Golden-Road.net
Studio 46 - Non-TPiR Discussion => Technical Support => Topic started by: Prizes on October 31, 2015, 02:49:21 PM
-
As the topic says. Any mod, admin, etc. is fair game. We want honest reviews, thoughts, and ways to improve. Public opinion not only helps us as staff and moderators, the site on the whole, but your views as members of the page. For purposes of simplicity, I'd like to keep this to active moderators only. This seems like a good time, all considered, given people are thankfully speaking their minds in the chat ban thread.
I'd also like to apologize for causing the big mess, with my hand in how Friday's chat went down. I owe you better as a moderator, someone trusted with keeping this site out of chaos. Hopefully you can understand my regret at this time, and we can work forward in this thread to create a more positive, open outlook for the site's future, in a number of ways.
Full moderators reviewable: SteveGavazzi, therealcu2010, Prizes.
Section moderators reviewable: Guint, Roadgeek_Adam, Torgo, BRB_The_Fireball.
One tiny rule I ask: Attack our policies, our approaches, all you want. I really want to know what to do, to get better. But don't attack us as people. I keep myself to that standard 99.9% of the time when I moderate. In a sense, you get to have my job today. Typically, I review you, today (or whenever) you can review me. Have fun. I want to see some greatly detailed responses. We'd like to learn more about how best to not only improve the site, but how it is run, and what your visions are for it.
-
Pretty much all of my thoughts can be summed up with what I just said in the other thread. If you want, and at my request, you can delete this passage from my earlier post and merge it into this one, as this is certainly the more appropriate place:
With regard to the current state of affairs regarding moderators here, I do think it's time the powers that be look into evaluating the 'who does what' and what powers should be handed out. While this doesn't necessarily relate to the present discussion, I still believe the primary mods (Jess, CU, Steve -- and to a lesser extent these days, Army and Alfonso) should be given the power to ban members, at least on a temporary basis until an admin is able to make the final decision.
On the admin side of things, it's no secret that Marc and John really aren't doing much more than keeping the lights on around here. The only true admin is Chelsea. I think it's time to consider adding another admin to help keep things in line, and if it were up to me, I'd offer the job to Gavazzi. His dedication to the site over the years is almost second to none, and I think he would be perfect for the role. That would give us two admins (in addition to Marc and John) overseeing the site, and I can't see that being a bad thing as time wears on.
Also, I mentioned that Army and Alfonso really aren't all that active anymore, so essentially, we only have three "global," or whatever you want to it, moderators. I'd like to see at least two more added to the list. I believe there are a host of excellent members to choose from, so making a selection shouldn't be too cumbersome. I will add that new mods probably shouldn't get the ability to ban right away, should that power ever come to fruition -- but for the other roles, I believe it's time we add a couple more people to the mix.
As far as the active moderators here go, I think you all are doing a fantastic job, quite honestly. The issues I have aren't so much with the mods in their respective positions but rather the needs of the forum as a whole.
-
I have been satisfied with the way this site is being run. My main concern is technical issues such as site lag, and I understand that these are sometimes unavoidable and cannot always be fixed quickly, but as long as they are resolved, and they always have been, it's all good. :-)
-
My main concern is technical issues ... but as long as they are resolved, and they always have been, it's all good. :-)
And as long as someone pays the bill next month... ;-)
-
I apologize for the bump, but I felt as if this was the best place for this.
The recap thread (http://www.golden-road.net/index.php/topic,25668.0.html) for today was posted shortly after Noon Eastern. It consists of a single post by Torgo, who quotes three rather out-of-line comments made towards him by a new user who had managed to make a topic in the First-Run section. Those are followed by this comment from our esteemed recapper:
Until you users can get your acts under control, you won't get a recap today.
The post was modified at least once shortly before 1:00 PM, with Torgo adding a message reading
(modified to remove some of the more offensive language - I was angry, sorry)
Below this is what of the show was pre-empted, the game timings, the game results, and a message asking Chelsea to look into an oversight in regard to new users.
