Here's What's Wrong With The Moderator System

[TATE]

I do not like people insulting each other by name calling, but it is also my opinion things have gotten too restrictive and imposing on A-Z, to the point where censorship is inhibiting many posters. This hurts the entertainment value. Polite society is mind numbingly boring.

I believe Mr. Wilson is overloaded and alone. A-Z has grown and needs a better system.

I propose:

- There should be more than 1 moderator, maybe a tribunal.

- The moderators should remain anonymous. Why should Dave be vilified for doing a job? That sucks!

- They should vote for banning.

- There also should be guidelines for permanent bans.

- The mods can issue warnings and pull threads, all the same powers as now.

- There should be a constitution defining both freedom of speech and posters rights to be protected from slanderous attacks.


I would appreciate your ideas and a vote.

Chris

 

[SanDiegoFan]

Well said, I agree.

SDF

 

[Eric.]

Without giving it much deep thought, I think having checks and balances versus having one absolute power would be the best way. Maybe a 3 person decision making group can be put in place for stuff like bannings.




Eric

 

[Hal]

I suggested all of the above earlier and it's being discussed as we speak. I first made the suggestion yesterday in a post but it was immediately deleted by Mr. Wilson.

 

[jhendri2]

Yes, but would propose a different system.

I think each section (Main, NPR, Cue Gallery etc.) should have its own moderator. That person would be responsible for the activity in his forum. These would be the "supervisors" , Mr. Wilson would be a "manager". The supervisor would warn the offender, if the supervisor felt the offender had enough warnings he would have the authority to ban for up to 30 days. If the supervisor wanted a lifetime ban it would have to be referred to the manager, who would then grab supervisors from OTHER forums to review what has happened and the manager would decide if the offense(s) warrant a lifetime ban.

Jim

 

[TATE]

I think each section (Main, NPR, Cue Gallery etc.) should have its own moderator. That person would be responsible for the activity in his forum. These would be the "supervisors" , Mr. Wilson would be a "manager". The supervisor would warn the offender, if the supervisor felt the offender had enough warnings he would have the authority to ban for up to 30 days. If the supervisor wanted a lifetime ban it would have to be referred to the manager, who would then grab supervisors from OTHER forums to review what has happened and the manager would decide if the offense(s) warrant a lifetime ban.

Jim

Pretty good. You should have been a congressman!

 

[jhendri2]

Pretty good. You should have been a congressman!

Thanks...I think

THis is sort of the way the military works...

Jim

 

[Hal]

With the exception of porn or massive spamming etc. I think a life time ban is too harsh. It creates un-needed friction among members. 6 months should do the trick. If they offend again, give them another 6 months. They'll eventually stop.

I'm not sure how I feel about the moderators being anonymous. That might be a good thing.

 

[TATE]

With the exception of porn or massive spamming etc. I think a life time ban is too harsh. It creates un-needed friction among members. 6 months should do the trick. If they offend again, give them another 6 months. They'll eventually stop.

I pretty much think it needs to be outrageous behavior too. The spats and whatever are part of life in the big city pool room.

Chris

 

[jhendri2]

With the exception of porn or massive spamming etc. I think a life time ban is too harsh. It creates un-needed friction among members. 6 months should do the trick. If they offend again, give them another 6 months. They'll eventually stop.

I think there should be some sort of option for a lifetime ban, otherwise some folks would just keep being banned every 6 months. I like the idea of including a 6 month ban though.

Jim

 

[Hal]

If you keep banning them every six months, then they're pretty much gone anyway, BUT they still have the option to straighten up.

 

[jhendri2]

If you keep banning them every six months, then they're pretty much gone anyway, BUT they still have the option to straighten up.

I'll concede that point, FL would only need to be banned twice a year.

Jim

 

[Hal]

The moderators need to be Women, men, liberals, conservatives, etc. We need diversity.

 

[supergreenman]

I do not like people insulting each other by name calling, but it is also my opinion things have gotten too restrictive and imposing on A-Z, to the point where censorship is inhibiting many posters. This hurts the entertainment value. Polite society is mind numbingly boring.

I believe Mr. Wilson is overloaded and alone. A-Z has grown and needs a better system.

I propose:

- There should be more than 1 moderator, maybe a tribunal.

- The moderators should remain anonymous. Why should Dave be vilified for doing a job? That sucks!

