17 Aug 04
Originally posted by bekiekeActually, in Russ' generosity, he allows us another option: to discuss the matter. While I concede that even if every member of RHP agreed about and issue and Russ didn't want to change it, it's his business, it has been my and others' experience that he is very responsive to constructive criticism.
I don't oppose a peer review system, but I have no legitimate voice in this matter. I am a consumer purchasing a product. If I'm not satisfied with the product, the only option I have is to take my business to another outlet.
As for a system not being broken? Perhaps it's not broken, but neither was the candle. The lightbulb was just a better idea, a better system. That's all I'm advocating. I've not said that I think Cribs is right or wrong; people have perhaps inferred it.
What I have said is that there is the potential for a moderator to misunderstand and misuse his or her power, given that we are many people with many tastes. Perhaps it has happened before; perhaps many times before. Perhaps Cribs is the first to say something, perhaps not. We don't know everything, and we can't know everything.
Phlabibit has provided very valuable information: there is an informal peer review system, but that overturnings are rare, perhaps because they're awkward or perhaps because there isn't a great system for communication in place. I can't attest to it, as I am not a moderator.
The question is not whether Cribs' banning was a good one or a bad one (or at least not my question). The question is whether a system can be put in place that would limit potential (future) problems.
There are three reasons I support this site: 1) It provides both a solid interface and flexibility for a game I enjoy; 2) There are lots of unnecessary fringe benefits (like messaging and posting) which add spice to an already spectacular site; 3) Russ, by listening to the voices of his clients, has repeatedly demonstrated that he is open-minded, conscientious, and devoted to improving this site. I have no intention of taking my business elsewhere, but while Russ gives us the freedom to postively and constructively discuss anything, even him and his site, I plan to take advantage of that.
Nemesio
17 Aug 04
Originally posted by pradtfWe have posted 60 messages on this topic in 3.5 hours. This suggests to me there is, indeed, a problem. Also, as we have discussed before...what is or is not a violation of the ToS is like determining what is or is not a sin according to the Bible...or like determining what is or is not constitutional. You, my friend, are what my lawyer fiancee would call a strict constructionalist. The beauty of Phlabs' idea is that you get what you want...happy shiny posts, and others get what they want...protection from mostly imagined moderation. Easy as pie...hmmm...pie...makes my 2am snack of frosted mini-wheats seem pretty tame, and I was so enjoying them. Where is Sara? At least, she probably has a cookie for me...
i am not in favour of revising the system unless
1) there is a problem - which i don't think there is
rather there is possibly a problem with not hiding posts. it seems that many people feel enough aren't hidden.
in pieship
TheSkipper
17 Aug 04
Pradtf,
For my benefit, so that I am 100% clear, is it your position that, because you don't believe that there is a problem now, that no changes are necessary? (Before you answer that, please read on.)
The reason I ask this is because my the gist of my question in the context I wrote it is more like this:
Because there is the reasonable possibility that errors occur in the moderation of posts, is revising the process in a manner like (if not identical) to the way I suggested a good one?
Please feel free to say that it is not a good one; I will not be offended. Or, perhaps, you feel that my assumption (that there is a reasonable possibility) is faulty. Again, assume that I will take no affront to your position.
Nemesio
17 Aug 04
3 edits
nemesio and skipper
i think i can answer both of you at once - and still not get confused.
just because we have had all these posts doesn't mean there is a problem.
there are a few people who seem to think there is a problem, based on hearsay that often arises when posts get hidden and/or users get banned. the same has happened in the past a few time.
russ' answer to it was "If you get a posting ban for a few days, please just deal with it."
now russ is an incredibly thoughtful and considerate individual. if he has gotten to the point of saying this, it really may be an idea to listen.
what we decide here is irrelevant - you both know that. russ may or may not want to review the process. if he does, great! if he doesn't, that's fine too. if i really don't like what is happening - i'll go somewhere else.
i'm not saying that i don't want to solve errors if they exist - i just think this is very unimportant as compared to the issue of having a civilized forum.
if we want to spend time reviewing the mod process, then i suggest we settle the place down, stop threads like this one, get the place civilized.
then, after having shown our good intentions to russ through a bit of responsibility, we may feel we are in a better position to ask for things.
right now, i think we should be giving back to him - and our mods.
in friendship,
prad
17 Aug 04
Originally posted by nemesioYou're absolutely right regarding his generosity, however, I have included his post from another related thread. If there's anything unclear about what he is saying, I don't see it.
Actually, in Russ' generosity, he allows us another option: to discuss the matter. While I concede that even if every member of RHP agreed about and issue and Russ didn't want to change it, it's his business, it has been my and others' experience that he is very responsive to constructive criticism.
As for a system not being broken? Perhaps it's no ...[text shortened]... tructively discuss anything, even him and his site, I plan to take advantage of that.
Nemesio
"It is time for me to make another post about the forums.
I am personally finding it very tiring dealing with the endless bickering in the forums. Whenever I sit down to work on the site, I expect to answer a large number of feedback emails and personal messages, that is just part of running this site, but the endless flood of complaints about forums posting/forum bans/forum moderating/forum whatever… And always from a relatively small subset of the active users of this site.
It is very damaging to the site, and just sucking up far too much of everyone’s time. Because the forums are key the whole community of this site, we would never close them, so a slightly more aggressive moderating policy is required (and being encouraged.) So…
If you get a posting ban for a few days, please just deal with it.
