No System Wars???

[sw33tjimmy]

what in THE HELL is up with that?

oh well, i guess xbox wins.

[Grognard]

Maybe if we all stay on our best behavior they'll give us a chance at System Wars again - yeah right!

[admin]

what in THE HELL is up with that?

oh well, i guess xbox wins.
I actually grouped that forum into the General forum... if there's a big need for it to be separated again, we'll consider it.

[Grognard]

I noticed under the profiles that it has everyone joining on Dec. 1969???

[admin]

I noticed under the profiles that it has everyone joining on Dec. 1969???
Yeah, since we moved everyone over from our old system, we didn't have that info, and vBulletin automatically assigned that date. We'll look into changing it to 2003.

[Fragmastar]

I actually grouped that forum into the General forum... if there's a big need for it to be separated again, we'll consider it.

The System Wars forum is a must have. There aren't as many trolls in the General Discussion board. :( Trolls like GF78 are entertaining.

I'll start to miss the trolls.

[sjsharky]

By far the most entertaining forum on the site, System Wars needs it's own forum. Here is my vote for a separate forum, YEA.

[Robert-The-Rambler]

I actually grouped that forum into the General forum... if there's a big need for it to be separated again, we'll consider it.

System Wars was the forum most people posted at. I can't see why it would not be separate. Most of the traffic on the VGR boards has been generated by System Wars. Without it VGR is just never going to be the same. I've been moderating the VGR forums for over a year. Without System Wars the site is boring!!!!!

[Tappy_Tibbons]

screw it, it doesn't matter. If anything we'll have more intelligent debates since there weren't many console forums I'd ever seen with "system wars"

[VGV]

Nostalgic old fool that I am...must admit that the net
without VGR's legendary System Wars board begs
the question (for me personally)...WHY ? Was it such a
shameful, dreaded board ? Technically it would still co-exist
with the general discussion board...but IMHO...love it or
hate it...that board had it's own personality.

[Gadfly2317]

<div class=\"smallfont\">I actually grouped that forum into the General forum... if there's a big need for it to be separated again, we'll consider it.</div>


It was a specific, active forum that a lot of people enjoyed; lumping it in with a general catch all category diminishes the unique character that the forum had developed.

[Darwin]

System Wars allowed for an environment that was not seen in any other site I've visited. System Wars and the ability to post actual gamer's reviews are VGR's two main niches. Go to any of the other major sites, like IGN, gamespot, even the large message boards over at gamefaqs ... nothing on the web was like System Wars.

System Wars had (has) it's own personality. It is a self-perpetuating entity and brought out the most entertaining aspects of people. It wasn't really about System Wars, in the literal sense. But for some reason, the name of that board and what we talked about seemed (or seems) to go hand in hand.

You can see when new posters would arrive at VGR and would be confused about system wars. A lot of these newbs would post stuff like, "Why can't we all just get along" and "All systems are good". They wouldn't understand what System Wars was really about. But eventually, over time they learned and adapted and became one with this entity we called System Wars.

The death of System Wars would be more tragic than when they shot Old Yellar.

[dafunkdoc]

Thats the only board that any real traffic. :confused:

[HaWyanPearl74]

MMMMMM............Yummy!!
Possum!!!!!HAHAHA

[mass]

No system wars, hell, I feel like a cat that's just been neutered. The unthinkable is happening. I feel myself changing, becoming agreeable and tolerant of other viewpoints. System wars was the perfect place to come and in sharpen my claws, but no longer. Where else on the net could someone engender so much outright contempt from other cyber-entities with outrageous claims and accusations.

Now, I feel docile, I feel no animosity towards my fellow gamer, no compulsion to rip someone a new one, no looking to put on the nazi jackboots to shove up an unsupecting poster's rectum. Man, just like the great BB King lamented, the thrill indeed is gone. Worse than that, I want to buy a ps2 now, and I blame my newfound temperance and appreciation of an outdated and archiac system directly on the result of the old forum being shut down. Damn your black hearts, VGR. Mass gives you the single finger salute, now, try and figure out which finger that would be. :D

See, I'm even putting smiley faces in my post.

[Fragmastar]

<div class=\"smallfont\">No system wars, hell, I feel like a cat that's just been neutered. The unthinkable is happening. I feel myself changing, becoming agreeable and tolerant of other viewpoints. System wars was the perfect place to come and in sharpen my claws</div>

Yeah and I feel like a dog. System Wars was a perfect place for me to bark.

[Darwin]

<div class=\"smallfont\">No system wars, hell, I feel like a cat that's just been neutered. ...... Worse than that, I want to buy a ps2 now, and I blame my newfound temperance and appreciation of an outdated and archiac system directly on the result of the old forum being shut down. Damn your black hearts, VGR. Mass gives you the single finger salute, now, try and figure out which finger that would be. :D

See, I'm even putting smiley faces in my post.</div>

No. You wouldn't want to go and do a thing like that. My poor PS2 is starting to become just like my GC: unused. Instead of buying a PS2, do what I did and buy a second Xbox. That way you can have system link when your friends are over. You don't have to logoff Live when someone else in the house wants to play a single player game. And besides, everyone will know just how hardcore you are because you own your favorite console twice.

[Suicides-by-Steve]

"PC Gaming: The gaming for gamers who don't actually play games because their games won't play."

Console Gaming: The gaming for gamers who are too stupid to figure out how a computer works.

[Tracer1]

In my opinion there's a need to separate the System Wars forum. Eversince I found that forum I've been hooked and enjoyed every debate of folken001 and The Game. I really missed our old forum. Obviously my vote is YES separate the System Wars forum.

[admin]

System Wars forum is back online:
http://forums.videogamereview.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=29

No flaming allowed. We'll be a little bit more strict this time around.

[Fragmastar]

Hey, admin, I just wanted to make this clear.... Writing your own opinion is not flaming. You probably already know this, but I'll write it so everybody can see.... Flaming is when you insult or make fun while you post.

Giving your own opinion is extremely different from flaming. Everyone has different views, so how could that be an insult?

[trebor]

<div class=\"smallfont\">System Wars forum is back online:
http://forums.videogamereview.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=29

No flaming allowed. We'll be a little bit more strict this time around.</div>

Kind of defeats the purpose of System Wars to make a "no flaming" rule. I'm not here to tell you your business, but there was a reason why the old System Wars was so popular. I can understand making a rule about language or curse words to be specific, but not allowing posters to enjoy a heated debate will certainly take the fun out of posting.

Of course you could say that you could have a heated debate without flaming, but it won't be happening.

My $.02

[admin]

<div class=\"smallfont\">Writing your own opinion is not flaming. You probably already know this, but I'll write it so everybody can see.... Flaming is when you insult or make fun while you post.</div>
Exactly.

We'd like to keep the debates going on, without the insults. I know it was tolerated in the past, but it also drove people away who were interested in participating in an otherwise useful conversation. Some people think debates must have flames - not true. It just requires a bit more maturity than was required before. For those who think flames make the forum interesting, I'm sorry, but we feel compelling content makes it interesting, not childish insults.

[admin]

<div class=\"smallfont\"><div class=\"smallfont\"></div>
...but not allowing posters to enjoy a heated debate will certainly take the fun out of posting.

Of course you could say that you could have a heated debate without flaming, but it won't be happening.
</div>
I guess I've answered this with my post above. I disagree that it will defeat the purpose. It will just require a bit more maturity than was displayed in the past. Who says you can't enjoy a heated debate without flaming? We're here to give people a place to interact, not get insulted.

[stevedperkins]

Who says you can't enjoy a heated debate without flaming?I've never heard the phrase "heated debate" used to describe an argument that does not involve anger or personal insults. If "flaming" involves anger or personal insults, then there's scarely enough distinction between the two to differentiate effectively.
<br/>

We're here to give people a place to interact, not get insulted.Indeed you have... that place being the **20** forums on this discussion board <i>other</i> than System Wars.

[Chris]

<div class=\"smallfont\">I've never heard the phrase "heated debate" used to describe an argument that does not involve anger or personal insults. If "flaming" involves anger or personal insults, then there's scarely enough distinction between the two to differentiate effectively.</div>
I'm hoping you can tell the difference between a good debate and a childish flame war. I think most people can tell when there's a good debate going on and when a good debate has deteriorated into a insults and personal attacks. It's simple, if people start insulting eachother, or using profanity, the thread can be closed by a moderator.
<br/>
<div class=\"smallfont\">

Indeed you have... that place being the **20** forums on this discussion board <i>other</i> than System Wars.</div>
I'm sorry, but the 20 other forums are still apart of the same site which will have a certain standard of acceptable behavior. I understand that the old forums were a virtual "free for all", but going forward, we'll have a little more moderation going on to ensure quality. Some may not like that, but it's something we have to do as a company.

[stevedperkins]

I'm hoping you can tell the difference between a good debate and a childish flame war. I think most people can tell when there's a good debate going on and when a good debate has deteriorated into a insults and personal attacks. It's simple, if people start insulting eachother, or using profanity, the thread can be closed by a moderator.

So far we've gotten nowhere with this back-and-forth... it being such a subjective matter, I'm still COMPLETELY in the dark as to what is and isn't considered acceptable. I guess what needs to happen is that I just wait for you to start deleting and banning, and then comment on whether or not I agree with the specific cases. If you're talking about deleting and banning for using profanity, or deteriorating an argument into "yo mama"-type retardedness... then I pretty much agree. However, I'm not on board <b><i>AT ALL</i></b> if you're talking about blocking Gamecube guys being called "10-year olds" and "kiddies" (these certainly being insults), or impersonations and parodies of other people's opinions and posting styles (these certainly being personal attacks), etc.


I'm sorry, but the 20 other forums are still apart of the same site which will have a certain standard of acceptable behavior. I understand that the old forums were a virtual "free for all", but going forward, we'll have a little more moderation going on to ensure quality. Some may not like that, but it's something we have to do as a company.I think that a large source of the contraversy and frustration is simply due to the fact that this one paragraph is the closest that we've ever come to getting <b>ANY</b> form of explanation for the recent changes. That, and the general arrogance that comes from the admins. 99% of the content on this site is reader-submitted, site owners gain from it financially witout paying a dime for the content... and yet there's the general sense that <b><i>they</i></b> are doing <b><i>us</i></b> the favor rather than it being the other way around.

<i>Okay guys, everything's changing in a few days. The look and feel will be different, and oh by the way we'll be killing off the most popular forum on the entire site unless everyone raises hell about it for several days straight. You do not need to know anything more than this, and we'll entertain no questioning. If any of this is a problem for you, don't let the doorknob hit your a** on the way out. Oh and hey folks, submit some more articles for us woodya?</i>

What exatly does "something we have to do as a company" mean? From a legal standpoint, your already in compliance with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 because you make people vouch that they're 13 when they sign up for usernames (at least I <i>think</i> I saw that requirement in the signup process, you guys are nuts if it isn't there). If it was an advertising revenue thing, that's a different story. It's a hard tightrope to walk... talking the family-friendly talk to advertisers, while in reality being loose enough to actually be worth checking out. Your smartest bet would be to talk tough and post a thousand "policies" and "terms of service" on your site, while actually looking the other way 99% of the time. For sucessful examples, start with studying peer-to-peer file sharing networks and Vince McMahon.

[Chris]

<div class=\"smallfont\">So far we've gotten nowhere with this back-and-forth... it being such a subjective matter, I'm still COMPLETELY in the dark as to what is and isn't considered acceptable. I guess what needs to happen is that I just wait for you to start deleting and banning, and then comment on whether or not I agree with the specific cases. If you're talking about deleting and banning for using profanity, or deteriorating an argument into "yo mama"-type retardedness... then I pretty much agree. However, I'm not on board <b><i>AT ALL</i></b> if you're talking about blocking Gamecube guys being called "10-year olds" and "kiddies" (these certainly being insults), or impersonations and parodies of other people's opinions and posting styles (these certainly being personal attacks), etc.</div>
We're pretty much on the same page. We don't want to see "over moderation", but at the same time, we'll be enforcing things a little bit more than we used to. I guess everyone will get the idea once we do start deleting posts and closing threads.

<div class=\"smallfont\">
I think that a large source of the contraversy and frustration is simply due to the fact that this one paragraph is the closest that we've ever come to getting <b>ANY</b> form of explanation for the recent changes. That, and the general arrogance that comes from the admins. 99% of the content on this site is reader-submitted, site owners gain from it financially witout paying a dime for the content... and yet there's the general sense that <b><i>they</i></b> are doing <b><i>us</i></b> the favor rather than it being the other way around.

<i>Okay guys, everything's changing in a few days. The look and feel will be different, and oh by the way we'll be killing off the most popular forum on the entire site unless everyone raises hell about it for several days straight. You do not need to know anything more than this, and we'll entertain no questioning. If any of this is a problem for you, don't let the doorknob hit your a** on the way out. Oh and hey folks, submit some more articles for us woodya?</i>

What exatly does "something we have to do as a company" mean? From a legal standpoint, your already in compliance with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 because you make people vouch that they're 13 when they sign up for usernames (at least I <i>think</i> I saw that requirement in the signup process, you guys are nuts if it isn't there). If it was an advertising revenue thing, that's a different story. It's a hard tightrope to walk... talking the family-friendly talk to advertisers, while in reality being loose enough to actually be worth checking out. Your smartest bet would be to talk tough and post a thousand "policies" and "terms of service" on your site, while actually looking the other way 99% of the time. For sucessful examples, start with studying peer-to-peer file sharing networks and Vince McMahon.</div>
I thought we explained the the transition (changes) quite well. We were very limited with the old system, both as users and as administrators. I think the feature set of this new system speaks for itself as to why we changed systems. We added more forums, and yes, we initially left out the System Wars forum because we saw it as a flamefest forum that didn't offer much positives to the site except for the fact that it was busy. We've reinstated that forum, but will hold it to a similar standard as the others going forward. As a company, we have to be as consistent as we can in moderating each forum.

You're welcome to email me and point out which admins you've seen being arrogant. I am the current admin for this site, and I've only recently taken over the gaming sites after Eric left. We provide a service which allows gaming enthusiasts to interact and help eachother decide on which games are the best for their money - at no cost. True, we don't pay our users for the content they submit, but we have plenty of costs associated with hosting/running a site like this. People volunteer their content because we offer a service in return. We collect, categorize, and display unbiased products reviews, we host "support group" forums where people can get their questions answered, and we offer a number of other sections meant to help gamers. Are we not providing a valuable free service for the gaming community? Are we not doing eachother a favor?

Bottomline, we'll be moderating the forums a little more than we used to - no extremes. We don't take the community voice for granted, but we will also do what we feel is right for the community, overall - not just the vocal few. I appreciate your feedback and will take it into consideration. I think we can take the rest offline in an email, as we've pretty much touched every base for others to read.

[stevedperkins]

You're welcome to email me and point out which admins you've seen being arrogant.I do agree that it's about time to move on to other subject matter. However, you DO realize that you have your user profile set to block people from getting your email, right? :)

My remark about admin arrogance was really just directed at the collective group. Oh come on... you invite people to preview all the bells-n-whistles and pretty-avatar-picture stuff weeks in advance, but then sh**can the most popular forum on the site with no heads-up or asking whether the <i>users</i> felt it was a positive for the site? It takes a ton of near-<b><i>unanimous</i></b> hammering by users to get a "we'll think about it" regarding bringing it back. Admins ('Lara' if you really want names) bristle at questioning whether they "get" System Wars, they ('admin') bristle at questioning why they therefore want it flame-free, they basically bristle at questioning of anything.

Look, I honestly don't mean to be a pain in the neck, and I don't plan to harp on this any further (at least not until we see where it goes with deletions and thread closings). However, you had to expect some pretty firey feedback, trying to close the most popular forum on a discussion site with no notice or real explanation. This was obviously a decision thought and planning went into, otherwise all the admins wouldn't be 100% on the same page right off the bat. Even the current explanations ring pretty hollow... they speak as if it's just <i>self-evident</i> that a flame-free "war" forum (lol, I still chuckle when typing that!) would be a good thing, when almost everyone else who's voiced an opinion didn't feel that conculsion was so obvious.

This all smells to me like a directive from above, from people not even involved with this little corner of consumerreview.com, that you guys have to back because it's your job. If I'm wrong then I'm sorry for the presumption, and if I'm right then I'm sorry because that's the case. Either way, you <i>had</i> to be braced for a backlash.
<br/>

Are we not providing a valuable free service for the gaming community? Are we not doing each other a favor?
Yes, absolutely.

[Chris]

<div class=\"smallfont\">Look, I honestly don't mean to be a pain in the neck, and I don't plan to harp on this any further (at least not until we see where it goes with deletions and thread closings). However, you had to expect some pretty firey feedback, trying to close the most popular forum on a discussion site with no notice or real explanation. This was obviously a decision thought and planning went into, otherwise all the admins wouldn't be 100% on the same page right off the bat. Even the current explanations ring pretty hollow... they speak as if it's just <i>self-evident</i> that a flame-free "war" forum (lol, I still chuckle when typing that!) would be a good thing, when almost everyone else who's voiced an opinion didn't feel that conculsion was so obvious. </div>
Well, with "admin" and myself being the same person, I see you already see me as being arrogant. My apologies, as I had never thought that to be the case. I never thought anyone would be "upset" at the thought of us asking for a flame-free environment. Our policies haven't changed in years (http://www.consumerreview.com/terms.html) - though we have been a little short handed lately to enforce them consistently in each forum. I chuckle at the thought of people being surprised that we are asking for less flaming and insults. In my mind, that should go without saying, or at least it has on every website I've ever participated on.

The decision to group the System Wars forum into General was ultimately mine. As I said in a few other posts, it didn't look like it offered many positives in it's last form. Many of the arguments to bring it back still are based on the fact that the old forum was a flamefest and it was "fun" to read the flaming. Though it may look to you like 99% of the community wanted the forum back, I'd say out of all the emails I received, private messages and forum posts I've read on the subject, it was nowhere near unanimous. At least 1/4 - 1/3 of the notes I read were not sorry to see it grouped into General. Whatever the case, it's back, and we'll have some more moderators checking in.

You can assume what you like as to what influences our/my decisions as to what stays and what goes in the forums. It's simple, and I'll restated it here, we do what we feel is best for the community as a whole. Just because a few people make the most noise doesn't mean everyone shares their opinion.

[E.T.]

....apparently I missed out on something by not visiting the System Wars board...or did I? Sounds hostile/entertaining. Guess I'll never know [unless old board is still intact], but tend to agree w/administrator about usefulness of debating w/insults. The PC forum/boards are tame compared to SW's, I think I recall the moderator making two or three reprimands/censures in the last 18 months...mostly to a megalomaniac Canadian member [who, BTW, would easily subdue all competitors @ Sytem Wars, but would tell you his time is too precious to debate on the lesser platforms...lol!].