Originally posted by adramforall
Who decides what is acceptable and what isn't?
...It should be the members as a whole, after the site-owners define the boundaries appropriate to a 13+ site. It's not the task of the moderators to censor other people's words, only to carry out the wishes of (1) the site owners (2) those members who are upset or offended by some other poster.
If people thinks something is unacceptable then click the Alert Moderator and say why. If the post should be removed, it will.
...But the Forum Moderator then has to make an impartial assessment of whether the claim is valid, or whether the alerting member has a hidden agenda. Sometimes there is not sufficient grounds and the post must be allowed to stand. A post alerted by two individuals is 99% guaranteed of removal.
All the forums are subject to, and should remain subject to, the same moderation regime.
...Threads often wander off topic, this is not necessarily a hanging offence, if it is apparent that the original topic has been abandoned we will move the thread to another forum, if we are alerted by an appropriate member request.
Thanks adram for providing me with the material for the Q/A format. 🙂
Originally posted by PalynkaThat is a sickening indictment of Forum Moderation as practiced by some here.
😞
Maybe it would be a good idea to limit users to 10 "Alert Moderators" a month like they are limited to 10 recs. I bet a few go over that by a least 2-3 times. And I bet a few people's alerts are limited to only certain other users. Abuse of alerts was supposed to be monitored by the Forum Mods, but it seems that this just isn't done.
Originally posted by no1marauderMaybe it is but if you have 19 other clan mates and it only takes two to get a post removed, then there are a lot of permutations before a repeated pair is made.
Abuse of alerts was supposed to be monitored by the Forum Mods, but it seems that this just isn't done.
Double that to two clans and they could be reporting all day long without duplicating the reporting duo.
Originally posted by MissOleum[/b]As usual, someone has taken a sentence out of context.
[b]If the post should be removed, it will.
...But the Forum Moderator then has to make an impartial assessment of whether the claim is valid, or whether the alerting member has a hidden agenda. Sometimes there is not sufficient grounds and the post must be allowed to stand. A post alerted by two individuals is 99% guaranteed of removal.
If you read the whole paragraph, the meaning is clear: a post alerted by two individuals on legitimate grounds is 99% guaranteed of removal. This statement was intended only to distinguish between user alerts and robomod alerts (which outnumber user alerts at least 20 to 1). It's my practice, at least, to read the whole thread or at the very least a couple of pages, before making my decision. I suspect that not too many collaborative alerts would survive that process.
Why didn't I spell it out in the earlier post? Because I was trying to get a lot of content into as few words as possible. I should have remembered that if a sentence is longer than 12 words many readers skip over it ...
Will I know better next time? Probably not. I tend not to learn from my mistakes, just like everyone else.
Now, my friend, you have lots more material to misinterpret, enjoy!
Originally posted by xnomanxShut up numb nuts. 😛
Does anyone else here get the feeling that the forums are degenerating into a mess of inside politics, egos, feuds, and accusations?
I grow weary of clicking on a chess thread that sounds interesting only to find that it's become a name-calling match within a few posts. No, I don't have to visit the forums, but it would be nice to see a higher premium plac ...[text shortened]... e of no tolerance for BS has been set by users, admins, moderators, and the group at large.
