Note to ET and Moderators...

Quote from dbphoenix:



Every idea we come up with is rejected (I'm speaking of months, not just this thread). So are you saying that nothing will be done and we should just suck it up?
More...

Keep in mind that this whole issue is nothing new to me. I've been doing this same old stuff for six years day in and day out. Many of the suggestions that have been made recently have not been implemented for several reasons such as:

1. It has already been tried in the past and failed.

2. It would require a near total rewrite of the message board database and front-end software.

3. Current internet protocols do not support such a suggestion (such as banning a user by their MAC address).

4. The cost of development outweighs the benefit.

There are more but you get the point.
 
Quote from dbphoenix:



I'm not talking about Yahoo message boards; I'm talking about Yahoo Groups.
More...

Oh, in that case, there's no difference between a Yahoo group owner and a forum moderator. The group basically has one authority who polices the discussion and moderates as necessary using pre-established guidelines. That's what we're doing here.

If you let a thread starter moderate their own threads, then every thread will be subject to a different set of rules (whatever rules (or lack of rules) that particular thread starter wants to enforce, so there will be no standard from one thread to the next. Don't you think that having varying rules and standards of conduct from one thread to the next will be confusing for users?
 
Quote from kgharris:

Have you ever considered giving the person that starts the thread power to delete off-topic posts? That would keep the threads from spiraling out of control and ending up worthless, as 90% of them do.

Just a thought...
More...

Why don't you pm the moderator of the forum where you find the thread is going awry from its intended focus.

Bear in mind certain threads can and are intended to take on a life of thier own.
 
Quote from Baron:

Keep in mind that this whole issue is nothing new to me. I've been doing this same old stuff for six years day in and day out. Many of the suggestions that have been made recently have not been implemented for several reasons such as:

1. It has already been tried in the past and failed.

2. It would require a near total rewrite of the message board database and front-end software.

3. Current internet protocols do not support such a suggestion (such as banning a user by their MAC address).

4. The cost of development outweighs the benefit.

There are more but you get the point.
More...

I'm well aware that this is nothing new to you. I've been on TMF since 1995, and they have had their struggles with this issue as well. And I'm sure there are legitimate reasons why many of the suggestions made so far can not work.

The same question, however, remains: what are we to do?
 
Quote from Baron:



Oh, in that case, there's no difference between a Yahoo group owner and a forum moderator. The group basically has one authority who polices the discussion and moderates as necessary using pre-established guidelines. That's what we're doing here.

If you let a thread starter moderate their own threads, then every thread will be subject to a different set of rules (whatever rules (or lack of rules) that particular thread starter wants to enforce, so there will be no standard from one thread to the next. Don't you think that having varying rules and standards of conduct from one thread to the next will be confusing for users?
More...

No, that's not what you're doing here. Each Yahoo Group owner is responsible for his own group. The moderators at ET are each responsible for dozens of threads, which makes it next to impossible for them to keep up unless a complaint is made.

As for each thread being subject to a different set of rules, they are each subject to a different set of rules anyway, partly because the rules are so vague (do a search of various words such as "fuck", "asshole", "shit", etc, and see how many pages of posts you come up with), and partly because each moderator has varying amounts of time to spend at his tasks. And some moderators are simply more laissez-faire than others.

Don't I think that having varying rules and standards of conduct from one thread to the next will be confusing for users? No, I don't. Even the worst disruptors know what it means to behave like an ass. Granted there are some loonies that are completely clueless and are convinced that they are right, but this has been the case for millenia, and that's not the subset that you or advertisers want anyway.

I'm sure you understand that the havoc that disruptors cause is way out of proportion to their numbers, particularly given their ability to adopt multiple aliases. As it is now, in order for a post to be killed, somebody has to report it. Then the individual has to wait, often for quite a while. When the moderator has time to act, the post may have been quoted in a reply. Then a reply is made to the reply. And you're off to the races. Even if the post is eventually deleted, its content is quoted in one or more replies, which defeats the purpose of deleting it in the first place. Or the moderator may decide that the post is not so bad after all and leave it alone. Either way, the process of deterioration has begun and the half-life of the thread has been stepped up a notch.

Disruptors are fed by replies. If they receive no replies, they go away. It does no more good to tell people not to reply than it does to tell people on the freeway not to slow down to gawk at a vehicle(s) on the median or shoulder. All it takes is one reply, and you're off, and these posts remain on the boards for so long that at least one reply is virtually guaranteed.

