Here's What's Wrong With The Moderator System

[classiccues]

Here is what will happen...

Multiple moderators making banning choices.. once someone gets banned people here will complain that their friend was targeted, they (moderators) were all out to get him, he wasn't part of their clique, etc.. similar to what you have now. Anyone who thinks this (complaining) will stop is just flat out drunk on love pills.

Look at the diversity of people here, look at the personalities. Anyone think moderating is easy? I used to mod a chat area, 5 days it took before I said forget it. The first day, I was getting e-mails and PM's asking me to ban certain people on things they did 6 mos prior, of just because a poster didn't like this person, or didn't like that comment. You cannot win, it's worse than catfights.

There will be no perfect system, there will never be a system agreed upon by everyone. Its Mikes court and its HIS ball, if you don't like the team he has picked, or the rules to the game, change courts, it's that simple. But to be naive and think that any system will be any better, the dynamic here makes it improbable.

JV

 

[etimmons]

I agree with all. These are great ideas towards what you want for moderators. All I can say is: start your own forum and use what ever modulation you like. But, seeing as this is not your forum but a private one and everyone on it are guests I do believe every one should follow the owners rules or pick up your toys and go home.

If someone has a party every night where all have great fun but the owner says "no smoking". Now one of your dear friends decides he doesn't care what the owner wants, he is still going to smoke. Is it now wrong for the owner to ask the man to leave or do you thing it should be put up to a vote?

Dick

I agree.....well said

 

[sniper]

Well, this won't be popular, but I'll say it as politely and clearly as possible.

People have agendas and prejudices and personal beliefs that are contrary to others. Some people may be very religious and straight laced and easily offended. Some may not be bothered by porn or vulgar language, arguing or bickering.

Some may be racist and are aware or unaware that they are. Some may be bigots. Others may be in daily contact by PMs, e-mail and telephone with current banned members and doing their bidding.

Some may belong to the same pool team, league or clique and their beliefs run along the same lines in matters of importance. Some may feel that a person can whatever they like, because they are a "tells it like it is" type of person.

Some people would rather AZB be about pool only, with no room for other subjects. Some see no problem going on and on and on about Politics or religion or a host of other topics. Some would prefer this to be like the wild west, with no law whatsoever.

I don't like the tribunal idea or the moderator for each section idea.
I don't like the moderators identity is kept secret idea.
I don't like people that have a gripe with other posters, deciding what becomes of their adversaries.

I like the system that's in place now. Maybe it needs a wee bit of tweaking, but it's working just fine (imo). Mr. Wilson seems to have a good grip on what's acceptable here, without leaning too far in any of the above examples. Mr. Wilson is fair and does a good job, despite the current uproar and demand for change. We are lucky to have someone that devotes the time and energy necessary to keep AZB the great site that it is. It won't be perfect for everyone, but it is acceptable.

I hope that things remain as they are, but I'd hope that Mike and Mr. Wilson discuss the possibilty of allowing banned members a reprieve on the 1st of the year. Ultimately, it is their decision and I will abide by it.

Doug
( there's an ass for every saddle and if that saying offends anyone, I certainly don't want THEM as a moderator... imo )

Well Doug I have to agree with you for the most part, and were definitely in the minority here. Considering the workload that is Mr.Wilson is presented with on a daily basis around here I think he's been doing a pretty good job, alot better than I could if I was in his position. That being said, I also think that AZ could use more moderators to deal with the site's recent growth, not only could they patrol the board faster and more efficient they could make more informed decisions, two minds are better than one or so I've been told

 

[cueandcushion]

New banning system? Then PAY for it.

A lot of interesting banning suggestions and procedures mentioned here. Should this all be done for free? Should Mr Wilson and other moderaters spend MORE of thier time going through procedure and writing programs or paying others for programs? I think if it is going to be too complicated it is only fair to have a supporter/nonsupporter system in place. Should a one time poster and Timberly have the same rules? The one time poster gets banned for using the F-word its no big deal. The more someone posts on here, or people who are using their real names usually have better self regulation than the anonymous ones I have noticed...NOT ALL>>but most. Anyone wishing to have things radically changed should all send Mr Wilson a $100 each to prove they are putting their wallet behind their mouth. This will offset operating costs that AZbilliards incurs since I don't think they are making a ton of money off the posting forums. Probably none at all.

I know being a business owner I (or my family) make decisions every single day that people disagree with and whine about. We fully understand these customers have the right to leave and spend their money elsewhere and we assume that risk. I would NEVER let all my customers get together to decide rules for my billiard parlor. I already know the direction that would steer my company. It is no different here. If you are not financially supporting the AZBilliards board by volunteering or spending CASH. Then the internet allows you to register your own website, pay for bandwidth, pay a webmaster if needed, pay for programs, pay vBulletin a monthly maintenance fee and start your own posting forum. The internet = freedom. Freedom to be honest, freedom to be anonymous, freedom to be kind, freedom to be rude, freedom to be racist, freedom to be homophobic, freedom to be sexist, and the freedom to be banned from a website because of the previously mentioned.

