Since it seems to be the topic of the day ....

ribdoner said:
or have agendas


If you review posting history you'll find some posters who don't play favorites, are clique members or have agendas.
Click to expand...
Do you have any in particular that you would like to nominate?
 
lodini said:
I think it's the "equality" part that would be a problem. If the site was administered by forum members, certain posters would surely be given more freedoms than others. And "rules" may not apply.
Click to expand...
Well the site is administered by forum members now. One of them.
 
smokeandapancak said:
there is no pee pee slapping in my idea.....
Click to expand...
And it is killing you inside that you didnt think of it .....come on .....it s Ok. Admit it.


:D
 
JCIN said:
It really isnt that big of a deal. Find out how Mike wants it run, whats allowed, whats not, what he would want the people to be able to do on their own authority and what he would want to be consulted for and boom everyone is back in action and things roll right along. The work gets spread out and things stay more consistent because you have more eyes on the forum for more time. A mod does something silly, no biggie they just go back to not being a mod.

It is a service to the forum that helps make it better for everyone. It isnt about banning people or slapping them on the pee pee it is about keeping the joint tidy and clean. I dont think mods should be able to ban people, or at most, for a week at a time. Long enough to let the owner make a decision, that way there is a pattern of acceptable and unacceptable behavior that one person is responsible for.

Whatever happens this place is pretty great and I have faith it will continue to do well.
Click to expand...

I believe that banning is necessary on any moderated forum as a deterrent for trolling, clown-like behavior, bullying, and out-and-out vulgarity. If you don't ban posters who do not follow the forum rules, this forum would turn into chaos.

Maybe the moderators should be invisible. In other words, the movement of threads and the like can be done without the identity of the moderator known, and the same could be followed for other moderator duties.

JAM
 
Off With Their Heads

ribdoner said:
or have agendas


If you review posting history you'll find some posters who don't play favorites, are clique members or have agendas.
Click to expand...




Ah, that would make me eligible, so I will become a Moderator.
I will not show up daily at an appointed time and I will not wear pants, but I will wear a dark colored hood and lop off heads.

If elected Moderator, my first action will be to permanently Ban 43 members from this site (and I have my eye on 13 more........ including ME)

Doug
( let them eat cake...................and pound sand ) imo
 
lodini said:
Do you have any in particular that you would like to nominate?
Click to expand...
There are no nominations.

If you or Ribdoner or anyone else wants to help they should volunteer and contact Mike. If he wants the help he can choose who he likes if anyone.

It isnt a popularity contest or a political thing. It is a janitors job done for the benefit of everyone else. That is the reason a mod should not have substanial power to ban people for any length of time. Just enough to stop some idiot like the one that was on here the other day. Over moderation is worse than too little moderation IMO.
 
JCIN said:
There are no nominations.

If you or Ribdoner or anyone else wants to help they should volunteer and contact Mike. If he wants the help he can choose who he likes if anyone.

It isnt a popularity contest or a political thing. It is a janitors job done for the benefit of everyone else. That is the reason a mod should not have substanial power to ban people for any length of time. Just enough to stop some idiot like the one that was on here the other day. Over moderation is worse than too little moderation IMO.
Click to expand...
I wasn't saying nominations were part of your suggestion. I was just asking Ridboner to tell me who he thought was fair and impartial enough to do the job after being an established poster and possibly having already formed "alliances".
 
JCIN said:
There are no nominations.

If you or Ribdoner or anyone else wants to help they should volunteer and contact Mike. If he wants the help he can choose who he likes if anyone.

It isnt a popularity contest or a political thing. It is a janitors job done for the benefit of everyone else. That is the reason a mod should not have substanial power to ban people for any length of time. Just enough to stop some idiot like the one that was on here the other day. Over moderation is worse than too little moderation IMO.
Click to expand...


This dude is just totaly taking my plan and putting his own rules to it...


You are so not getting a nomination from me....
 
JAM said:
I believe that banning is necessary on any moderated forum as a deterrent for trolling, clown-like behavior, bullying, and out-and-out vulgarity. If you don't ban posters who do not follow the forum rules, this forum would turn into chaos.

Maybe the moderators should be invisible. In other words, the movement of threads and the like can be done without the identity of the moderator known, and the same could be followed for other moderator duties.

JAM
Click to expand...
Mods should not be able to decide who gets kicked for good IMO. They can ban for a short term only in the case of some idiot like we had here the other day. Too many people get carried away with the ban hammer. Being a mod is about keeping things flowing and organized not breaking up fights and getting involved in squables. Common sense and firm but fair with a little humor mixed in will get it done without the threat of the ban hammer falling to back up a mods every request.
 
smokeandapancak said:
This dude is just totaly taking my plan and putting his own rules to it...


You are so not getting a nomination from me....
Click to expand...
Thats it. You are so out of the clique. Turn in your pledge pin and decoder ring on your way out.
 
lodini said:
I wasn't saying nominations were part of your suggestion. I was just asking Ridboner to tell me who he thought was fair and impartial enough to do the job after being an established poster and possibly having already formed "alliances".
Click to expand...
This is part of the problem. Who is to judge fair and impartial? This is a pool forum not a court of law. It isnt that big of a deal. Mods move things where they should be, delete or lock threads that violate the written rules of the forum and if absolutely neccessary say something to some one who is acting in a disruptive manner. Thats it.

There are no alliances or ties that could stop someone from being an effective clean up person. If somebody was trying to use their "POWER" (this cracks me up by the way) for evil I am sure the group would shout BS to the roof tops.
 
Is this where I announce my candidacy for moderator? If I become moderator then we can bet on anything under the sun with our VCash.
 
JCIN said:
This is part of the problem. Who is to judge fair and impartial? This is a pool forum not a court of law. It isnt that big of a deal. Mods move things where they should be, delete or lock threads that violate the written rules of the forum and if absolutely neccessary say something to some one who is acting in a disruptive manner. Thats it.

There are no alliances or ties that could stop someone from being an effective clean up person. If somebody was trying to use their "POWER" (this cracks me up by the way) for evil I am sure the group would shout BS to the roof tops.
Click to expand...
Come on, JCIN... I'm not talking about "evil" here... merely the thought that some posters would have the freedoms to post whatever they want with little or no moderation and others would be policed more frequently. You can't see that if someone was appointed moderator that their "forum friends" would be treated differently than everyone else? It's not a far-fetched theory.
 
lodini said:
I wasn't saying nominations were part of your suggestion. I was just asking Ridboner to tell me who he thought was fair and impartial enough to do the job after being an established poster and possibly having already formed "alliances".
Click to expand...


See "user title":p :D
 
Mods and Admins are two different categories of power, generally speaking. Moderators can move posts, delete posts, etc. Administrators would be the ones with the ban sticks.

I wouldn't mind a few more people modding the forum, so long as they are selected members Mr. Wilson and the other admins feel fit the bill. An election so to say would just get the most popular people in power, not the best fit.
 
lodini said:
Come on, JCIN... I'm not talking about "evil" here... merely the thought that some posters would have the freedoms to post whatever they want with little or no moderation and others would be policed more frequently. You can't see that if someone was appointed moderator that their "forum friends" would be treated differently than everyone else? It's not a far-fetched theory.
Click to expand...
Thats why you spread it out and have more than one mod do all the work. It is not like being a mod is a big deal. The only difference is a mod has the ability to move a thread, lock it or delete it and ban for a short period.

There should never be anybody censoring or putting heat on someone for expressing their opinion unless it violates the rules of the forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top