Suggestion to get more money.

[JDigital]

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=116643

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=115530

BINGO!

First one from: May 17 2009, 8:37 PM - And I kinda agree with that closing, that was never an issue. Had completely forgotten about it.

Second one from: Apr 02 2009
This is the one that made me decide to NOT buy a premium... which I already knew about. I though I had one closed voluntarily also so that would make 3 then...


Still, I don't care. This isn't about me. Obviously I wouldn't wait months to complain about a thread closing...

 

[TB]

You say there are 50 premium subscriptions. Look here scroll down to the premium users list and count. I didn't count them all but there is certainly more than 50.

289, unless I suck at counting as much as searching...

 

[JDigital]

LOL!!!! You keep telling people to do research yet you fail to do just that.

You say there are 50 premium subscriptions. Look here scroll down to the premium users list and count. I didn't count them all but there is certainly more than 50.

Oh cool a list... yea, more than 50... Now remove all the freebies... then remove all the inactives, how many are left?

Not that many.

 

[McLaren]

128k+ members, less than 50 current premiums... somehow I think your logic is flawed.

His logic is flawed? You're the one who can't get the number of Premium users correct.

It's around 275, fyi.

Oh cool a list... yea, more than 50... Now remove all the freebies... then remove all the inactives, how many are left?

Not that many.

Can you prove that, or are you just making an assumption?

And btw, less than 12 people have ever had a "freebie". For the other 260+ folks, someone had to buy the premium subscription for them, whether it was them or someone else.

 

[Northstar]

What made him uptight?

He gave a reason why it was locked(because there was a sticky thread at the top of the forum discussing that).

Not to mention your attitude in that thread wasn't the greatest.

Also, who is this thread about? because so far it is you and you only that share your view.

 

[JDigital]

His logic is flawed? You're the one who can't get the number of Premium users correct.

It's around 275, fyi.

Logic != counting....

hurrdeedurrr...

What made him uptight?

He gave a reason why it was locked(because there was a sticky thread at the top of the forum discussing that).

Not to mention your attitude in that thread wasn't the greatest.

Also, who is this thread about? because so far it is you and you only that share your view.

Well, considering its pretty much all freebie premium users and mods posting in here... Is that surprising?

Alright, gotta go... Last post from me on this subject.

I'll leave the mob to the mob activities.

 

[Loon]

Second one from: Apr 02 2009
This is the one that made me decide to NOT buy a premium... which I already knew about. I though I had one closed voluntarily also so that would make 3 then...

Ok, after seeing that thread, I think you're reason for not wanting to buy premium is stupid. Duke gave you back the same stuff you tried to dish out. He was right, you failed at see !READ THIS sticky for your exact question.

 

[Northstar]

Oh cool a list... yea, more than 50... Now remove all the freebies... then remove all the inactives, how many are left?

Not that many.

Why would freebies and inactivities be removed? Somebody still payed for the subscription. I payed $4 for The Vanishing Boy's subscription for a month, should that all of a sudden not count?

 

[McLaren]

Logic != counting....

hurrdeedurrr...

Great response. You're 12, I'm guessing?

 

[buickgnx88]

Why would freebies and inactivities be removed? Somebody still payed for the subscription. I payed $4 for The Vanishing Boy's subscription for a month, should that all of a sudden not count?

I believe that he thinks they were purchased with authentic Monopoly money.

 

[Jondot]

Well, considering its pretty much all freebie premium users and mods posting in here... Is that surprising?

Can you stop calling them 'freebie' premiums, please? Everyone that's been given premium as a gift (myself included) has been lucky enough to have someone else buy it for them. Money still goes into GTP, the only thing that changes is whose bank account it's coming from.

If this thread gets closed, it will prove my point 1000x over.

...not quite, but it will prove that the 40-something counter-replies to your various statements in this thread might have been more right than you first realised.

 

[buickgnx88]

Alright, gotta go... Last post from me on this subject.

I'll leave the mob to the mob activities.

So basically this is a bitch and run then.