...What, sir? Withholding the recap and locking the thread punishes the entirety of the Golden-Road userbase, simply because of the out-of-line actions of one user who appears to have been deliberately attempting to get a response from you...although I suspect inaway did not expect you to go this route. I do not believe punishing everyone for the acts of a single person is the proper way to do things, and it has rather clearly stifled discussion. (Say what you may about the discussions themselves...but locking the thread? To quote a certain talking horse: "No sir. I don't like it.")
I thank you for your time.
-
I would have unlocked the thread by now, at least for discussion, but it seems that I no longer have moderator privileges for the recap board. I also see from the first post of this thread that Prizes doesn't consider me a full moderator, which greatly disappoints me because I am the longest tenured non-administrative moderator on this board. While I don't post here as much as I used I do still come here on a daily basis and monitor the boards.
-
...What, sir? Withholding the recap and locking the thread punishes the entirety of the Golden-Road userbase, simply because of the out-of-line actions of one user who appears to have been deliberately attempting to get a response from you...although I suspect inaway did not expect you to go this route. I do not believe punishing everyone for the acts of a single person is the proper way to do things, and it has rather clearly stifled discussion. (Say what you may about the discussions themselves...but locking the thread? To quote a certain talking horse: "No sir. I don't like it.")
While Torgo wasn't clear in his post, he gave that reason as somewhat of a joke. In reality, I think he wanted to have the entire recap up and since IUFB 1 was not available he couldn't at the time until it either A) aired in the west or, more likely, B) was posted online. I didn't like the implication of his statement, but I knew that he wasn't really punishing the site.
Also, the editing bit refers to the quotes he included in his post from the user inaway. The asterisks there were not originally, just the expletives. He was going to leave it, but thought better of it.
-
I realize real-life happens, but my mistake, I thought you were more or less done with the page, like PriceFanArmadillo. Always appreciate your awesome contributions when they happen. Must have been missing the times you've been online. Wish more members were like you.
My apologies, Alfonzo.
-
...What, sir? Withholding the recap and locking the thread punishes the entirety of the Golden-Road userbase, simply because of the out-of-line actions of one user who appears to have been deliberately attempting to get a response from you...although I suspect inaway did not expect you to go this route. I do not believe punishing everyone for the acts of a single person is the proper way to do things, and it has rather clearly stifled discussion. (Say what you may about the discussions themselves...but locking the thread? To quote a certain talking horse: "No sir. I don't like it.")
I agree 100%. In my 12 years of being here on Golden-Road.net, I have never seen anything quite like this. Torgo essentially disallowed any discussion of a recap all because of the impatience of a new user when no one else has done anything wrong. Not only is it stooping to the level of said user, it doesn't encourage any interaction the higher-up and other members. Torgo also accused the entire forum of misbehaving when they really haven't done anything wrong.
While Torgo wasn't clear in his post, he gave that reason as somewhat of a joke.
"Until you users can get your acts under control" doesn't sound like a joke. It sounds more like a parent punishing a child.
-
"Until you users can get your acts under control" doesn't sound like a joke. It sounds more like a parent punishing a child.
Like I said, it was somewhat of a joke. It wasn't really, but he didn't mean it. As I said, it wasn't good to imply that he wasn't posting because of that.
I missed this...
(Say what you may about the discussions themselves...but locking the thread? To quote a certain talking horse: "No sir. I don't like it.")
There is a lot of context seemingly missing here.
Torgo locked that thread because the user inaway had made numerous threads in the recap section containing one line insults of Torgo. That was in addition to him bombarding Torgo with the same style insulting PMs. With Torgo leaving the quotes of the posts in the thread and the user not being banned, I believe he figured that that poster would respond back in the recap thread and wanted to avoid that while he waited for the information on IUFB 1.