I am so tired of all this, I haven’t even read the ‘Moderational Inconsistency’ thread before posting this – but let me say a few things.
The moderators are VOLUNTEERS. They should be playing chess and enjoying the forums, but instead they receive some pretty abusive messages for their efforts, from people who always believe they have been unjustly punished
As for the inconsistencies, there is no moderating bible. We try to be sensible about these things, making a rational decision, and discussing posts when there is doubt, but we don’t all think as one great brain (we even live on opposites sides of the world, from very different backgrounds), so the current level of consistency we have at the moment is amazing to me."
17 Aug 04
Originally posted by pradtfNot a bad idea, actually.
nemesio and skipper
i think i can answer both of you at once - and still not get confused.
just because we have had all these posts doesn't mean there is a problem.
there are a few people who seem to think there is a problem, based on hearsay that often arises when posts get hidden and/or users get banned. the same has happened in the past a few time. ...[text shortened]... s.
right now, i think we should be giving back to him - and our mods.
in friendship,
prad
We are probably setting ourselves up to do this all over again in a month or less because we will not be interested in making changes when we let things settle down, but whatever...I'm tired of talking about this anyway. 😉
Let's get back to the good stuff we used to talk about in the general forum...like cookies!! What kind does Sara like to give out, again? ahhh...cookies, pies, ice cream...what were we talking about?
in slobership
TheSkipper
17 Aug 04
1 edit
Originally posted by TheSkipperyou know that was a really nice thing you said about making cookies and giving them all to sarah after she came back.
Not a bad idea, actually.
We are probably setting ourselves up to do this all over again in a month or less because we will not be interested in making changes when we let things settle down, but whatever...I'm tired of talking abou ...[text shortened]... e cream...what were we talking about?
in slobership
TheSkipper
i know the cookies are virtual, but the kindness is as real as it gets.
good night andrew.
in cookieship,
prad
17 Aug 04
1 edit
Originally posted by marinakatombThe problem with this suggestion is that people will abuse the system by blasting posts they disagree with.
Why not have a system were readers can 'blast' a post. If a post recieves 3-5 blasts (whichever sounds more effective), the offensive post is automatically removed.
Yes this could be abussed but removing 'blast rights from a poster would be quite easy, no?
Offensive material will still slip through the net.
I think the idea of a more heavily moderated "social" forum is a good one, except for one thing.
RHP moderators are not paid for the work they do.
We owe it to the volunteer moderators and to ourselves to engage our brains before we put finger to keyboard, and make sure our ideas are reasonable.
Obviously, as we have a wide selection of beliefs and morals here, we cannot avoid offending everyone, and the moderators fully understand this.
They should only need to step in when it becomes apparent that someone has posted a message deliberately intended to offend.
17 Aug 04
Originally posted by PhlabibitI think that they are bad ideas:
This evening some users seem to be pushing for changes in how the mods act.....
Perhaps there should be a new Social forum or 2 that is heavily moderated for the people we (you) call 'Thin skinned'.
I think general should be moderated by only alerts, and each time a post is rec'd it will erase an alert. 3 or 5 alerts the post is removed. Or just ...[text shortened]... up to Russ but I don't see any other solution... and you guys sure have not offered one.
P-
If rec's cancelled out alerts then you'd encourage gangs of people with similar opinions to group together. If they continually rec'd each others posts then all of their posts would be untouchable. Do we want to encourage mob behaviour.
The same goes for 'blasts'. If all it took was 5 blasts to remove a post automaticcaly then a group of people could gang up on one person or 1 topic and prevent it/them form ever posting. Do we want to encourage people being ganged up on?
Do you honestly believe that if you allow anything to go in one forum it'd stay in that forum alone. If I'd just told you that I wish you mother was raped in 'Debates' do you think you'd then be pleasent to me in 'Social'. Differerent rules for different forums wouldn't work.
Also, you seem to be equating heavy debate with rude and insulting behaviour. Why should the only people who are able to participate in heavy debates be the ones who are willing to be insulted? Why should anyone who is willing to talk in a pleasent manner be relegated to light debate?
Phla, you've seen my recommendations. You haven't commmented on them in any detail, and certianly not to my further explanations. Would you care to or should I poat them here for general perusal?
Jon
17 Aug 04
1 edit
Originally posted by belgianfreakthis is exactly the problem. the forums aren't supposed to be 'democratic' in this fashion, anymore than society is.
If rec's cancelled out alerts then you'd encourage gangs of people with similar opinions to group together. If they continually rec'd each others posts then all of their posts would be untouchable. Do we want to encourage mob behavi ...[text shortened]... ever posting. Do we want to encourage people being ganged up on?
we certainly don't vote on every issue - we vote for candidates and put them into decision making positions. then we trust them to do a good job.
here we have mods put in place by russ with certain powers to enforce the TOS and make sure that the forums are run in a way that people are respected and free from abuse.
if we resorted to a voting system for each post, gang warfare would break out and the mods would never get to make another chess move.
let us trust our mods to make these forums a decent place first. we can always fine tune further ideas later.
in friendship,
prad
17 Aug 04
Originally posted by pradtfWell put.
this is exactly the problem. the forums aren't supposed to be 'democratic' in this fashion, anymore than society is.
we certainly don't vote on every issue - we vote for candidates and put them into decision making positions. then we trust them to do a good job.
here we have mods put in place by russ with certain powers to enforce the TOS and make ...[text shortened]... orums a decent place first. we can always fine tune further ideas later.
in friendship,
prad
-TT