 

[Casio]

PRETTY HYPOCRITICAL NOW YOU HAVE PREMIUM.

Logic = Flawed.

 

[Northstar]

LOL, was that you Casio?

 

[Der Alta]

Oh cool a list... yea, more than 50... Now remove all the freebies... then remove all the inactives, how many are left?

Not that many.

GTPremium has never been "given away Free". Someone has always paid for it. In fact, I've bought more than a handful for others.

You seem to have a serious issue with the actions staff here at GTP. Can I inform you that every single action performed by the staff, be it banning, closing a thread, opening a thread, gifting premium, issuing an ifraction or warning, is logged by the forum software in such a way that all the staff can review it.

The Acceptable Use Policy is linked at the bottom of every page and easily accessible for everyone. Should you have an issue with the actions of a Staff member, the report buttom works both ways. And as always, the PM system can put you in touch with all three administrators.

In addition, PM's to Jordan can only be read by Jordan. Neither Duke nor I have access to any of his correspondence. Any issue with a staff member can be brought up solely between the two of you. Granted, if the actions of the Staff member are within the guidelines and intents of Jordans Site, you run the risk of wasting his time.

Feel free to PM me if you'd like to further this discussion.

In addition, now that the OP has had his say, I'd like the rest of you to relax a bit and leave any further actions up to Jordan and the staff. I appreciate all the input you've all given as it shows that we here at GTP are keeping the standards where they should be.

 

[JDigital]

So basically this is a bitch and run then.

Not my intention at all, had to go do something... I'm back now.


Ok, I must admit whoever bought me premium, that was great... I did laugh my ass off when I logged in and saw that.


Look guys, bottom line... I really don't like arguing about anything and I knew everyone was going to jump my ass about this.

But if you can HONESTLY say with a straight face that you've never saw mods being overbearing, really just one in particular... for instance I've never saw Famine do anything like that, then I'll shut up and drop it for good.

 

[Der Alta]

But if you can HONESTLY say with a straight face that you've never saw mods being overbearing, really just one in particular... for instance I've never saw Famine do anything like that, then I'll shut up and drop it for good.

And unless someone can come back with that, I'll ask, again, that this be left for Jordan to review.

 

[Nicksfix]

I guess I'll be the first to say honestly and straight faced (as you say) - that the mods are justifiably fair.

They do have a job to do in this forum,whether you like it or not.

Overbearing ?????

 

[McLaren]

PRETTY HYPOCRITICAL NOW YOU HAVE PREMIUM.

Logic = Flawed.

 

[Jordan]

...do you realize that each new thread takes up space and every post takes up more? The more consolidation you can get leads to less load on the server.

For the record, new threads and posts place the same "load" on the server. If you've got something that needs its own topic, please do not hesitate to create a new one because of a fear of introducing a technical burden.

Edit: Why don't you guys think about that for a minute... the person that bought the domain, did all the work, and owns this site... has mods running around robbing him of the chance for more money. And that's ok?

I've asked the moderators to help me enforce the rules that I have defined in the Acceptable Use Policy. I cannot blame them if, while doing what I have asked them to do, they discourage someone from becoming a paying member. If someone cannot or does not want to follow the rules which I believe will cultivate the "best" community, it is not in my best interest over the long-term for them to be here in the first place.

Edit2: And truth be told, I really don't care about your opinions... Know that Jordan is down at least one PAYING subscriber due to the actions of a certain mod. All of you with your FREE premium subscriptions talking like you matter totally miss the point. You aren't even a real premium member if you didn't pay for it. You didn't support anything.

I'd like to point out that I am the only one with financial control of GTPlanet, and the only one who can provide "free" Premium subscriptions (I've given away 3, if I recall correctly). When any other member of the staff purchases the service for another user, including Duke or Alex, they are making a real financial contribution to the site. There are 286 total subscribers.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=115530

This is the one that made me decide to NOT buy a premium... which I already knew about.

Still, I don't care. This isn't about me. Obviously I wouldn't wait months to complain about a thread closing...