-
I realize real-life happens, but my mistake, I thought you were more or less done with the page, like PriceFanArmadillo. Always appreciate your awesome contributions when they happen. Must have been missing the times you've been online. Wish more members were like you.
My apologies, Alfonzo.
No worries Jessica. I do have lots of real-life stuff going on, but as a symbol of respect to Marc and John for originally making me a moderator I still do the job they appointed me to. BTW, you, CU and Chelsea are doing a wonderful job.
-
No worries Jessica. I do have lots of real-life stuff going on, but as a symbol of respect to Marc and John for originally making me a moderator I still do the job they appointed me to. BTW, you, CU and Chelsea are doing a wonderful job.
You've been added to the moderator list for the recap board, and I've tracked down the issue with the permission scheme for regular members that was allowing posts. All should be kosher now on that front.
-
Everything's good. Thanks Chels!
-
Alright, something to keep in mind, that inaway (this "new editor") is Shaun Schaffer. Schaffer is a known troll, who I dealt with as well in terms of his trolling. His behavior, which for religious reasons, I will not mention here.
As for Torgo's behavior, I missed what was going on, but I did on many many occasions today delete Schaffer's posts. Those posts are from PMs he sent and I have copies of several of his deleted posts.
-
esteemed recapper:
I thank you for your time.
Your passive aggressive nature does not suit you.
When you have a hostile user running rampant and creating new threads in a section in which most users new or otherwise should not, I felt the best course of action was to lock the thread while I waited for One Wrong Price and the rest of the episode to appear online. Yesterday's instance wasn't the first time I've received such response from members - and it certainly won't be the last. As far as I know, any moderator with powers in the recap thread (basically any of us apart from Adam, Alfonso (since rectified), Army and Fiery) can unlock a thread once locked, so I felt someone would handle that after a set period of time/the troll quelled his anger and had to clean his bedroom while mom was away or something.
However, between the show ending and the episode appearing online, I became busy. I simply cannot frequent Golden-Road.net 24/7, and recaps are not that high a priority of mine. (If you think they should be, you really need to re-evaluate your life.)
Work became crazy - having pseudo-celebrity Shane West play trivia at one of your events will do that - so I got home from work late (~12:20 A.M. EST) and began the recap. Word decided to glitch out after I finished PG4, so I went to bed and finished it this morning.
This is not a "criticism for the mods" thread. This is a "***** about Torgo" thread, and I don't like it.
-
Frequent lurker, occasional poster chiming in, if I may...
It boils down to tone and communication, both of which I believe missed the mark here. Torgo said "until you users can get your act together..." as if it was this mass epidemic of trolling, rather than just one rogue user causing a headache. Knowing Torgo's style of humor, I know it was probably intended to be a joke, but that's really not how it came off in this instance.
It also obscured the real reason for the locking of the thread-a decision which was probably a good one. However, this wasn't communicated to the user base until after the fact, leaving a lot of people confused--and the message seemingly blaming the entire user base for one troll's actions certainly didn't help at all.
Torgo, I know these recaps are a labor of love for you, and I enjoy reading them. You had complained in your above post about "piling on" and personal attacks, so I hope that this post is more in the spirit of what this thread was originally intended to be--civil and constructive criticism of the way the mods do things, and suggestions for improvement.
Thank you for your time. I'll go back into lurk mode now.
-
Okay, this has gone far enough. If I come across as ranting, I apologize in advance.
Your passive aggressive nature does not suit you.
...
This is not a "criticism for the mods" thread. This is a "***** about Torgo" thread, and I don't like it.
Recap is up.
Relax.
At least I get my late results out within 24 hours of the show airing. You took a whole weekend and continuously have someone else handle your dirty work. I would focus on making unfunny collusion references and holding vendettas against successful FPG players than trying to come at me with some hypocritical shade.