If large numbers of members are so childish that they can't moderate their own threads responsibly, then I'll agree that nothing can be done. But while there are quite a few members who make posts that are not what I would call enriching, the number of actual disruptors is actually quite small. Therefore, I think that giving thread originators the authority to moderate is reasonable. If thread originators can't be trusted to moderate their own threads, why is every member given the authority to originate a thread in the first place? Why aren't each of them required to receive approval of a thread before it's posted?
 
Quote from dbphoenix:



No, that's not what you're doing here. Each Yahoo Group owner is responsible for his own group. The moderators at ET are each responsible for dozens of threads, which makes it next to impossible for them to keep up unless a complaint is made.

As for each thread being subject to a different set of rules, they are each subject to a different set of rules anyway, partly because the rules are so vague (do a search of various words such as "fuck", "asshole", "shit", etc, and see how many pages of posts you come up with), and partly because each moderator has varying amounts of time to spend at his tasks. And some moderators are simply more laissez-faire than others.

Don't I think that having varying rules and standards of conduct from one thread to the next will be confusing for users? No, I don't. Even the worst disruptors know what it means to behave like an ass. Granted there are some loonies that are completely clueless and are convinced that they are right, but this has been the case for millenia, and that's not the subset that you or advertisers want anyway.

I'm sure you understand that the havoc that disruptors cause is way out of proportion to their numbers, particularly given their ability to adopt multiple aliases. As it is now, in order for a post to be killed, somebody has to report it. Then the individual has to wait, often for quite a while. When the moderator has time to act, the post may have been quoted in a reply. Then a reply is made to the reply. And you're off to the races. Even if the post is eventually deleted, its content is quoted in one or more replies, which defeats the purpose of deleting it in the first place. Or the moderator may decide that the post is not so bad after all and leave it alone. Either way, the process of deterioration has begun and the half-life of the thread has been stepped up a notch.

Disruptors are fed by replies. If they receive no replies, they go away. It does no more good to tell people not to reply than it does to tell people on the freeway not to slow down to gawk at a vehicle(s) on the median or shoulder. All it takes is one reply, and you're off, and these posts remain on the boards for so long that at least one reply is virtually guaranteed.

If large numbers of members are so childish that they can't moderate their own threads responsibly, then I'll agree that nothing can be done. But while there are quite a few members who make posts that are not what I would call enriching, the number of actual disruptors is actually quite small. Therefore, I think that giving thread originators the authority to moderate is reasonable. If thread originators can't be trusted to moderate their own threads, why is every member given the authority to originate a thread in the first place? Why aren't each of them required to receive approval of a thread before it's posted?
More...
Hmmmm,

A lot of good points here...There is no easy answer...

Edit: Here is a thought on this. Let the thread starter moderate his own thread for a fee. Make is clear that the thread is a sponsored thread by clearly marking it as such - now users will know that the thread starter has Moderator rights, and that the thread may be nothing more than SPAM. NOW, if it is THAT important to you, PAY FOR IT.

Edit again: Another suggestion is for the thread starter not to be given Full moderator rights, but be given the right to be able to spawn subthreads withing a thread. That way, a user can post to a thread, but the thread starter can deviate the response to a subthread. The subthread would have it's own title and subthread starter. This would REALLY require a MASSIVE rewrite, but would be SUPER COOL. :cool:

nitro
 
To WarEagle:

These kinds of posts were done by JR/Sim too.

It's just an example, WE. There are thousands of posts like this on the boards, most of them much worse. And if reporting the post doesn't get it removed, what are we to do?

We all know you're busy and we know the rules are vague and we know that it's not a perfect world blah blah. But at the risk of seeming callous, so what? Acknowledging that you're busy is a far cry from saying that nothing can be done and that if members don't like it, then that's the way the cookie crumbles.

If you guys have no interest in addressing the issue of disruptive posts, just say so and the topic will be dropped. it's been my intention to offer suggestions, not to be a gadfly.
 
Quote from dbphoenix:

To WarEagle:

These kinds of posts were done by JR/Sim too.

If you guys have no interest in addressing the issue of disruptive posts, just say so and the topic will be dropped.
More...

That's ridiculous. I mean the entire recent blowup in the Index Futures forum all revolved around us being too strict. We get way more complaints about why we moved/deleted/edited certain threads or users than we do about why we let so and so get away with whatever. To say that myself and the moderators have no interest is curbing disruptive posts is totally innacurate in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top