Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kilkrazy wrote:
As a moderator I took a view that it was about public figures who frequently trade on their looks, and did not involve discussion of forum members. Also, from what I read in the first page or two, it was fairly light-hearted and jokey.

As far as I am concerned anyone who posts a pic of themselves in those "Hey post a picture of yourself with your coolest cool guy face" threads is also "trading on their looks". So we are free to post similar "light-hearted and jokey" responses to dakka "celebs"?

I don't see much difference...

KamikazeCanuck wrote:My interest in this has waned quite a bit. Insaniak's explanation was good as well and maybe in a roundabout way will clarify it for you. If not, I can attempt to decloudify it as an excercise in discussion but personally I'm fine.

Well I think basically you're giving the impression of accusing the mods of giving preferential treatment to DCMs because they are a revenue source for the site.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:My interest in this has waned quite a bit. Insaniak's explanation was good as well and maybe in a roundabout way will clarify it for you. If not, I can attempt to decloudify it as an excercise in discussion but personally I'm fine.

Well I think basically you're giving the impression of accusing the mods of giving preferential treatment to DCMs because they are a revenue source for the site.

Holy crap. I hope that's not what people are thinking. Alright then, I guess I do need to clarify afterall. I'm saying that, for example, if in the public forum someone starts a thread about "What's you favorite orange" and then the next day someone else starts another thread called "What's the best type of orange" one will and should be locked. Having two threads discussing the deliciousness of oranges running at the same time needlessly fragments the conversation. Rather than having one great orange thread we have two orange threads that could be better. However, if one of those threads is in the public forum and another in the dcm forum then the aforementioned fragmenting of conversation will occur.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:My interest in this has waned quite a bit. Insaniak's explanation was good as well and maybe in a roundabout way will clarify it for you. If not, I can attempt to decloudify it as an excercise in discussion but personally I'm fine.

Well I think basically you're giving the impression of accusing the mods of giving preferential treatment to DCMs because they are a revenue source for the site.

Holy crap. I hope that's not what people are thinking. Alright then, I guess I do need to clarify afterall. I'm saying that, for example, if in the public forum someone starts a thread about "What's you favorite orange" and then the next day someone else starts another thread called "What's the best type of orange" one will and should be locked. Having two threads discussing the deliciousness of oranges running at the same time needlessly fragments the conversation. Rather than having one great orange thread we have two orange threads that could be better. However, if one of those threads is in the public forum and another in the dcm forum then the aforementioned fragmenting of conversation will occur.

I have seen two threads similar in the DCM forum as I have in the normal Dakka. One was on Osama, and I forget the other...

But seriously, the Mosh Pit has very odd threads that rarely stay on topic.

Chowderhead wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:My interest in this has waned quite a bit. Insaniak's explanation was good as well and maybe in a roundabout way will clarify it for you. If not, I can attempt to decloudify it as an excercise in discussion but personally I'm fine.

Well I think basically you're giving the impression of accusing the mods of giving preferential treatment to DCMs because they are a revenue source for the site.

Holy crap. I hope that's not what people are thinking. Alright then, I guess I do need to clarify afterall. I'm saying that, for example, if in the public forum someone starts a thread about "What's you favorite orange" and then the next day someone else starts another thread called "What's the best type of orange" one will and should be locked. Having two threads discussing the deliciousness of oranges running at the same time needlessly fragments the conversation. Rather than having one great orange thread we have two orange threads that could be better. However, if one of those threads is in the public forum and another in the dcm forum then the aforementioned fragmenting of conversation will occur.

I have seen two threads similar in the DCM forum as I have in the normal Dakka. One was on Osama, and I forget the other...

What do you mean? Like you have seen two redundant threads in the dcm and also two unrelated redundant thread in the wild? Well it is frowned upon in the public forum and probably not in the dcm due to increased laxity there.

I'm talking about the blind redundancy between the two. In my previous example if "What's your favorite orange" appears in the dcm days before and "What's the best type of orange" appears in the public DCMs may not post in the latter because they feel like they've covered the orange controversy already. Thus, Dakka is lesser because we do not know the opinions of DCMs on oranges.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Dakka is lesser because we do not know the opinions of DCMs on oranges.

This statement right here is sig worthy.

Don't know if I should be flattered or embarrassed.

I appreciate the concern KC. IME I haven't generally seen that occur, but I'll be on the lookout for it.

Well thanks, but it's not actually against any rule anyway right? It is unavoidable if it occurs, is it not?

CT GAMER wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
As a moderator I took a view that it was about public figures who frequently trade on their looks, and did not involve discussion of forum members. Also, from what I read in the first page or two, it was fairly light-hearted and jokey.

As far as I am concerned anyone who posts a pic of themselves in those "Hey post a picture of yourself with your coolest cool guy face" threads is also "trading on their looks". So we are free to post similar "light-hearted and jokey" responses to dakka "celebs"?

I don't see much difference...

There is a difference between Paris Hilton and (for example) Cannerus.

Paris Hilton does trade on her looks and celebrity status. Cannerus is just some anonymous guy on a wargames website. The fact that he posted a picture of himself (?) does not give people free rein in their responses.

In general though, you can post what you like about other members as long as it isn't rude, aggressive, discriminatory, etc. That probably rules out most of what people might want to post.

Personally I don't think DakkaDakka is a place for threads in which members talk about members. That sort of stuff can go on people's Facebook or Blog pages. It dilutes the wargaming content.

Spot on KillKrazy, couldn't agree more.

An interesting thing in the news today, in a nut shell some chap has been given 18 weeks jail time for trolling. What he did was disgusting (trolling a facebook dedication page to a deceased young lady) and much worse than I (hope) think we'll ever see on Dakka, but that leads to the next question: Mods, will you be able to imprison cakka trolls now that presidence has been set? lol

Yes, a somewhat pie in the sky post, but on topic with part of this thread.

kitch102 wrote:Mods, will you be able to imprison cakka trolls now that presidence has been set?

Imprison them where?

But I do like this term "cakka" you mention. Perhaps a new sig: "This is DakkaDakka not CakkaCakka"? How about "This is DakkaDakka not WakkaWakka"? I guess that might offend Remillia, who does not think wargaming is SRS BSNS.

I dunno, up to you Mr Mod Man . Pack 'em off to Commorragh

Another guys just been given a community service order for encouraging the london riots recently.

What is SRS BSNS? I've heard it batted about but literally have no idea?!

Cakka Cakka - that'll teach me to proof read! Remember the film gremlins? Giiizzzmmoooooo CAKKA!

SRS BSNS is exactly what it sounds like.



DakkaDakka, for example, is SRS BSNS.

Manchu wrote:

DakkaDakka, for example, is SRS BSNS.

Unless you're Malfred.

Ah Malf is fine, as long as you're not wearing socks, then you're fethed.

You'll be fine

It's your socks that need to be worried!