Note to ET and Moderators...

[dbphoenix]

Quote from Baron:

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 with whatever. To say that myself and the moderators have no interest is curbing disruptive posts is totally innacurate in my opinion.

I don't want to become adversarial, but perhaps one of the reasons why you get so few complaints about the license that is granted to certain posters is that so little is done about them. After a while, one just assumes that that's the way it is and there's no point in pushing a string.

I know that you, at least, want this to be the best of its kind. Why else would you be doing it? And if you believe that nothing can be done about this issue, then I won't pursue it. When I asked whether the interest amongst the powers that be was genuine, I did not mean to imply that it did not exist.

I'm well aware of the fact that you get complaints when you act as censor/editor. But that's the natural order of things. Nobody calls the electric company every day to congratulate them on the fact that the power's on. You could take a great deal of that heat off yourself by giving initiators of threads the ability to moderate them AND to make it clear to everyone that the thread is moderated. Though I haven't read every complaint, it seems to me that the people doing most of the complaining are those who are the reason for the censorship in the first place.

In any case, thank you for listening.

 

[DHOHHI]

Quote from Baron:


To say that myself and the moderators have no interest is curbing disruptive posts is totally innacurate in my opinion.

Bottom line is that you and the moderators are in a "no-win" situation. No matter what action you take (or don't take) there will always be someone who not only complains but who wants to debate the issue(s) until the end of time. IMO some people here have way too much time on their hands .....

 

[Baron]

Quote from dbphoenix:



You could take a great deal of that heat off yourself by giving initiators of threads the ability to moderate....

Yes, it's possible. But aside from the potential problems I mentioned earlier, this is one of those suggestions that would require extensive modification of the database and front-end software, because we are basically assigning a moderator-type privilege to a "thread starter", and not a user. In other words, if you started this thread, you could moderate it but if you participated in threads started by others, you wouldn't have any power to alter the other posts in those threads. So the whole concept of a "thread starter", and not a user per se, having ownership or moderation rights, does not currently exist in the board logic, so that would have to be implemented from the ground up, which is a major modification.

I'm not trying to be overly technical here. I'm only trying to say that "giving initiators of threads the ability to moderate" is not a feature that I could just flip a switch or click on an icon to activate.

 

[dbphoenix]

Quote from Baron:

I'm not trying to be overly technical here. I'm only trying to say that "giving initiators of threads the ability to moderate" is not a feature that I could just flip a switch or click on an icon to activate.

Understood. Again, I appreciate your giving the suggestion your attention. Perhaps something easier will surface, which is the point of this thread after all.

 

[Magna]

As a long-time moderator here I can honestly say we do the best we can, and try to be fair to all. Does that mean if someone clicks Kill that we'll get to it in an hour? Probably not. Anyone clicking Kill sends me an email, and I'm sorry if this offends some members but I don't check my email on the hour. When I do check it I respond to the Kills by taking a close look at the post/thread. Other than that I usually drop by ET a number of times a day and try to read all posts within the forums I moderate. Then I do my best to be even-handed and keep spamming, disruptions and personal attacks to a bare minimum.

I think giving initiators of threads the ability to moderate would be a total disaster (aside from all the work involved in coding it). If you think that the various moderators don't apply the rules evenly, just imagine how a board with hundreds of threads, and therefore hundreds of moderators would do. There wouldn't be anything even remotely approaching uniformity in applying the standards.

 

[LongShot]

The problem with JR (and some others) is that he is RELENTLESS in his profanity & provocation. I have no problem with him, I love him but I can see where others with (much) more delicate sensibilities would be pushed to their limit in a hurry.

This is the reason i believe he was kicked. TOO MUCH TOO FAST!

If JR would have cooled it just a bit he's still be here.

If the rules here are applied unevenly i say GREAT, I think they should be! Each case should be considered on its own set of unique circumstances. Occasional infractions or profanity (maybe even frequent but perhaps not constant) SHOULD be tolerated .. Thats called REAL LIFE. Real Life is messy. Real Life resides essentially in the Grey, and so should application of the rules here. Who want to see such strict adherence to policy that the mods scramble to squelch every minor "offense" no matter how innocent or misunderstood? That would suck the life's blood out of ET post haste! Real Life is messy. ipso fatso, message boards (ET) is messy. That's the way it should be. Anything else is to repressive and stifles freedom of movement and thought.