Torgo, I know you do a great job with the recapping but the intent of these comments leaves much to be desired. Recapping for the show is one thing but BRB (and whoever you're accusing of doing his work for him) has to analyze scores of dozens of members for FPG. Everyone here has lives and you came across as an impatient member waiting to see how well he did. It's bad enough that you chose to lock an entire thread all because of one troll but to take it as a personal attack does nothing defend your status as a mod. I don't remember Joe Capitano being this belligerent when he was doing the recaps.
In Torgo's defense, I did side with him during the whole "Non-Readout Day" issue. Prizes also took some of our comments as a personal insult.
Please read my original post first before you attack me. Rather surprised at this reaction, not because of the no readouts again, but comprehension concerns.
This and her defense of said action came completely out of the blue. At first, she said the Non-Readout Day wouldn't happen again but then she revealed that Chelsea (whom I didn't expect to be behind this sort of thing at all) decided on doing it the day before the next show airs. It was something that they along with Guint decided on behind closed doors. When the criticism ensued, Prizes ignored it and she, Chelsea and Guint went on with what they decided on anyway. As I said in that thread, it's not the staff wanting something different for a day that bugs me. It's the decision to do so with very little time for members to see for themselves, rendering them helpless in the discussion.
If we're going to have the moderators call out members for their honesty, then what's the point in having this thread?
-
I had nothing to do with the creation of no-readout day. I knew about it, but I also don't care enough about this site to really do anything about it, or support it, or whatever.
How about YOU find out who actually does what around here before you start attacking people willy-nilly for stuff they didn't do?
-
Pardon my language, but I do believe we all need to calm the f*** down. :lol:
I simply cannot frequent Golden-Road.net 24/7, and recaps are not that high a priority of mine. (If you think they should be, you really need to re-evaluate your life.)
I do not believe the recaps should be a high priority, no. I admit I did not know the entire story, which in turn is because I do not frequent this forum as much as I used to, coupled with my occasionally erratic sleeping schedule. I was not attacking you, sir, but rather (primarily) your comment that appeared to be punishing the entire site for the actions of a (since confirmed) troll.
This is not a "criticism for the mods" thread. This is a "***** about Torgo" thread, and I don't like it.
...You are the first moderator who had gotten criticism in this thread, sir.
I had nothing to do with the creation of no-readout day. I knew about it, but I also don't care enough about this site to really do anything about it, or support it, or whatever.
How about YOU find out who actually does what around here before you start attacking people willy-nilly for stuff they didn't do?
Be that as it may, a mistake such as that does not invalidate his points.
I had thought we were well past the sniping, mean-spirited jabbing, and overall fighting, particularly given how an overabundance of it nearly destroyed this place three years ago. And even so, this is Christmastime -- the time of the year when (from my experience) people tend to be happier.
We have all made mistakes in the past, and we shall very likely continue to do so. Continuing to bring them up does nothing but harm relationships going forward. Can we just let things go, bury our respective hatchets, and be at peace?
...Please?
-
I had nothing to do with the creation of no-readout day. I knew about it, but I also don't care enough about this site to really do anything about it, or support it, or whatever.
How about YOU find out who actually does what around here before you start attacking people willy-nilly for stuff they didn't do?
While I do apologize for taking your role out of context (your idea of a future date I did and still do agree with), my original point still stands. It could have been handled a lot better.
For now what's past is passed. We all are only human and none of us are perfect.
-
Torgo, I know you do a great job with the recapping but the intent of these comments leaves much to be desired. Recapping for the show is one thing but BRB (and whoever you're accusing of doing his work for him) has to analyze scores of dozens of members for FPG. Everyone here has lives and you came across as an impatient member waiting to see how well he did. It's bad enough that you chose to lock an entire thread all because of one troll but to take it as a personal attack does nothing defend your status as a mod. I don't remember Joe Capitano being this belligerent when he was doing the recaps.
Don't think it's fair to criticize Torgo on that last post he made. BRB was the one who had no need to create such a bitingly sarcastic post.
