I think as a Mod....

Originally posted by Cribs
No, your first post in this thread posed a solution
to the problem. As you described in the hypothetical
General forum, the public would moderate the posts,
through a tally of alerts and rec's, which captures
the essence of a public tri ...[text shortened]... e's peers.
Your idea was good, I said it was, and I stand by it.

Thanx bud, I think we need a solution....

I enjoy the threads we have, had, and might have... but some think they suck and it drives them away.

That is all we need, is a solution....

Now I will let you know my fears....

In these new threads, I wouldn't want people bad mouthing other users that don't visit the forum. Lets say someone had a problem with me and went there to bad mouth me.

Now what? What if it were someone else? You are there... I sure will be there! But who defends the RHP user that won't touch the forum?

How do we deal with that?

I need a new line in the sand?

T

Originally posted by Cribs
No, your first post in this thread posed a solution
to the problem. As you described in the hypothetical
General forum, the public would moderate the posts,
through a tally of alerts and rec's, which captures
the essence of a public trial and a jury of one's peers.
Your idea was good, I said it was, and I stand by it.

Too many cliques for this system to work, on top of the fact that we have users with multiple aliases, thereby negating the concept of 1 person, 1 vote.

Originally posted by bekieke
Too many cliques for this system to work, on top of the fact that we have users with multiple aliases, thereby negating the concept of 1 person, 1 vote.

good point, hey? Hey, who has more than one user name?!

P-

Originally posted by bekieke
Too many cliques for this system to work, on top of the fact that we have users with multiple aliases, thereby negating the concept of 1 person, 1 vote.

very true.
and i don't think that posting should be done through a popularity contest.
the site belongs to russ - there is a TOS. the mods are guided by russ and the TOS.
the mods are the ones who have been authorized to act.

in friendship,
prad

Originally posted by Phlabibit

In these new threads, I wouldn't want people bad mouthing other users that don't visit the forum. Lets say someone had a problem with me and went there to bad mouth me.

Now what? What if it were someone else? You are there... I sure will be there! But who defends the RHP user that won't touch the forum?

How do we deal with that?

I see two approaches to how your solution would solve
this problem.

1) First, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it,
does it make a sound? If somebody were to call me a
foul-mouthed, disrepectful womanizer, it would not bother
me if I read it, and it certainly would not bother me if
I didn't read it. I don't think you can construct a situation
in which such a post could bring any real harm to a user,
or make that user feel abused. If somehow it was brought
to his attention, he could go there and put his alert in.

2) If you don't like (1), let's assume prad's idea that
everybody really does want to have respectful forums.
Under his assumption, anybody who witnessed these foul
attacks, even if not the victim, would surely take it upon
themselves to do the alerting.

So whether you like my model, or prad's, and I think we
may represent the two extremes of this issue, your system
provides a way to resolve the problem automatically.

Dr. Cribs

Originally posted by Phlabibit
good point, hey? Hey, who has more than one user name?!

P-

Well, I know a guy who knows a guy who said....,

but to cite another user, I am bound by trust not to reveal what I know.

Originally posted by Cribs
2) If you don't like (1), let's assume prad's idea that
everybody really does want to have respectful forums.
Under his assumption, anybody who witnessed these foul
attacks, even if not the victim, would surely take it upon
themselves to do the alerting.

i think the point is that if we have disrespectful forums, a lot of people will not show up.
if you have respectful and well-moderated ones then people will not fear to participate in them.

you can still have excellent discussions with the latter, better ones if you think about it.

disrespectful, free4all forums don't do the site any good and they really don't further the cause of freedom.

as phlabs wrote earlier, i don't think we really want this place to turn into yapoo!

in friendship,
prad

Originally posted by pradtf
the mods aren't a police force anyway, they aren't hired and they aren't 'the enemy'.
there is no reason to treat them with suspicion.
there is no reason to put them on trial on these forums.

Suspicion is one of those words that can have either a negative (unfair distrust) or neutral (skepticism) connotation. Since there is the possibility that this word can be misinterpreted as an insult, I suggest the latter meaning and use the synonym "questionable."

And, I don't think anyone is suggesting that we treat the moderators as "questionable." However, because they are human and prone to imperfections, as we all are (therefore, no insult), for a person to "question" a decision they made is not necessarily a negative thing.

If the moderator should make a "questionable" judgment call, no one is clammoring for (or justifying) their castigation either. What I think this discussion is about (or should head toward) is a system where the moderators do not have exclusive singular power, but one where their judgment call is subjuct to peer review.

Because it would become unwieldy to have a system where every peer would be able to argue for or against a post's appropriateness, I suggested that this peer review take place as a "behind-the-scenes" forum that only moderators can read. Given that moderators should be representative of a variety of views, any "questionable" decision would be discussed and voted upon. The "consensus of common opinion" will uphold whether or not a post is reasonably offensive.

This would eliminate the perspective that they are "the enemy," that we are "suspicious" of them, and they would not be "put on trial." Their peers, in private, would review their collective decisions and the collaborative effort would be the result.