- They should vote for banning.

- There also should be guidelines for permanent bans.

- The mods can issue warnings and pull threads, all the same powers as now.

- There should be a constitution defining both freedom of speech and posters rights to be protected from slanderous attacks.


I would appreciate your ideas and a vote.

Chris

I like the thought that you've put into this.

 

[Hidy Ho]

I do not like people insulting each other by name calling, but it is also my opinion things have gotten too restrictive and imposing on A-Z, to the point where censorship is inhibiting many posters. This hurts the entertainment value. Polite society is mind numbingly boring.

I believe Mr. Wilson is overloaded and alone. A-Z has grown and needs a better system.

I propose:

- There should be more than 1 moderator, maybe a tribunal.

- The moderators should remain anonymous. Why should Dave be vilified for doing a job? That sucks!

- They should vote for banning.

- There also should be guidelines for permanent bans.

- The mods can issue warnings and pull threads, all the same powers as now.

- There should be a constitution defining both freedom of speech and posters rights to be protected from slanderous attacks.


I would appreciate your ideas and a vote.

Chris

Chris, great thread.

I was going to post on similar topic. On other forum (non pool related) where I moderate, we have a separate folder only for moderators where we discuss certain post, thread or posters among the moderators. Generally, "banning" is done on consensus. Moderators learn to give and take.

We also modify offending posts, delete posts and lock threads.

At times, moderators are not in agreements and it those situation we look to the owner of the forum (who has vested interest) to make the call.

 

[catscradle]

I think it should be a group of moderators making any decision and the moderators should remain anonymous (and might include Dave) with the banishment being delivered by Mike.

 

[Ky Boy]

I agree...need new system...

I do not like people insulting each other by name calling, but it is also my opinion things have gotten too restrictive and imposing on A-Z, to the point where censorship is inhibiting many posters. This hurts the entertainment value. Polite society is mind numbingly boring.

I believe Mr. Wilson is overloaded and alone. A-Z has grown and needs a better system.

I propose:

- There should be more than 1 moderator, maybe a tribunal.

- The moderators should remain anonymous. Why should Dave be vilified for doing a job? That sucks!

- They should vote for banning.

- There also should be guidelines for permanent bans.

- The mods can issue warnings and pull threads, all the same powers as now.

- There should be a constitution defining both freedom of speech and posters rights to be protected from slanderous attacks.


I would appreciate your ideas and a vote.

Chris

I think it is tough job especially when we are on a personal level. But I also feel that Mr. Wilson targets certain AZ'ers. I don't know if there is a problem really as much with the sheriff or that he just don't have enough deputies. IMO

 

[TATE]

Chris, great thread.

I was going to post on similar topic. On other forum (non pool related) where I moderate, we have a separate folder only for moderators where we discuss certain post, thread or posters among the moderators. Generally, "banning" is done on consensus. Moderators learn to give and take.

We also modify offending posts, delete posts and lock threads.

At times, moderators are not in agreements and it those situation we look to the owner of the forum (who has vested interest) to make the call.

Hi Jazz,

I would say go ahead and post on your experiences. I am hoping that there will be some experts who have gone through this and can contribute to a better system. The discussion needs to take place.

Also, I think the Mods should be anon. We all have a lot of friends and it's hard to tell friends to stop being a jerks.

Chris

 

[BVal]

I did not know that this was a democratic forum. Is it?

 

[Jeff]

Well, I have moderated on several forums and I currently own a good sized Rottweiler forum, So I think I speak with a little experience.

There are two types of trouble makers, people who like to stir the pot with a big stick.

The first type likes to come into a thread (or start one) by saying something to elicit a response and then step back and let the other people argue.

The second type likes to start an argument and continues pushing buttons just to see how far they can push people to react.

In my opinion there is no need for either type on a forum. One or two people can cause havoc on a forum if they can not checked. But how to do this is the question.

I say this forum needs at least two mods, three would be better. There needs to be three steps of temp bans before final permanent ban. All communication between the mod and the person in question has to be kept out of the public forum.

And finally, it is of the utmost importance that the forum owner keep a close eye on the mods and either back them up or step in when needed. When mods are not given feedback from the owner of a forum things can go downhill. It is the duty of the owner to step in and put out fires before they get out of hand, as is happening here.