The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
And I really don't think there is a problem on the Off Topic with lots of personal abuse. Banter, arguments, passionate disagreements, personality clashes, ideological differences, yes. Get rid of that there'd be no posts.
You got that right.
I can't wait to see how hopping this place is going to be after the release of Civ5.
You've totally misunderstood my post. I don't give a crap if people say **** about me on the internet. I also generally think that people using a message board need to understand the environment and not expect a moderator to hold their hand through passionate debate in case they hear something they don't like.
My point was that it's bad for the forum if all there is on the forum is loads of abuse aimed at one poster, sure. But it's equally bad for the forum if all there is on the forum is loads of abuse aimed at the moderators for what people deem to be bad moderation decisions.
To add to that I guarantee that there is a massive difference in who different posters consider to be the "troublesome" posters. Siding with any faction would be the wrong decision IMO. There's also a huge range of views on what constitutes abuse. Often on a single issue it can just down to what one poster believes.
I don't see how turning an argument between 2 posters into one of those big Apolyton "OMG why was he banned?!" scandals is beneficial for the forum. The argument will usually peter out much faster than a ban scandal. And I really don't think there is a problem on the Off Topic with lots of personal abuse. Banter, arguments, passionate disagreements, personality clashes, ideological differences, yes. Get rid of that there'd be no posts.
Do you really not see the difference between a normal poster taking abuse and a mod taking abuse?
Regular posters should be able to go on without abuse. The whole job definition of a moderator includes dealing with troublesome posters. And that includes taking abuse from them too. That's why mods are volunteers, and that's what they are for.
If you think there's no point defending posters from abuse, because you don't want abuse aimed at you, then what are you doing with a mod title?
Do you really not see the difference between a normal poster taking abuse and a mod taking abuse?
Regular posters should be able to go on without abuse. The whole job definition of a moderator includes dealing with troublesome posters. And that includes taking abuse from them too. That's why mods are volunteers, and that's what they are for.
If you think there's no point defending posters from abuse, because you don't want abuse aimed at you, then what are you doing with a mod title?
if you had said that you think banning is ineffective punishment, it would be one thing. But what I get from you is that you simply don't want to deal with the fallout of reprimanding troublesome posters. If this is your honest position - lose the title.
We know from experience that the main consequence of banning people for that **** is that the moderators would be come the main target of such personal attacks. Why is that better?
Leave a comment: