Jump to content

Talk:GameFAQs/GameFAQs message boards/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Keep it

Its a very valid article, as the GameFAQS message board is a massive community with quite a history.

I agree that it needs to be kept, but apparently someone is pretty bitter (all the CJayC + references). There are also several misspellings that I'm too lazy to change. When the wikipedia page for pretty much every topic is around 5th in Google, it's embarassing to have something of such poor quality. -Anon.

Rewrite article?

Right now, this is article is badly formatted, and the content isn't written in good style. Should it be completely rewritten? 郵便箱 04:40, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

A cleanup may be required--203.29.151.3 05:23, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I cleaned up some of the worst so far.--Etaonish 15:26, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

I just put the cleanup tag so it should be better soon--203.29.151.3 12:57, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

". . .although this perceived status was lost soon after he gained access, because he made retarded threads." Badly written, should be rephrased.

Tables vs text.

Etaonish says that a table is distracting. I believe that having a table is alot better because the description of the winners is like a giant slab of text that is bad for the eyes(Metaphorically speaking). Should we have a table or should we leave it as it is?This is the non Table version or should we have a Table version. Please don't say your opinoin without a reason.--203.29.151.3 08:46, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Normally I would whole-heartedly support the table, except in this case there's only four winners. I don't think it's enough to warrant a table. In the future, perhaps, but not now.--Etaonish 17:13, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

After this years Summer Contest?--203.29.151.4 08:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Er...maybe. Though most likely after several more contests. Since else it's just a tiny table that sort of breaks up the page. That's just what I feel...does anyone else want to give their opinion?--Etaonish 01:55, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Does LUE deserve its own page?

I say yes.--Darkspym7 07:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well if you do, make one.
There is one, but it redirects to this page.

As a reader who has never visited the boards before today

I found myself wondering what a byzantine Labyrinth...both the boards and this article. This article aims to document the history of the community for the community. At least attempt to introduce the subject to outsiders. Someone should write an introduction paragraph overviewing the system. lots of issues | leave me a message 15:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Entire sections devoted to particular boards

Should LUE and RI really have entire sections devoted just to them? Seems it would be better to summarize that data and bring them back inline with the other board descriptions. This is after all neither a place for bragging about particular boards or for recording all their history and idiosyncracies. Surely both could be summarized.

The order could also use some work. Perhaps the social board should be listed in order of their popularity rather than have CE near the top claiming to be the 3rd most popular. Mr1bh 14:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

There was pertinent information in the (admittedly long-winded) summary of Random Insanity which applied to the evolution of the GameFAQs message boards as a whole - for instance, the contributions RI made to roleplaying on GameFAQs and the Internet with Gaw's Laws as well as the RICE Wars, which led to the advent of the board invasion clause in the ToS. While there was certainly some extraneous information in there, I personally believe some of what was taken away ought to be put back again. Furthermore, some of the changes made to the article are wildly inaccurate. The article states that RI became home to text-based roleplaying games, which may have been true five years ago... but it certainly isn't the case anymore.

I'm going to restore a few pieces of the old summary for RI. I'm not qualified to judge the current status of the LUE summary, so if anyone else feels like moseying on over and taking a gander, feel free. --71.0.144.234 05:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

As for the order of the boards, I personally believe they should be organized by their seniority rather than their popularity. There has always been a "Big Three" of sorts when it comes to the GameFAQs message boards: CE was created first, then RI, and finally LUE. I think this would be the best way to display them on the list, if only because popularity is liable to change over time and the date of their creation will forever remain constant. --71.0.144.234 06:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to keep the amount of board history to a minimum. For the most part people reading this article who are not GameFAQs members will want to know more about the boards as they are today than the entire reader's digest version of one particulat board's history. If we add in some of RI's history, then we will need it for CE, LUE, the couch, the role playing board, PoTD, etc. I do agree that a little more about each board and their communities and content is needed, but one thing for sure, it shouldn't have to mention specific users.

Perhaps a section near the top, maybe even the Overview/intro. could contain a paragraph on the evolution and interaction of the boards as a whole. As few specific details as possible, but a discussion of board wars, invasions, etc.

Mr1bh 12:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see how those two sentences were harmful to the article nor how edifying unclear information with patches of history is an ill-founded revision. This version doesn't keep board history to a minimum; it obliterates all traces of board history whatsoever. The purpose of a Wikipedia article isn't expressly to define a thing as it exists today, but also to define the evolution of that thing over time. Take a look at this article on the United_Kingdom, which describes not only said nation at present day, but also outlines said nation's history in order to demonstrate where it came from and what forces collaborated to mold it to its current form. Board history, however brief, belongs in this article - and it belongs in its rightful place: under the summary of each board.