Before addressing your concerns about the moderation staff, I want to be clear on the issue(s) we are talking about. Duke's post in that thread is what made you decide not to sign up for Premium service, but that's not the incident you want to discuss in this thread? Please, if you can provide a link to the specific situations which you feel exemplify "overbearing" staff harming the community, I would very much appreciate it. Until then, I don't see how we can move forward to ultimately resolve your problem.

 

[Northstar]

For the record, new threads and posts place the same "load" on the server. If you've got something that needs its own topic, please do not hesitate to create a new one because of a fear of introducing a technical burden.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[oldmodelt]

Being as neither of you benefit from subscribers, I don't think this thread pertains to you in the slightest.

We pay our money and that entitles us to speak our peace. Unless you want to do to us what you accuse the Mods of doing to you.

 

[in.s@ne]

My $0.02:

One of the reasons I am still here, is I don't have to trawl through pages of pointless repeated discussions - if a thread is closed I usually just skip over it.

The "overbearing" mods I find don't overstep their mark, and I've even seen some realise they've made a mistake and reversed their decision. It's their hard work (which is volunteered) which keeps this place free of rubbish and keeps users (all be it maybe older ones (generalisation I know)) a bit more interested.

Contrary to popular belief, when you age a bit in life, reading ads about Viagra is not enjoyable, neither is reading the same discussion about cars that everyone wants to be in GT5.

OK, they're not perfect, who is? But at the same time, this isn't whirlpool, and thank heavens for that.


Also, this site is made feasible by those who do subscribe. Someone subscribed for me, but their funds still went to the site. The mods make this a pleasant place to be, unlike most other sites I'm a member of (which, having done my research is 13 forums on which I am a member, and 4 on which I am a moderator). They do a much better job than nearly any team I've come across, because they filter out. If it wasn't for them, I wouldn't be on a premium subscription.

 

[WVUscion]

JDigital's logic and frustration towards the moderation staff is obviously flawed, but I think it scratches a grey area that may be in the acceptable use policy. I don't have many posts on this forum, but I have been on this board reading countless bits of news and threads. I hope my relative lack of posting experience does not cause my statements to fall on deaf ears.

First I think its important to define what really requires a new thread, and what does not. Technically, for games that have not been released like Gran Turismo 5, all threads in relation to it would belong in the General Discussion thread. If it was the wish of the staff all topics could be consolidated as such, and such a consolidation would be well within policies followed by the staff. However, such a consolidation would make it harder to find pertinent information and active discussion. Therefore there NEEDS to be more threads. This is where the grey area begins to fall. Threads have been closed in the past due to the information being located on page 185 of the general discussion thread. Threads have also been closed because another thread exists from years in the past on the same subject. This to me is a Catch-22. Members are often chastised for "resurrecting" old threads, even if questions or comments that the member posts in the old thread is valid. At the same time, if the member were to open a new thread on the subject, the opposite effect would occur. The member would be directed towards the older thread.

I'm not really frustrated with the system in place, and I agree that this forum is better structured then most others that I have come across. Clearing up small details such as these and setting a standard that can be followed consistently would help to ease tension regarding matters such as this.

Just my thoughts on the matter really.

 

[Thiele]

Threads have been closed in the past due to the information being located on page 185 of the general discussion thread. Threads have also been closed because another thread exists from years in the past on the same subject. This to me is a Catch-22. Members are often chastised for "resurrecting" old threads, even if questions or comments that the member posts in the old thread is valid. At the same time, if the member were to open a new thread on the subject, the opposite effect would occur. The member would be directed towards the older thread.

I see what your saying. I think there is a fuzzy line there between whether you should start a new thread or bump the old one. Personally, i think if you search and find a thread that is (closely) relevant to what your looking for and you have a question to add (not a comment or an answer to a year old question) then it should be ok to bump. (and i think it is usually ok) If you are answering a question that was posted years ago, adding a comment, or posting something not related to the subject, then it should not be ok, you should start a new thread then. This still leaves a bit of a fuzzy line though, maybe we should just say don't bump threads more than 3 months old, regardless of relevance (except for stickies) or something of the like. Quite a few other forums i've been to have a rule like that one. I guess the other solution is to just accept both of those near that line, especially for new members. If something is on page 185 of the general discussion thread, i think you should be excused for starting a new thread, unless of course it appears in the search, or if you are supposed to talk about that subject in the general discussion, in which you should have added it to that.

