ForumGarden

Mods get big heads... NO MODS!!!!

Jives wrote: Actually, what I find oppressive is when people devolve into name-calling, insults, and derision. That's no fun for anyone.:)I hate catching myself name-calling or reduced to insults. Derision is far harder to avoid.

spot wrote: I hate catching myself name-calling or reduced to insults. Derision is far harder to avoid.


I agree 100% And I am as guilty as anyone of this...but I'm working on it!:o

I once belonged to a forum where the moderators thought part of their job was to tell you what you were and weren't allowed to say, question you to the point of harrassment when you did not like one of their members, etc. Needless to say, I did not stick around long. There's moderation and then there's a power trip. Moderation can work.

All things in moderation....

Why is this even being brought up ?

An emphatic no on my part. Period.

Nomad wrote: Why is this even being brought up ?

An emphatic no on my part. Period.


ahhhh because somebody had a question about it???

minks wrote: ahhhh because somebody had a question about it???




ahhh its a crappy idea ???

Nomad wrote: ahhh its a crappy idea ???


ahhh yeah crappy idea, but ok to ask about it....

Nope, no, nada.

minks wrote: ahhh yeah crappy idea, but ok to ask about it....




lalalalalalala

I dont want to hear it.

lalalalala

flopstock wrote: what do you really think, shaved butthead?:D




You ?

Do you really want to see moderators here ?

I nominate Nomad on the grounds that he's impartial, fair, and more serious than anyone else on the site.

spot wrote: I nominate Nomad on the grounds that he's impartial, fair, and more serious than anyone else on the site.


Oh puleeze

Id ban the lot of you and start fresh

Jives wrote: You know what's funny? On the other boards I frequent, where there is heavy moderation, it's hardly ever used!


If it is hardly ever used, it isn't heavy moderation.

ADAM: "FG has had one recent bad experience in the whole year I've been here. I think adding moderators would only make things worse. But if FG does implement moderators, it really should be on a rotational basis or we could really see a turn for the worse."

He and I have had some experience with two boards which've been "moderated," and not always "moderated" well! Some of the moderators are downright LEGENDARY in their heavy-handed, arbitrary attempts at legislating everything from punctuation to criticism to STAYING ON TOPIC to vocabulary.

It wasn't fun, people.

I will say it was helpful to have someone with the ability to read IP information recently, when "another" board was troubled with a "multi-personality" TROLL. We were able to identify her and deal with the problem before she did too much damage.

Tombstone might consider putting a process in place to review IPs of people who've been banned, if the banning is intended to be permanent.

I know I would never buy a subscription if the Garden were moderated. I would even consider leaving. I am an adult and I enjoy talking with other adults. I don't need to be censored and I don't think anyone else here does either. Things may get out of hand sometimes (although I have not seen it myself) but that's because you have a group of opinionated people discussing all matters in life. It's bound to get passionate in here. I definitely vote against censorship AKA moderation and if I may paraphrase Accountable, "I choose free speech, warts and all!"

I wonder, then, in the light of RedGlitter's contribution, whether we could go back to the matter of the profanity filter. Why isn't that a question of peer pressure as well? I've always felt it had more to do with (quite reasonably) maximizing the advertising revenue, without which I'm sure ForumGarden wouldn't continue to exist. As such I feel we're stuck with it. Might we express some opinion - in circumlocuted prose, admittedly - as to its content? Because the ****ing thing gets in the way of my preferred mode of address on occasion, I can tell you.

flopstock wrote: The issue of moderation or lack thereof, has come up once again. We seem to fluctuate between self moderation and the antithesis of moderation.

moderation





n Definition: temperance

Antonyms: extreme, extremism, indulgence, intemperance, intensity, outrageousness, severity, unlimitedness, violence, wildness







source: answers.com







While i can see the merit of moderation I've also experienced its pitfalls. It can keep the trolls and spammers in check. It can also become a power trip for those with the power and their friends.