Just one persons opinion...nothing more..nothing less.

 

[Tennesseejoe]

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 agree with your idea. You should start the new web site and run it the way you want to. Maybe FL can give you some ideas. Good luck--you seem like a decent person.

 

[watchez]

A lot of interesting banning suggestions and procedures mentioned here. Should this all be done for free? Should Mr Wilson and other moderaters spend MORE of thier time going through procedure and writing programs or paying others for programs? I think if it is going to be too complicated it is only fair to have a supporter/nonsupporter system in place. Should a one time poster and Timberly have the same rules? The one time poster gets banned for using the F-word its no big deal. The more someone posts on here, or people who are using their real names usually have better self regulation than the anonymous ones I have noticed...NOT ALL>>but most. Anyone wishing to have things radically changed should all send Mr Wilson a $100 each to prove they are putting their wallet behind their mouth. This will offset operating costs that AZbilliards incurs since I don't think they are making a ton of money off the posting forums. Probably none at all.

I know being a business owner I (or my family) make decisions every single day that people disagree with and whine about. We fully understand these customers have the right to leave and spend their money elsewhere and we assume that risk. I would NEVER let all my customers get together to decide rules for my billiard parlor. I already know the direction that would steer my company. It is no different here. If you are not financially supporting the AZBilliards board by volunteering or spending CASH. Then the internet allows you to register your own website, pay for bandwidth, pay a webmaster if needed, pay for programs, pay vBulletin a monthly maintenance fee and start your own posting forum. The internet = freedom. Freedom to be honest, freedom to be anonymous, freedom to be kind, freedom to be rude, freedom to be racist, freedom to be homophobic, freedom to be sexist, and the freedom to be banned from a website because of the previously mentioned.

Just one persons opinion...nothing more..nothing less.

Unless I am missing something, there is no real financial support to have this board. I enjoy it, don't get me wrong but let's be sure that is it not a multi millionaire dollar venture. It is barely a multi dollar venture. I can buy UNLIMITED webspace for $100 a year that will support a message board & whatever else I want. I have a friend that has done so for a different forum just in the past month. I would be willing to do so here if there is enough interest for a board that is less constricting to some posters. I wouldn't want cursing or name calling for just the sake of calling someone a name but would like the freedom to speak my mind, make a point and not worry that I am making it to someone that is on the 'inside' of the forum. Anyone interested?

 

[RiverCity]

The biggest issue I have with this board, is the personal drama that is allowed to continue and escalate to the proportions that it does. It is at that point someone gets reprimanded, or banned. Situations like the Varney/Carter issue, or going back a ways the marissa/dm/rude dog/ etc etc etc issues........ Have absolutely nothing to do with POOL. In my view, that means the threads should be closed or deleted asap. Not allowed to go on for 5-15 pages where people who have absolutely NOTHING to do with the situation pipe up with their 2 cents. Thats where the arguing and bickering and name calling, and threats etc are. Eliminate the root of the problem, and it wont grow and spread its troublesome branches.
If people feel the need to go about with personal attacks, or name smearing etc..... there are other message boards out there that would better accomodate those needs.
People use the free speech argument, are missing the point. Its not about peoples rights, or privilages...... its about sticking to the topic.
Theres my 2 cents.
Chuck

 

[TATE]

The polling seems to be pretty balanced. 46 are in favor of a change of some sort and 28 would like to see the system stay as is.

I wonder what Mike and Dave think is needed?

Chris

 

[!Smorgass Bored]

Did You Know ?

The polling seems to be pretty balanced. 46 are in favor of a change of some sort and 28 would like to see the system stay as is.

I wonder what Mike and Dave think is needed?
Chris

I didn't know if perhaps some newer members were unaware that when viewing the Poll at the beginning of this thread, that you can click on ANY 'blue number' on the right hand side of the Poll and see exactly who voted for what....
Doug
(just being helpful)

 

[!Smorgass Bored]

I'm Wearing My "I VOTED" Sticker

The polling seems to be pretty balanced. 46 are in favor of a change of some sort and 28 would like to see the system stay as is.

I wonder what Mike and Dave think is needed?
Chris

Chris, imo those numbers are misleading, they way you quote them. You put up a Poll with three choices and then you combine two of the choices to compare with the single 'other' choice.....
Doug

 

[sjm]

Great thread. Everybody's opinion matters, and it's great to see so many responses to the poll.

Considering Chris' recommendations one at a time:

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

I voted for "keep the current system" and yet I'm having some second thoughts. One thing that makes the choice so dificult is that is cannot necessarily be assumed that more resources are available to be thrown at the problem.

Many feel that AZB has an undermanned and underdeveloped police squad. Perhaps they are right, and perhaps they are not, but let's not forget that it's a volunteer police squad. Those few who call for Mr Wilson's head overlook the fact that dismissing the staff of an undermanned police force because they are not doing enough to maintain civility and order is not likely to solve anything.

Hence, I find myself, suddenly and unexpectedly, aligned with those who want to keep Mr Wilson but want to add staff to the AZB police squad. This makes sense, on the surface, but is based on the presumption that others will voluntarily devote great amounts of time to helping police the AZB neighborhood for no compensation. On what basis can we make this presumption?

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

It's hard to imagine their anonymity being maintained.

They should vote for banning. There also should be guidelines for permanent bans.

This makes a lot of sense if one assumes there will be a panel of moderators.

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

This is very important. I agree 100%.

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

I am not concerned abut freedom of speech here on the forum, as it is not a right. I am concerned about posters rights to be protected from slanderous attacks, and think defined guidelines would be helpful.

In Conclusion

Take a deep bow for a well judged and well presented thread and poll, Chris.

 

[Icon of Sin]

Personally. I think there should be 2 or 3 more mods added. dave is only 1 person. With more mods we can nip threads in the bud before they get out of hand. Edit them and close them as soon as they start to get hostile. This way no one will have the chance to say something that could get them banned.

But that's just me and how I succesfully do it on another forum that has over 80,000 members. I think I maybe banned 3 people at the most from there in the last 6 years.

 

[TATE]

Great thread. Everybody's opinion matters, and it's great to see so many responses to the poll.

Considering Chris' recommendations one at a time:

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

I voted for "keep the current system" and yet I'm having some second thoughts. One thing that makes the choice so dificult is that is cannot necessarily be assumed that more resources are available to be thrown at the problem.

Many feel that AZB has an undermanned and underdeveloped police squad. Perhaps they are right, and perhaps they are not, but let's not forget that it's a volunteer police squad. Those few who call for Mr Wilson's head overlook the fact that dismissing the staff of an undermanned police force because they are not doing enough to maintain civility and order is not likely to solve anything.

Hence, I find myself, suddenly and unexpectedly, aligned with those who want to keep Mr Wilson but want to add staff to the AZB police squad. This makes sense, on the surface, but is based on the presumption that others will voluntarily devote great amounts of time to helping police the AZB neighborhood for no compensation. On what basis can we make this presumption?

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

It's hard to imagine their anonymity being maintained.

They should vote for banning. There also should be guidelines for permanent bans.

This makes a lot of sense if one assumes there will be a panel of moderators.

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

This is very important. I agree 100%.

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

I am not concerned abut freedom of speech here on the forum, as it is not a right. I am concerned about posters rights to be protected from slanderous attacks, and think defined guidelines would be helpful.

In Conclusion

Take a deep bow for a well judged and well presented thread and poll, Chris.

SJM,

Thanks for the input, really appreciate it.

Chris

 

[TATE]

Personally. I think there should be 2 or 3 more mods added. dave is only 1 person. With more mods we can nip threads in the bud before they get out of hand. Edit them and close them as soon as they start to get hostile. This way no one will have the chance to say something that could get them banned.

But that's just me and how I succesfully do it on another forum that has over 80,000 members. I think I maybe banned 3 people at the most from there in the last 6 years.

I tell you what about this fiasco, it has sure brought the cream to the top in my book. It's nice to see the posters here have good experience beyond A-Z.

Chris

 

[Hidy Ho]

Chris,

Anonymous moderator is really a pain in the ass for the moderators as they have to switch login names if they want to post vs. moderating. I think the idea is good but practicality remains to be seen.

 

[catscradle]

Dead heat on a merry-go-round.

 

[TATE]

Dead heat on a merry-go-round.

It's kind of interesting how neck and neck the voting is.

There is more support for the single moderator system than I thought there would be. I just want to remind everybody that this is not a vote. It's just an opinion poll to get a pulse on your feelings and hear your ideas.

Chris

 

[Hidy Ho]

Well, a couple of things of note:

60% is in favor of change from status quo ... and,
only 100 or so members have voted so far.

Where is that 8K registered members? My guess is that a very small percentage of 8K members actual post and care about the forum.

 

[Timberly]

Well I too thought Mr. Wilson targeted certain viewers but I just heard that Marissa got banned. If this is true & Mr. Wilson (not AZ Mike) did the banning then I would have to admit that he is beyond playing favorites.

From what I understand, Mike facilitated a disagreement between Marissa & Eydie in another forum section. He gave them both a warning that the next one that threw an insult at the other would be banned. Marissa threw the next insult. Since Mike was involved in the initial confrontation, I would assume he handled this one also.

 

[ShootingArts]

not that big of a deal

They don't necessarily have to switch sign-ins to moderate since their private user sign-in can have full admin powers too. They only have to switch sign-ins to post as Admin. Really wasn't a big deal when I did it for six or eight years.

Hu

Chris,

Anonymous moderator is really a pain in the ass for the moderators as they have to switch login names if they want to post vs. moderating. I think the idea is good but practicality remains to be seen.