"If we add in some of RI's history, then we will need it for CE, LUE, the couch, the role playing board, PoTD, etc." I'm all for that. Anything to offer these boards some identity other than what their current descriptions attest to - "This is a social board." "This is another social board." "This, this, this, this, and this are all social boards." Straightforward, yes, but none too enlightening.

Now that the statement which qualified roleplaying as ever having existed on Random Insanity has been removed, I personally feel this article is in more need of expansion in the way of board history than ever before. I hate to sound harsh, but I would rather the article be informative and unprofessional than professional and uninformative. --71.0.144.234 17:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


"I would rather the article be informative and unprofessional than professional and uninformative" why not let it be both. I agree there is need for expansion, but it needs to be information that a person with no knowledge of boards needs to know. The line about roleplaying mentioned three users specifically. Why does a person who quite possibly will never visit RI need to know these people's names? The comments about RICE wars, LUE raids, and GameQueen only leaves the reader wondering what those terms mean. Now, that doesn't mean even more text is needed to define them. The user names can be deleted and RICE wars and LUE raids can replaced with more descriptive text (e.g. "invasions of RI and LUE", since both RI and LUE are mentioned elsewhere in the article.) GameQueen, I'm not to sure about. At minimum something more descriptive than "the GameQueen incident" would help.

Try this:

Text-based roleplaying also found a niche on RI, although the brunt of its popularity would move elsewhere with the arrival of Role-playing/Fan-Fiction. Although more law-abiding than LUE, RI has had difficulties with the rules in the past, which has summarily affected the evolution of the ToS: attacks againt RI and LUE brought about the implementation and strengthening of the board invasion rule, and the hostile abuse of an unliked user named GameQueen led to substantial clarification on the nature of trolling and flaming.

It could probably still use a bit of polish, but hopefully you can see what I was concerned about. I apologize for not taking the time to edit the text before (and instead deleting it) that was very brash and I should have been more considerate.

Mr1bh 05:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the new overview edits

The article has improved. lots of issues | leave me a message 20:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote for Deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 01:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Lists and Jargon

We have three, simple lists in this article (the user levels, secret boards, and special social boards) which really don't add a whole lot to the article, but take up a large amount of space. The user levels are easy enough to find on GameFAQs and could simply be linked. The board lists aren't entirely relevant or of interest and could be replaced with a reference to KSOT's FAQ. I added the user level list myself and have wondered ever since whether or not it really needed to be posted.

The jargon section contains a lot of information that a person would only need to know if he or she was a user on the boards and doesn't do a whole lot for someone just curious about the site. That each board has a culture that identifies with an unusual name, or that internet fad terms and such have been born on GameFAQs is relevant, but I think it is worth considering if that section should be reformatted, stripped down, or possibly even expanded. One thing for sure, a pic of LUEshi is not needed (a link might be ok.) Mr1bh 04:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Things like the secret boards and speical social boards a big part of what makes GameFAQs stand out enough to be a notable Internet community at all. 68.47.234.131 23:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Jargon definitely deserves to be there. While the internet-global ones could be taken out, much of the jargon is GF specific and is quite useful. After all, the standard internet user doesn't want to know what a LUEser is, so putting it in the main slang page is pointless, but a new GameFAQs user wouldn't know what it is and having it here would be helpful. --dws90 00:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with dws90 - Stoph 02:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I conditionally agree. The universal Internet jargon should be removed, but many of the terms in the current list are hardly used widely on GameFAQs, and should be cleaned up. Terms like "WTB" and "GFNW" are practically never used. --Scottie theNerd 13:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

A concerned board user asks...

For the most part, the secret boards on GameFAQ's for various reasons value the privacy aforded to them by being secret. Particularly Toaster Oven.

However alot of members of the site, also use this site, which inevitably leads to a number of people finding their way to the boards.

For the most part this isn't a problem, most just leave fairly promptly, and a handful stay. However it has fairly frequently lead trolls to the board(s) with predictable consequences. some of which admit they go the link here.

So my request is, that the board numbers for the secret boards be removed. I realise this may conflict with freedom of information on this site, however, it's a small concession that would help part of the message board community of GameFAQ's.

Stop deleting secret board numbers

The numbers have been leaked, we can find them anywhere: Asked on MBH, going to KSOT's FAQ, etc. Hell, the GFA has the board number to TO. If you disagree please talk here rather than edit it out, since it's just going to lead to an edit war. Hbdragon88 07:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, they are on KSOT's FAQ, so there is no need to list them here where they aren't really relevant. Several lists have already been removed from the article in favor of links for more information. I can't see where removing this list is any different, especially when it adds little to the article. 68.221.205.253

a note about the WOT addition

An anon just added this: This was because, despite its previous redesignation from special interest to social board, many new moderators were deleting posts for being off-topic. The de-linking was initially met with considerable indignation by WoTers, as the only board to be de-linked before was LUE, and WoTers had done nothing that resembled LUE's infamous history. In addition, it was considered unfair that the board was being "punished" due to moderators improperly enforcing the TOS, rather than the lead moderator and administrators instructing the new moderators of the proper rules for WoT. However, most WoTers soon ceased to care, as nothing really changed in the board's activity (WoT already had a large enough userbase to be self-sufficient, and no longer drew many new users that weren't alternate accounts for established WoTers).