(that's got to be the longest post i've ever done here)

 

[ExigeEvan]

But if you can HONESTLY say with a straight face that you've never saw mods being overbearing, really just one in particular... for instance I've never saw Famine do anything like that, then I'll shut up and drop it for good.

I have seen mods be overbearing on occasion. I have also seen mods be too laid back on occasion and felt I've had to close a thread of mine myself.

But, all-in-all, in the long run the moderating on this site is second to none. And I've visited a fair fiew forums in the last 6 years but I keep coming back to this one despite the fact I hardly touch GT games anymore.

If you want an example of a large unruly forum simply go to http://forum.bodybuilding.com/. Repeat threads, rep-begging threads, a rep system that is completely abused, baiting threads and just generally poor user base.

 

[WVUscion]

I see what your saying. I think there is a fuzzy line there between whether you should start a new thread or bump the old one. Personally, i think if you search and find a thread that is (closely) relevant to what your looking for and you have a question to add (not a comment or an answer to a year old question) then it should be ok to bump. (and i think it is usually ok) If you are answering a question that was posted years ago, adding a comment, or posting something not related to the subject, then it should not be ok, you should start a new thread then. This still leaves a bit of a fuzzy line though, maybe we should just say don't bump threads more than 3 months old, regardless of relevance (except for stickies) or something of the like. Quite a few other forums i've been to have a rule like that one. I guess the other solution is to just accept both of those near that line, especially for new members. If something is on page 185 of the general discussion thread, i think you should be excused for starting a new thread, unless of course it appears in the search, or if you are supposed to talk about that subject in the general discussion, in which you should have added it to that.

(that's got to be the longest post i've ever done here)

I think that you bring up a good point. In the later half of your response you outlined some criteria that you thought was acceptable for creating new topics, and resurrecting old ones. Some may agree with how you interpret these things, and others may not. THAT is the problem. As long as there is no definitive standard for which threads should be created or resurrected, there will always be a frustratingly large amount of threads that some believe are acceptable and others believe are not.

For example, Famine I believe created what I'd like to call the "No GT5 Release Date Thread Policy". This didn't put an end to the occasional release date thread but it gave immediate and unquestionable grounds for closing of threads. It is impossible to argue with the mods' logic regarding the matter, and there is no grey area concerning the policy. Any release date for GT5 will be posted in the appropriate thread, when such a date is announced.

Why can't we have similar black and white policies regarding other thread behaviours and topics?

 

[Rykon Zero]

I have been at this site for two years. I was here since I was 12, and at the time, I was very annoying, and I'm certain not many people wanted me around. It took me until I am at my current status of "one more strike" to get me to seriously change my behavior. Seriously. I have 25 infraction points out of a total 30 required for a ban, and I'd have to say that one mod in particular didn't ban me merely because he held pity on me.

I would have to say that GTP and it's mods crafted my personality and seriousness into a proper poster, if not at least a kid with good grammar. And while I've been here for a year WITH GTPremium, I am glad to say I bought that myself, with money earned by working. In fact, I would have gotten the lifetime, if it weren't for the fact that I am teetering on the limit of banning. And, as proof, my avatar is a lasting reminder of my subscription, I would change it, except it would have to be smaller.

Needless to say, I still nearly dirty my pants whenever I get a PM due to fear of the banhammer.

 

[Touring Mars]

JDigital's logic and frustration towards the moderation staff is obviously flawed, but I think it scratches a grey area that may be in the acceptable use policy. I don't have many posts on this forum, but I have been on this board reading countless bits of news and threads. I hope my relative lack of posting experience does not cause my statements to fall on deaf ears.