I'll stand by the locking since inaway was still running rampant at the time. Yes, it was one troll, but for as much trouble as he was causing and the lack of recap at the time, I understand not giving him another source for him to espouse his troll-speech. I also agree with his reasoning in that there have been times when Adam posted a recap thread early with no recap due to previous obligations and another mod would unlock it later in the day. That certainly could've happened.
However, I'll agree that clearer communication from Torgo could've gone a long way to avoid this and hopefully we'll move on.
-
I don't remember Joe Capitano being this belligerent when he was doing the recaps.
Excuse me, what? This phrasing is silly and you know it. Joe Capitano's one defining trait as recapper was belligerence.
In Torgo's defense, I did side with him during the whole "Non-Readout Day" issue. Prizes also took some of our comments as a personal insult.
In your quote of me, note that I mention a personal attack, which does not mean insult. It means an attack one's character, as in an ad hominem attack, literally translating as to the person. I was disappointed in the page's reading comprehension, not insulted. The two statements can overlap, but that wasn't the case.
This and her defense of said action came completely out of the blue. At first, she said the Non-Readout Day wouldn't happen again but then she revealed that Chelsea (whom I didn't expect to be behind this sort of thing at all) decided on doing it the day before the next show airs. It was something that they -inaccuracy removed- decided on behind closed doors.
Defense of such action came about because of Chelsea's work schedule, which often makes it hard for her to be in the chat. Also, these facts/instances aren't aligned properly, regardless of external circumstances. I do feel bad about the first no-readout day because it was on such short notice, the night before. However, the second was decided a good 30 hours beforehand. I frankly don't think this kind of thing needs more than a mention a few hours beforehand, if that, and that's only because of Torgo, who uses said readouts to form the recap. Because of the previously unknown issues this caused, it was deemed in the best interest of Torgo to have any sort of warning that would allow him to prepare adequately.
These were unknown for a reason you're actually likely pretty well antiquated with: The chat never used to do readouts, and as such, recaps never followed them. The latter of course, is my mistake, on the first iteration. In contrast, however, the former doesn't require notice, at all. Why does the site even need to be told that it will be a no-readout day, either time? There is no reason for it. Change and innovation happens, oftentimes with less notice than this. That's life.
I never stated the reason why I wanted this, did I? Well, here goes. This site quality from many members, has really taped off, as of late. The chat no longer has valid discussion beyond yay, aw, and a bunch of gimmicks.
I'm not saying chat or this pagehas to have the solemnity of a church, I'm just saying I want better quality in the chat, and subsequently, the forum itself, and in show discussion. In an effort to improve that, I wanted to see if by removing the culprit of distractions, and easy outs to discussion. It's why I have that Steve Gavazzi quote in my signature. Posts lack the same quality on the whole they once had. If it was sustainable before, why can't it happen again? With Steve, CU, Alfonzo, Torgo, Army, Chelsea, myself, among others, that's the site we're trying to create. That will not be changing. Quality has always been the main goal of any page I associate with, be it as a contributing member, moderator, or administrator. Buy a Vowel is a good example of what I mean, in terms of quality of posters. Do I want all to agree with me? It'd be nice, but boring, especially in a world of nearly seven billion living individuals. Not everyone is going to agree, so long as there is solid discussion, points of contrast, and, in a broad meaning of the term, learning. Right now, the vast majority of this page lacks any of those, not to mention some intangibles, such as humor.
Now, pray tell, did my small-scale experiment it work? No. I was wrong, I admit that. But the idea at least warranted consideration. Chelsea liked it because it was something new and different, and wanted to see that first-hand. Other than Torgo and the recap, which is something I genuinely felt bad about, what did anybody have to lose for that one show? Sticking with one, because one was purely experimental, and if we can't at least try something new here, once, than this place is much more stuck in the past and in its ideals than thought possible. In that sense, perhaps, the original trial was getting a young child to try a vegetable: It may not be pleasant, there's likely disagreement, but it's for the growth and health of the child or site, no matter how small.