ET applies the rules in a fuzzy logic kind of way, wisely bending them here as discretion permits and enforcing over there as needed to maintain some order. Kind of like using Bollinger Bands ..when things stray too far and too many standard deviations from the "norm" they wisely pull on the reins and bring things back to the mean. heh.

This is how it's done the right way folks!

You have to give people some leeway to express themselves, and be themselves without busting them over the head at every turn or indiscretion.

Life is messy. SH*T HAPPENS!

The rules MUST be applied UNEVENLY, thatis the best environment for communication and interaction.

I Say: GREAT JOB ET! (and please don't ever apply those rules rigorously! )

 

[dbphoenix]

Quote from Magna:

As a long-time moderator here I can honestly say we do the best we can, and try to be fair to all. Does that mean if someone clicks Kill that we'll get to it in an hour? Probably not. Anyone clicking Kill sends me an email, and I'm sorry if this offends some members but I don't check my email on the hour.

Which is why "Kill" is generally ineffective and perhaps why it isn't used more often. But that's hardly the moderators' or administrator's fault.

I think giving initiators of threads the ability to moderate would be a total disaster (aside from all the work involved in coding it). If you think that the various moderators don't apply the rules evenly, just imagine how a board with hundreds of threads, and therefore hundreds of moderators would do. There wouldn't be anything even remotely approaching uniformity in applying the standards.

When I pointed out that moderators don't necessarily apply the standards evenly, I was only bringing attention to bear on an inescapable fact. This variability is hardly the fault of the moderators. If only one person were to do the moderating, there would still be variability.

For that reason, even if seeking uniformity were not a waste of time, one would have to ask if it's even necessary or desirable. What difference does it make after all if every last thread has the same standards? The only reason why one would want to moderate a thread in the first place would be to keep the discussion on topic (most members really are grown-ups). If anyone began a thread for some darker, more insidious reason, then the entire thread could be deleted.

Most Yahoo Group owners have essentially the same standards: no insults, no abuse, no spam, no off-topic posts. Few people ban members simply because the member disagrees with the group owner. But even if so, it's not the member's constitutional right to post. He can simply go elsewhere. In the case of ET, if a particular member received multiple complaints of abuse, then he'd no longer be allowed to initiate threads.

Food for thought; nothing else.

 

[Schattenjäger]

Have you guys ever been to Slashdot? They've got it way worse than we have it here, being that computer geeks are such biased trollish angry bitter rejected impotent stubborn obnoxious buttheads and all. What Slashcode (the Slashdot engine) does to solve these problems is give every community member 'Karma' which goes up or down depending on what the others think of their post quality. Once you hit a certain Karma level, you occasionally get to moderate 5 posts anywhere on the site - so you can mod up a good post, and mod down a crappy post. But you can't moderate your own posts (obviously).

It's pretty ingenious, and seems to work well. You cannot mod until you've earned the trust of the community, and you can't earn their trust without posting intelligently and often. When visitors don't have time to read the garbage posts, they can choose only the +4 and +5 posts. You get about the 20 best posts and nothing else - you only see posts at or above that level. If you want to read the worst stuff (spammers, morons, and dirtbags), you read at -1.

The end result is that there is no censorship (the garbage is still all there, but it is moderated to -1, which serious people don't read at), there is no real need for full-time moderators, and the community is encouraged to get involved and contribute. But that would mean starting from scratch, which would probably suck. In fact, I KNOW it would suck.

BTW, I believe Slashcode is under the GNU GPL License, and thus is free to implement.


Another nicely done site is SwordForums International, but that's another thing altogether. I hear they keep the peace with really harsh moderators - one troll, and you're "cut off". Pardon the pun.

 

[dbphoenix]

Interesting idea. TMF has something similar with its "Recommendations". Unfortunately, it's been subverted over the years to some degree and there are more than a few people who get their posts recommended simply because they have so many groupies (their posts would be recommended even if they posted a blank). But, on the whole, the posts with the most recommendations are generally the posts most worth reading.

Members can also find out which posters are the most "loved". This particular feature makes me gag, but I suppose it's similar to the Kharma you mention. Under no circumstances, however, are members given the right to moderate anything. TMF doesn't even have a delete feature, which I guarantee solves a lot of problems here when someone has second thoughts right after hitting the "Submit" key.

More food for thought.

 

[LongShot]

Just WHOM do you want to prevent from posting YOUR thread? What would be their "profile", and under what hypothetical circumstances would you delete posts & ban posters? What is a "complaint", and when is it "valid"? What is "offtopic"?

DEFINE your hypothetical model.