First I think its important to define what really requires a new thread, and what does not. Technically, for games that have not been released like Gran Turismo 5, all threads in relation to it would belong in the General Discussion thread. If it was the wish of the staff all topics could be consolidated as such, and such a consolidation would be well within policies followed by the staff. However, such a consolidation would make it harder to find pertinent information and active discussion. Therefore there NEEDS to be more threads. This is where the grey area begins to fall. Threads have been closed in the past due to the information being located on page 185 of the general discussion thread. Threads have also been closed because another thread exists from years in the past on the same subject. This to me is a Catch-22. Members are often chastised for "resurrecting" old threads, even if questions or comments that the member posts in the old thread is valid. At the same time, if the member were to open a new thread on the subject, the opposite effect would occur. The member would be directed towards the older thread.

I'm not really frustrated with the system in place, and I agree that this forum is better structured then most others that I have come across. Clearing up small details such as these and setting a standard that can be followed consistently would help to ease tension regarding matters such as this.

Just my thoughts on the matter really.

A well-written and articulate post like that will never fall on deaf ears 👍

It's a tough one, but you raise a good point. Indeed, we were talking about the 'consolidation versus more threads' problem earlier in the week, and most of us generally consider the 'more threads' option preferable, for exactly the reason you mention. However, many new threads are so close to existing threads that they don't serve a useful purpose, and, perhaps more importantly, some new threads just won't encourage an interesting new discussion, but merely a repetition of what has been discussed many times before, even if the original post had some merit. In that case, it is preferable to merge the new post into an existing thread. This actually happens quite alot, but of course nobody sees that! Also, part of the reason some thread closures don't go down too well is because some people seem to think that their idea/question/musings on a topic absolutely must be at the top of a thread... but this just isn't justified alot of the time.

On the topic of consistency, this is something that will always have a bit of grey area about it. The main problem with having more well-defined rules is that a) sometimes we're talking about people who don't know or care about the rules anyway and b) we don't want to reach a stage where people have to fill out a questionnaire just to post a thread! At the moment, the "rules" have quite a bit of lee-way, and I for one think that's a preferable option than tightening things up too much.

Why can't we have similar black and white policies regarding other thread behaviours and topics?

We do have threads at the top of the GT5 forum that ask people to search or contribute to existing threads or to not post questions about things that simply aren't known yet. The reason the release date topic has been singled out for special treatment is because it is by far the most commonly posted (and easily the most misleading and consistently inaccurate!) thread topic in the forum. The difficulty in having black and white policies regarding other threads, however, is that it is often a judgement call as to whether a new topic will generate something different, or merely become a clone of an existing thread. Sometimes that decision is tricky, and sometimes it's not..

 

[homeforsummer]

For example, Famine I believe created what I'd like to call the "No GT5 Release Date Thread Policy". This didn't put an end to the occasional release date thread but it gave immediate and unquestionable grounds for closing of threads. It is impossible to argue with the mods' logic regarding the matter, and there is no grey area concerning the policy. Any release date for GT5 will be posted in the appropriate thread, when such a date is announced.

Why can't we have similar black and white policies regarding other thread behaviours and topics?

I think most helpful for the GT5 section (which appears to be getting the most traffic of the GT sections at the moment) would be an FAQ similar to the other GT threads - unless I'm much mistaken, it's lacking one of these at the moment. The FAQ could link to all the main discussion topics in the subforum - for GT5 this'd be stuff like a thread about damage, the Porsche and Lamborghini threads, TVB's wish list thread etc... and then a general section in the FAQ basically answering some yes or no questions to the best of our knowledge of the game yet - do we have a set release date? No. Will GT5 have weather? Yes... etc.

It could then be suggesed that any "news" related items that people want to talk about could be talked about in the general discussion thread. I see a number of threads open at the moment in the GT5 section where people are commenting on something said by a magazine or website. I don't see any logical reason why these require their own threads - and if they do, then perhaps an all-encompassing "GT5 in the press" thread...