My problem with it is that it's kind of pointless, and a bit inaccurate.

  1. . It seems a bit combative. The first line is certainly POV. I'm not familiar enough with WOT before or after delinking to see what topics were deleted for off-topic, though I imagine that it was getting treated the same as any other special interest board.
  2. . It was most certainly not the "second" board to be delinked, there were 10 or so Series Social boards that were unlinked.

Just my 2 cents. I don't feel like it should stay in the article, but I know that there are other people who might disagree. Toffile 07:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It's factually correct. That's the actual reason that CJayC gave for de-linking the board: some of the new moderators were confused about which set of topicality rules were to be applied. Making WOT a secret board was meant to clarify to everybody. 68.47.234.131 22:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. I still think it's too insignificant to be in the article in the long-term, but I'm not a consensus by muself. I'm going to remove the "second" to be delinked, per my second point. I'll leave reference to the indignation however.Toffile 23:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Is it really? It says that WOT went from a special interest to a social, but what I remember it differently – WOT was a social, and that was the problem – off-topic posts and the such. Hbdragon88 02:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't remember WOT ever being listed as a Special Interest board. Even at its creation, wasn't it a Social board?
WOT started out as a Social Board and became a Special Social Board. The confusion around WOT is because the board's name implied that it was a Special Interest board for the conflict and its politics. That wasn't the case. --Scottie theNerd 19:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Moderators and Administrators

  • The current entry for Moderators and Administrators is fine. Do not add any more information, as anything you add will either be redundant, inaccurate, unverifiable, unnecessary or all of the previous. Moderators, as far as the average user and Wiki reader are concerned, are all the same. There isn't any point in explaining each user level. --Scottie theNerd 19:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • And I'll repeat myself: the section is as complete is it can be. Do not add any more information, as that would be beyond the scope of this article. Listing all the Moderators was quite unnecessary. --Scottie theNerd 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Evil Republicans

Do not continue to add this crap. Board factions do not belong on this Wiki. ~RockMFR

According to who? One guy with less than a hundred edits (including at least one vandalism) that are all in the last month can't unilaterally dictate what "belongs on this Wiki." The ERs are at least as notable as "ANZer" or "313er". Or especially "Board 8er", I frequent the Summer Contest board myself & I've never seen the term. "Saxon = Joke Account" also belongs. If a GameFAQs-originated term that was actually seen on television isn't notable, what is? 68.47.234.131 08:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
And who are you to decide what is notable? You're not any better than he is, and you're worse if you use edits as an indication of knowledge. I'm not fussed about the ERs -- in fact I agree with their inclusion -- but "Saxon = Joke Account" was a one-off stint that has no significant bearing on GameFAQs slang and lore. --Scottie theNerd 14:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Its appearance on TV might's been a one-shot occurance, but to this day every post Saxon makes (not just on the Pro Wrestling boards, but everywhere on GameFAQs) gets "Saxon = Joke Account" replies. I think that solidifies its place in GameFAQs lore. 68.47.234.131 23:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that Saxon alone would draw that amount of attention from the common populace of GameFAQs, considering that the Saxon = Joke Account replies tend to come from the same people. It has a place in the Pro Wrestling community, but not GameFAQs as a whole. --Scottie theNerd 13:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Kuja105 Suicide

He really is dead. He really did commit suicide. There's a nice big topic about it on LL. - CorbinSimpson 09:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Kuja105 Reborn did in fact commit suicide, and was the target of criticism by none other than Jack Thompson. Evidence of his death is reported here and here. However, I don't believe that Kuja105 should gain a specific mention on the GameFAQs pages, as his suicide is not directly relevant to the article. --Scottie theNerd 11:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Tragic as it is, the information doesn't belong in the article. --dws90 03:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Erm, what was the point of changing this section header? --Scottie theNerd 02:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"secret" boards?

it is meantioned several times, but is never given a definition

--HTL2001 (Talk|Contrib) 03:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, as the name would imply, secret boards are simply boards that are never directly linked to anywhere on the GameFAQs site map. It seems pretty common-sense to me... - CorbinSimpson 03:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes but it is referenced by a few definitions in bold indicating there should be a definition for it. I got it just fine myself, just suggesting for completeness
--HTL2001 (Talk|Contrib) 04:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The Gamefaqs User Board Levels

I've decided that I will post the board levels on the talk page.

