Moderation Discussion

[anthony]

With what seems to be an issue that detracts other members from participating, maybe it's time I assign a couple of long standing members who have little to no history of flaming threads and such, with the ability to walk away when they feel like shit and not make rash decisions, to have a little control over immediate issues that arise here.

Everything has pros and cons, even having solely me actioning problems reported by members. The main problem from myself is that I may not see a report for 24hrs and thus members continue to jump onto something flaming it further.

Whilst non-veterans join and post here, and obviously they either can't read or respect boundaries, it doesn't mean anyone should demean them. You only need simply highlight they're not allowed here, report it, then leave it alone, as I will ban them if a non-veteran. You don't need to read it, then add to it by demeaning them and lowering yourself to a bully or wrapping yourself in the veteran adage of having no tolerance. The idea of seeking support and help is to gain tolerance so you can communicate with others and not rip them to shreds due to anger or such.

So... there are options I can give to assist. It can work like this:

1. I can pick a post count at which point everyone above that count has the capacity to temp ban a person from a thread (excluding anonymous) for a 24hr period,
2. I can pick certain people and give them additional privileges to temp thread ban, close threads as well as temp ban.

You will notice everything is short and limited, this leaves room for temp actions to take place while things are reported awaiting for me to action the following day.

Temp thread ban is just that... it bans a person from posting within a thread for a defined period, but doesn't stop them participating within the forum.

Anonymous I cannot give anyone access, otherwise that would defeat the purpose of posting anonymously. Only I can see who posts in that section.

I don't like the idea of giving anyone moderator access to edit content, censor or otherwise. Whilst this has a pro in removing spam instantly, the con is that it can piss veterans off if someone starts editing them or creating their own rules or such.

This is why I like the temp thread banning feature, as it only removes a single person from further posting within a thread itself, which they may heatedly respond... but allows everyone else to continue it without closing it off (censorship).

Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS) principle, I am a huge fan. I am open to other suggestions or ideas if the above sounds too much, or not enough.

 

[Fargo1]

Anthony,

While I understand your hesitancy to give anyone moderator status, delegation is always a good option. I like the idea of a 24 hour thread banning. It gives people time to cool off and rethink what they are doing.

Another thing that might help is to have a temporary thread closure. I'm not sure if it is possible with your infrastructure setup, but having a couple of people who can "hide" a thread until you can review it might also be a way of temporarily cooling things off.

Just my thoughts.

Again, thanks for everything you have done here mate.

Fargo

 

[JennyMac]

Number two sounds very fair.

 

[Zipperhead]

How about just the ability to close a thread until it is reviewed by you?

 

[Fargo1]

Zip,

IMHO, just closing a thread still allows the inflaming comments to be read...which seems to me to be beginning to the problem. If people can still read it, but not respond, that would be better than how it is now. But if it could be hidden until Anthony has a chance to look at it...maybe people's tempers can calm down...just my thoughts.

 

[jackrabbit]

#2.

And thanks for all the hard work, Anthony.

 

[anthony]

On reflection already, I can see #1 being a bad idea and that #2 should be based on a small handful who have shown a proven track record of trying to reason comments, remove themselves from such arguments and help curb them.

I will think about it and get back to you all.

 

[Ned]

Agree, option 2.

 

[JarHed]

Hi Anthony

I guess the time for somethings has come and having a few people with some added privileges and responsibilities is warranted. Anthony, I find you to be a reasonable, fair and thoughtful person. What ever your decision is in this matter I will, like most follow it to a T.

I would also suggest option 2 but would add this to it as well. I don't want to give you more duties than you already have but I would think that along with the temporary abilities of a few people you should also have the ability to change or undue their decisions. Perhaps it would like a failsafe to insure that if someone is having a bad day they don't inadvertently make a decision based more on their emotions than logic. Although both play a fair part in the decision making process. Just an idea and opinion.

JarHed

 

[Barberian]

#2 looks like a good option.(y)

 

[reddevil1111]

I think picking the moderator is the real hard part. You don't want someone like me doing it. it needs to be someone who is on here a lot and has a cooler head. And I think having several at a time so there is better coverage. I think Ned,Sarge and Jar all have the right attitude for the job. I think they can be fair and even handed. I know you will choose your own people but I thin giving us a chance to voice who we think is a good fit would help as well.
I truly cherish this site and all that it and the members have done for me. I couldn't have gotten anywhere without you Anthony. Thanks for putting up with me and for giving everyone this great site.

 

[Sarg]

Thanks, Anthony, appreciate all your efforts on our behalf!

Sarg