Nemesio

Originally posted by nemesio
This would eliminate the perspective that they are "the enemy," that we are "suspicious" of them, and they would not be "put on trial." Their peers, in private, would review their collective decisions and the collaborative effort would be the result.

they have been seen as the enemy.
they have been subject to suspicion.
they have been publically ridiculed.
in fact, this is exactly what the 'apology' thread was about and why i objected to it perhaps not strongly enough upon reflection.

and some of them have quit as a result of this treatment as well.

the idea of doing any 'criticisms' behind the scene is certainly an improvement compared to the mod bashing that has taken place over the years. however, the mods are not subject to peer review - unless that is the way russ wants it.

in friendship,
prad

Originally posted by pradtf
they have been seen as the enemy.
they have been subject to suspicion.
they have been publically ridiculed.
in fact, this is exactly what the 'apology' thread was about and why i objected to it perhaps not strongly enough upon reflection.

and some of them have quit as a result of this treatment as well.

the idea of doing any 'criticisms' behind t ...[text shortened]... e not subject to peer review - unless that is the way russ wants it.

in friendship,
prad

Do you think that any individual mod should be able to hide posts as he or she sees fit?

Originally posted by royalchicken
Do you think that any individual mod should be able to hide posts as he or she sees fit?

Should any mod be able to put it back?

??

P-

Edit! Incase you did not know, this can be done.

Originally posted by royalchicken
Do you think that any individual mod should be able to hide posts as he or she sees fit?

yes because russ trusts that individual to do a sensible job.
and because i trust our mods have integrity.

i know what your concern is, rc - don't think i don't.
and don't think i haven't been on your side of the fence - i have much of the time.

but not here. there is no great political battle for freedom to be won here.
it is just a chess site with a forum that should be a decent place for everyone.
to keep it that way, i am happy to trust the mods and if there really is ever a problem of any significance, then i'll contact russ.

in friendship,
prad

Originally posted by royalchicken
Do you think that any individual mod should be able to hide posts as he or she sees fit?

Absolutely, that's called the real world friend. Those with power get to execute it. If the mods actions go against Russ' interpretation, then Russ as the king gets to behead the mod in question.

Wait till you work for a boss that blackballs you just "because". Is that right? Of course not, but wake up and smell the coffee. This isn't Utopia Pawn, this is Red Hot Pawn, a site provided for our use and enjoyment by Russ Inc..

Call back when you're 50+ years old, have been laid off a couple of times, seen your retirement plans go down the toilet and then tell me how important what power/ability the mods have is in the overall scheme of things.

Fight the battles that are worth fighting.

Originally posted by pradtf
they have been seen as the enemy.
they have been subject to suspicion.
they have been publically ridiculed.

I'm sorry. I'll repeat. "I don't think anyone is suggesting that we treat the moderators as 'questionable.'" I believe that most people would find advocating moderator bashing indefinsible. What I am suggesting is a system where the calls that moderators make are reviewable.

Let's look at it this way: In (American) Football (not 'soccer'😉, if a call made by a referee is 'questionable,' a coach can scream and yell, but it does no good. I find such behavior annoying; those who like Jerry Springer evidently like it. However, the coach can throw a red flag on the field and, bingo, without yelling or insults, the play is reviewed by several of the refs. They look at it from several angles, discuss what the rulebook says and what it means and come to a conclusion. If the ref made a clear mistake, the call is reversed; if not, the call stands. The coach can only through this flag a few times a game.

What has been the result? Have 100% of bad calls been overturned? No. Has it gotten rid of 100% of complaints about refs? No.

However, have many bad calls been overturned? Yes. Has it reduced screaming and yelling? Yes.

This system, I find, to be a reasonable one. Is it perfect? No. When you deal with humans, it is not going to be. But it is better than what exists currently and I submit it as a possible suggestion.

Originally posted by pradtf
however, the mods are not subject to peer review - unless that is the way russ wants it.

Are you in favor of this idea, at least in concept if not precisely how described it? Or are you comfortable with the way that it is now, where a single moderator attends to threads and the only appeal process is to Russ (who expressed dismay at how many he has to deal with). I am just trying to devise an appellate tier in between the District (Mods) and Supreme (Russ) Courts.

Nemesio

Originally posted by bekieke
Absolutely, that's called the real world friend. Those with power get to execute it. If the mods actions go against Russ' interpretation, then Russ as the king gets to behead the mod in question.

I'm sorry that I find your statement problematic, that, because it exists in the 'real world,' it's somehow justified or permissible, or even defensible.

Those with power get to execute it? You oppose, then, the opportunity to moderate power with a simple peer review system? See above: A poster can throw a red flag, the refs get together, they come to a consensus of opinion, they uphold or overturn. Thus power is evened out, and errors (or abuses, if they should happen) minimized. It would, in turn, minimize Russ' involvement, something he has stated explicitly that he wants.

If I understand you correctly, perhaps you will answer this question: Why do you find such an idea bad? If I have misunderstood you, I apologize.

Nemesio