As for the closed door bit, yep. No question. Some decisions about staffing, moderating, etc. are going to be autonomous of the general page. That's the nature of online forums. We're not going to go around asking every active member on the page if such and such a member should be banned from the chatroom, before a decision is reached, as your statement implies. For one, it is unnecessary, and two it would take any sort of control of the page out of those who have been proven trustworthy to do so. Of course, the latter, with respect to asking every member, is absolutely hypothetical, since you didn't present an argument near anything like that, lest I be accused of a strawman argument on that front.
When the criticism ensued, Prizes ignored it and she [and] Chelsea -inaccuracy removed- went on with what they decided on anyway. As I said in that thread, it's not the staff wanting something different for a day that bugs me. It's the decision to do so with very little time for members to see for themselves, rendering them helpless in the discussion.
This quote tells me you didn't read the rest of the thread where you linked my feelings of feeling 'insulted', honestly, given the following:
No-readout day returning for Monday's show is 100% me. After getting both compliments and complaints about the first one, I wanted to see another play out, this one in person. Figured while the issue was still fresh. Didn't want time to elapse and "oh, hey, boom here it is again". If there's criticism, I wanna hear it. If there's compliments or praise, I want to hear it.
The reason I'm so intrigued by the idea is it's the first *new* thing that's been tried around here in a while, and I like new ideas.
The "no readout" idea was an interesting one, remembering how the readout started in the first place, and I wanted to see it in it's actual implementation.
Furthermore, Guint and I originally had a collusive effort to do the next one around, perhaps on, the Thanksgiving show, intentionally timed for when we calculated the next date chat would be at near-peak population. If you want to be okay with that, you can't thank just him, and blame me in the process! Joint effort on the next scheduling deal.
Chelsea's idea to come in just for that was a surprise, and not only did I not want to turn her down, I did not know the next time she'd be available to do so. When you work with someone who has a limited schedule time, you do your best to work with their schedule; especially if they are your superior. This was done out of courtesy, quite simply.
Please refrain from casting retaliation stones, until you know who shot them. I maintain that, other than Torgo, nobody stands to lose anything with no warning of such an effort in the future. Of course, it's only fair to ask: Why and what would you, both as an individual and speaking for the forum members on the whole, stand to benefit from more advance notice of such an event?
Before I make any decision regarding an action on a given page, I always consider five factors, in this order, but not of this importance. One: How do I, as an individual, benefit or become affected from this decision? If it it positive and/or with good affection, go to number two: How does my staff, on the whole, benefit or become other affected by this decision? If it it positive and/or with good affection, go to number three: How do the (non-staff) members of this page, on the whole, benefit or become other affected by this decision? If it it positive and/or with good affection, go to number four: How are visitors (outsiders) impacted, benefitted, harmed or affected by this decision? If it turns out okay, it's the last step: How do these elements apply to long term outcomes and to its similar-interest based communities, of individuals you want coming to the page? If all are succeeded, the action is taken. Not that you disputed this, but if you look at the no-readout plan, it meets all of these goals, on various levels.
Obviously, it isn't totally this simple, given short term, long term outcomes, not to mention the benefits of alienating one of the aforementioned groups. Besides, some of that is trade secrets for how to run any kind of successful business!
If we're going to have the moderators call out members for their honesty, then what's the point in having this thread?
Honesty? Care to explain? Genuinely unsure of what you mean specifically in this case, as I cannot accurately address these concerns at this time.
As for calling people out for these actions, while I appreciate the constructive criticism directed towards me, I'd like to see some additional potential solutions in there as well. It's what we have to do as staff for a multitude of factors, after all! After all, this is the thread where you get to be the mods, and to some degree, show us what kind of moderator you would be. In defense of Kevin though, he offered the idea about waiting. This is one I can agree with, as it was the intended original plan. Keep them coming!