(If its against the rules or anything,I'll remove it.)

An up-to-date ,message board level list is below.


  • (-4) Closed - Account closed by user. Closed accounts cannot be re-opened under any circumstances. (NOTE: This level is currently not in use.)
  • (-3) Pending Closure - Account marked to be closed by user. Account will be closed in 48 hours, and after that can never be restored under any circumstances. (NOTE: This level is currently not in use.)
  • (-2) Banned - User has been banned from posting messages for one or more Terms of Service violations.
  • (-1) Suspended - User's posting privileges have been suspended for one or more Terms of Service violations, pending review by an Administrator.
  • ( 0) Inactive - User has not yet activated their account using a valid e-mail address. Cannot post messages.
  • ( 1) Read-Only - (NOTE: This level is currently listed in the official help files, but with an outdated description.)
  • ( 2) User Suspended - Account locked by an administrator to prevent abuse. Contact a GameFAQs admin for more information. (NOTE: This level is currently listed in the official help files, but with an outdated description.)
  • ( 3) Purgatory - Account suspended for a set period of time by an admin for numerous and/or severe TOS violations. (NOTE: This level is currently listed in the official help files, but with an outdated description.)
  • ( 4) Pending Review - Account activated, but pending review by an administrator before use.
  • ( 5) Warned - User on "parole" for one or more major Terms of Service violations. Can only post 3 messages per hour (10 per day), no topics, restored after 48-72 hours.)
  • ( 6) Negative Karma - User has karma of less than zero. User can post a total of one message per day, and any further TOS violations are grounds for banning.
  • (10) Provisional (1) - New account created in the past 48 hours. To prevent flooding, can create 1 topic, 10 messages per day (3 per hour). (NOTE: This level is currently listed in the official help files, but with an outdated description.)
  • (11) Provisional (2) - Account created more than 48 hours ago, but has zero karma. Can create 1 topic, 20 messages per day (5 per hour). (NOTE: This level is currently listed in the official help files, but with an outdated description.)
  • (15) New User (1) - Awarded to users with positive karma after 48 hours. Can create 5 topics, 30 messages per day. Can delete own messages, close topics. (NOTE: This level is currently listed in the official help files, but with an outdated description.)
  • (20) New User (2) - Awarded to users with at least 20 Karma. Can create 10 topics, 50 messages per day. Can now mark messages for moderation. (NOTE: This level is currently listed in the official help files, but with an outdated description.)
  • (25) New User (3) - Awarded to users with at least 40 Karma. Can create 10 topics, 80 messages per day. Can now view own posting history.
  • (30) Regular User - Awarded to users with at least 75 Karma. No posting restrictions. (NOTE: This level is currently listed in the official help files, but with an outdated description.)
  • (31) Veteran - Awarded to users with at least 150 Karma. No posting restrictions.
  • (32) Legend - Awarded to users with at least 350 Karma. No posting restrictions.
  • (33) Elite - Awarded to users with at least 700 Karma. No posting restrictions.
  • (34) Icon - Awarded to users with at least 1000 Karma. No posting restrictions.
  • (35) Idol - Awarded to users with at least 1500 Karma. No posting restrictions.
  • (36) Ancient - Awarded to users with at least 2000 Karma. No posting restrictions. (NOTE: This level is currently not listed in the official help files.)
  • (40) VIP - User has been confirmed as an employee or authorized representative of a game developer or publisher.
  • (42) VIP - Industry - User confirmed as a member of the game industry. (NOTE: This level is currently not listed in the official help files.)
  • (43) VIP - Production - User confirmed as a member of the game industry, involved in game production. (NOTE: This level is currently not listed in the official help files.)
  • (50) New Moderator - Moderators new to the moderation staff. (NOTE: This level is currently listed in the official help files, but with an outdated description.)
  • (51) Moderator - Moderators who have joined the staff since 2003. (NOTE: This unlisted level replaces General Moderator, which is currently listed in the official help files.)
  • (52) Veteran Moderator - Moderators who joined the staff in 2002 or earlier. (NOTE: This unlisted level replaces Specialist Moderator, which is currently listed in the official help files.)
  • (53) Lead Moderator - Moderators who also handle some administrative duties. (NOTE: This level is currently listed in the official help files, but with an outdated description.)
  • (60) Administrator - Administrators can review and ban suspended users, as well as controlling all other aspects of the boards.
  • (70) Data Administrator - Account used for Coding/Testing of Boards.

Josh215 23:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:GameFAQs/GameFAQs_message_boards/Archive_1&oldid=1136749650"