Moderation Poll

[newfhouse]

I do hope the life and soul doesn't get sucked out of the forum by an excess of reports for minor infractions of unnecessary rules. That would really be cause for using the 'sadly smiley.

 

[classic33]

I've no idea if the software is capable. Of course it can be gamed, like anything, but I feel the fall-out of that game are better than people gaming unlimited posting by sitting on the site all the time posting bickering replies to every disagreeing post or by setting up bots to do it.


One person's "to and fro" is what the CC rules called excessive "chattiness".

One person's "slight meander" is what the CC rules called "thread spoiling" and "derailing".


If we get the rules correct and the software isn't clunky, I don't think there will be difficulty getting enough volunteers. I've long felt that the main site made hard work of that in a couple of ways. The difficulty will be picking the right volunteers from the pool.

Who's done that, and will you/can you back your claim up with the evidence of them having done so.

The thing is "CC rules" may not be applicable here. No mods taking instant decisions and locking threads, and no reports to act on, whilst taking their time.

Why should the rest of the forum, and people looking in at the site, know that someone has been reported?

You want an easier system, instant posting, not having to await mod approval before they appear. However you're all in favour of making the system that bit more complicated. And I am noticing a bias towards how you want the system to work for you.

 

[Fab Foodie]

They are called reactions in the software and can be changed if everyone wants something different here. I'd suggest a maximum of seven for practical reasons in terms of screen/device layout, but it's up to you folks.

Thanks Shaun....one to debate I think!

 

[glasgowcyclist]

There’s been a couple of forums I’ve been on before where the members self-policed. Everyone had a view on a given topic and if someone strayed into ad hominems or other nastiness, there were enough straight-thinking people who would chin them for it and bring the topic back on track. Personal attacks were not acceptable, so, for example, you couldn’t say Joe90 was an idiot but it was fine to describe his statement as idiotic. I think there are enough members on CC capable of this, who can tackle the argument and not the poster, to keep things in line.

I’d say give the members a chance to show this could work. Most people want to discuss the topics and maybe change others’ views or even their own, if the evidence is convincing. Or am I being too optimistic?

 

[Pale Rider]

Or am I being too optimistic?

I would say you are being positive rather than optimistic, and there is some limited evidence to justify your positivity.

So far this forum has been operating in the way you describe, and I agree with you that would be the best way to continue.

I do think we need what @swansonj described as a backstop, some means to delete stuff which is extremely personal, viciously abusive, or content that may be illegal.

 

[qigong chimp]

This all sounds a bit worthy.
I'm here in the Off-World colony merely to hone my inventive offensiveness, the better to poke fun at salt-pork reactionaries.
Between the Law and the ignore button we've all the bases covered, surely?

 

[mjr]

Who's done that, and will you/can you back your claim up with the evidence of them having done so.

There are plenty of forum autoposting bots out there for download or purchase with names like Comment Anywhere, themaPoster, Simple Forum Auto Poster, ... and most people who have moderated a forum will have seen their work. I am not going to spend time finding examples for you. Trying to suggest these bots are not used is incredible IMO.

Why should the rest of the forum, and people looking in at the site, know that someone has been reported?

I suggested we consider showing posts have been reported, not people. Authors are not their posts. The purpose was mainly so authors get notified before the mods have to act, a chance to tone it down, but it may also give readers an indication that some members of the site thought it broke rules, not merely disagreed.

I'm not sold on the idea but thought it worth discussing. I don't think low-mod will work with people "chinning" other posters or whatever it was suggested. That will lead to escalating flamewars.

You want an easier system, instant posting, not having to await mod approval before they appear. However you're all in favour of making the system that bit more complicated. And I am noticing a bias towards how you want the system to work for you.

Seriously, stop claiming to know what I want, especially when you get it so wrong.

 

[slowmotion]

How about no moderation for now and play it by ear? Have another poll in a couple of months. By then the place may or may not have turned into a septic tank and we can register our views with some kind of evidence to support it.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

It has to be no-moderation for this off-shoot to work.

Who will be the moderators? I have lost count the amount of times that I have disagreed with someone, and almost the next response has been 'Troll.....' and as suggested up this thread, if the moderators will wield their power against Trolls, then we are scuppered as they could wield it against anyone who disagrees with them. Also disagreements should be allowed to continue, and we should be grown up enough to deal with insults too.

I haven't said anything on here to someone that I wouldn't say to their face in a pub/on a ride in the same conversations.

For now, let's just give it a go with no moderation and see what happens.

 

[classic33]

It has to be no-moderation for this off-shoot to work.

Who will be the moderators? I have lost count the amount of times that I have disagreed with someone, and almost the next response has been 'Troll.....' and as suggested up this thread, if the moderators will wield their power against Trolls, then we are scuppered as they could wield it against anyone who disagrees with them. Also disagreements should be allowed to continue, and we should be grown up enough to deal with insults too.

I haven't said anything on here to someone that I wouldn't say to their face in a pub/on a ride in the same conversations.

For now, let's just give it a go with no moderation and see what happens.

I think that's the idea of having more than one mod. With a joint decision being made. This can't happen in an instant, as some want, but it will deliver a fairer result. And avoid folk accusing the mod(s) of favouritism.

 

[slowmotion]

This thread is starting to remind me of the daft navel-gazing of student politics at universities in the mid 1970s. We don't actually have to make any rules until there is a need for them. That's hard for some people to accept.

Let it run.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

I think that's the idea of having more than one mod. With a joint decision being made. This can't happen in an instant, as some want, but it will deliver a fairer result. And avoid folk accusing the mod(s) of favouritism.

But that won't happen. Think of, purely for the purposes of my point and nothing else, me and Shep were the mods involved, everyone more 'left' would cry foul. Similarly if the mods were FabFoodie and Mudsticks, those on the 'right' would cry foul.

If this is being set up to be a robust, grown up, more gloves off debating area, then it will be just impossible to find an impartial moderation team who could their own thoughts and prejudices out of the discussion. I remember making a point recently, which I seem to remember got me called a troll by some contributors, challenging anyone to come up with a truly independent chair for some inquiry or other. Absolutely no-one was able to come up with the name of someone who would be considered impartial, but lots of replies were made saying it would be easy, not one person was able to be nominated though. Trying to choose mods from amongst us will produce exactly the same problem!

 

[glasgowcyclist]

If this is being set up to be a robust, grown up, more gloves off debating area,

I don't think it is, or at least that's not what I would hope for. I'm suggesting no mods because I think we have enough people capable of expressing their views fairly and without resorting to personal attacks. The absence of appointed moderators isn't an invitation for anything but civil and honest debates/discussions.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

I don't think it is, or at least that's not what I would hope for. I'm suggesting no mods because I think we have enough people capable of expressing their views fairly and without resorting to personal attacks. The absence of appointed moderators isn't an invitation for anything but civil and honest debates/discussions.

I agree. If we all just used the 'don't say anything you wouldn't say to them' maxim we should be ok.

 

[mjr]

I agree. If we all just used the 'don't say anything you wouldn't say to them' maxim we should be ok.

Why should we be? We see in real life that some people will say things to others that are illegal and bad enough to get them bound over or locked up. Do you really want to let them post here?

I find it completely unfathomable to think that the answer to excessive moderator workload is to abolish moderation instead of addressing the workload. It feels like reacting to riding into a hedge by concluding that next time you shouldn't put your hands on the bars at all!