One thing I am not happy about with though, is how much this thread has turned into biyotch about Torgo, from a few members, on the whole. Constructive criticism is fair, and I'd like to see more of it. Of course, there's some of that in here, it's certainly not every post. More specifically, JJ's done a nice job of doing just that.
-
After all, this is the thread where you get to be the mods, and to some degree, show us what kind of moderator you would be.
...To which it seems that I would be a rather poor one, given my reaction to Torgo.
I apologize for my rashness, madam.
-
Pardon my language, but I do believe we all need to calm the f*** down. :lol:
This is signature-worthy material. May I, sir? :P
-
The tone and mood is very hostile. I have been using the site for years. I used to be more active in commenting, and while I don't always contribute to discussion today, I check the threads and recaps on a daily basis. That said, the site has become very different. I am not blaming any one specifically; I'm just observing borderline aggressive behavior involving members and moderators, and it's actually kind of sad. We have real world problems out there, and coming to this site is a break from the daily grind. We shouldn't have to put up with personality conflicts on the boards. That's my two cents anyway.
-
This is signature-worthy material. May I, sir? :P
Oh, certainly. :-)
-
I have to say it: Fireball's absence is pretty inexcusable as a game host.
At this point I do not care if the absence is due to Torgo's blasting of the collusion fiasco or not... the fact he has let an entire week go by, leaving FPG up in the air and slowly dying out as the days go on, even putting this next one into doubt, is absurd. If some emergency happened, I'm sorry, but at least get on the Internet somewhere and tell someone (whammy007) the circumstances. There are no excuses at this point.
-
I have to say it: Fireball's absence is pretty inexcusable as a game host.
At this point I do not care if the absence is due to Torgo's blasting of the collusion fiasco or not... the fact he has let an entire week go by, leaving FPG up in the air and slowly dying out as the days go on, even putting this next one into doubt, is absurd. If some emergency happened, I'm sorry, but at least get on the Internet somewhere and tell someone (whammy007) the circumstances. There are no excuses at this point.
The only reason I'd maybe give him a pass is because we're only a few days away from Christmas. Still, he should let us know in advance if he's got plans.
Now I know why our mods have no faith in this site anymore. Either nothing's getting done or they don't like how it's getting done.
-
I have to say it: Fireball's absence is pretty inexcusable as a game host.
At this point I do not care if the absence is due to Torgo's blasting of the collusion fiasco or not... the fact he has let an entire week go by, leaving FPG up in the air and slowly dying out as the days go on, even putting this next one into doubt, is absurd. If some emergency happened, I'm sorry, but at least get on the Internet somewhere and tell someone (whammy007) the circumstances. There are no excuses at this point.
I agree with you, except he's also vanished on Twitter as well. No tweets in 9 days; compared to 5 here.
-
I have to say it: Fireball's absence is pretty inexcusable as a game host.
At this point I do not care if the absence is due to Torgo's blasting of the collusion fiasco or not... the fact he has let an entire week go by, leaving FPG up in the air and slowly dying out as the days go on, even putting this next one into doubt, is absurd. If some emergency happened, I'm sorry, but at least get on the Internet somewhere and tell someone (whammy007) the circumstances. There are no excuses at this point.
It makes matters more difficult that Firey, Marc and John are the only moderators who can post new threads in the FPG board. Now, I don't know if this scenario has ever happened on the site before, but I agree - if a scheduled FPG game does not get posted, and whoever runs the game unexpectedly leaves and doesn't let the users know what's going on, then I think we need to do something about it. If at all possible, whammy007 could perhaps at least temporarily gain mod powers for the section since he's the stats keeper.
I agree with you, except he's also vanished on Twitter as well. No tweets in 9 days; compared to 5 here.
I'm inclined to believe Firey had a family emergency or has a personal issue to take care of, but it's still odd nonetheless.