analogy is, if Mr. Kenneth and mods claim to be setting and enforcing rules for the good of the members, then Mr. Kenneth and mods should be aware that a blanket enforcement hurts as much as lack of enforcement. It hurts people who actually have respectable ideas and the means to defend their viewpoints (capitalists), in order to save people who are easily I’M MR. MEESEEKS, LOOK AT ME (labor). You just can't see the LACK of expression as clearly as the PRESENCE of I’M MR. MEESEEKS, LOOK AT ME.
Now, as a liberal, I am of view that people people with ideas should be served as well, if not better, than the I’M MR. MEESEEKS, LOOK AT ME people. But as to not turn the thread into a savage cesspool of insults, there should be enforcement of order when necessary.
Conclusion: I support allowance of discussion with spot enforcement where necessary when rules are actually broken.
Well, too bad about my not having been on time to read the comments. But at least it doesn't change my case for allowing discussion. It would only affect the alleged over preemtiveness of Mr. Kenneth. Hanna says he was overly preemptive. Jena says he was not. I don't know about that. But the new one post per member rule will certainly kill discussion too much, which I don't agree with.
I'll amend my statement to "the ones that were perceived as relating to a pairing debate". Whether or not you intended them to be that way or not, that's how they were interpreted.
Don't put words in my mouth. You were analyzing the thread and saying that you didn't see a pairing discussion, I just wanted to point out that you're looking at it after the "offending" posts were deleted and so, obviously, it's not going to look like a pairing debate if the "pairing debate-y" posts have been deleted. I haven't given my opinion on what Kenneth did. Don't give it for me, thanks.
I got a post deleted for agreeing with another poster (Pika) that mentioned whether the mods could check dupes in the poll. I then said they should since they agreed with that thing being allowed to begin with and there were several accusations of dupes being used already (so to quell said claims). Still got my post deleted and that had nothing to do with a pairing debate whatsoever (I assume it was because of offtopic). So at least those two posts as well have nothing to do with pairing debates.
whether you feel you've been treated fairly or not, in the end, it won't change the fact that the thread is evolving and will continue to evolve into something uncivil and ultimately a bash-fest. People can't help themselves, just look at the last three posts.
As far as dupes, i doubt there are many, even as a person that argues NS, this is basically what I expected the results to be.
Separate names with a comma.