It is subjective, which means we are then at the mercy of someone else's notion of what is 'good' for us. Language, grammar, politics, humor, etc... all become 'subject to the interpretation' of the person or persons chosen to moderate us.



Personally, if we were to take this route, I would prefer a rotating moderation system, perhaps randomly selected paid subscribers. With a fixed reign of power. And I think it would be nice if they were anonymous... that way if someone wants to report a spammer or troll, the system could notify those moderating at the moment that action may need to be taken, but we don't have members trying to influence those moderators to 'pick their side' in any disputes between members. Plus, if they are anonymous, they can be removed from moderation, without a lot of fuss and pride busting. The site operators could remove them from future selection, without a big stink being raised..



Those are just my thoughts.


Ah yes, Moderators. If moderators were to be put in place, they most definately would need to be anonymous, for all the reasons flop mentioned above! However, moderators also need to be moderated, again for all the reasons flop mentioned. So keeping that thought in mind, here's a suggestion for trying to avoid a single moderator from becoming overbearing with power. Before a poster's post could be sensored & or sent to the tar pit, if there are say "3" mods, then all 3 mods would have to agree (behind the scenes of course) on the dicipline/outcome of the post. Somehow if the mods PM'd the poster's involved in a dispute, the mod's identity would have to be kept anonymous, even from themselves. Mods working autonomously & collectively, is that even possible?

Yes, you can that, cars. Other forums do.

chonsigirl wrote: Yes, you can that, cars. Other forums do.


Wow, had no idea about that. I'm a member of 4 other forums, but mostly I guess in name only, as I spend 95% of my time in forums, in here, so. . . . .

RedGlitter wrote: I know I would never buy a subscription if the Garden were moderated. I would even consider leaving. I am an adult and I enjoy talking with other adults. I don't need to be censored and I don't think anyone else here does either. Things may get out of hand sometimes (although I have not seen it myself) but that's because you have a group of opinionated people discussing all matters in life. It's bound to get passionate in here. I definitely vote against censorship AKA moderation and if I may paraphrase Accountable, "I choose free speech, warts and all!"
:yh_hugs :yh_hugs

I like your passion. Wouldn't have it tempered one bit.

What I find interesting is that even in a forum such as this, people tend to self-moderate (with some exceptions) just as they do in normal society. After all despite the fact the people often argue here or are unkind to each other on occasion, its more common that people just generally chat or argue in a fairly normal manner. So to me its another example of people developing their own rules by trial and error which is also what happens in normal societies, though over much longer periods of time.

Think about it, if you are in a big city anywhere in the world (even in troubled countries) the majority of people at any one time will be observed going about their lives as easily as possible given the circumstances of the day doing everyday people things. People are instinctively social and healthy normal adults in general know how to conduct themselves in either small or large, or even huge groups. Fascinating really.

Galbally wrote: What I find interesting is that even in a forum such as this, people tend to self-moderate (with some exceptions) just as they do in normal society. After all despite the fact the people often argue here or are unkind to each other on occasion, its more common that people just generally chat or argue in a fairly normal manner. So to me its another example of people developing their own rules by trial and error which is also what happens in normal societies, though over much longer periods of time.

Think about it, if you are in a big city anywhere in the world (even in troubled countries) the majority of people at any one time will be observed going about their lives as easily as possible given the circumstances of the day doing everyday people things. People are instinctively social and healthy normal adults in general know how to conduct themselves in either small or large, or even huge groups. Fascinating really.


not to be confused with self medicate right?

Galbally wrote: People are instinctively social and healthy normal adults in general know how to conduct themselves in either small or large, or even huge groups. Fascinating really.


And therein lies the problem

What do you do with unhealthy abnormal adults?

cherandbuster wrote: What do you do with unhealthy abnormal adults?I don't know about the rest of you, but my friday nights are best left undisclosed.

As we all know,word is getting out about this place as it seems.Almost every day some one new jumps in and says "heard this was a good place".I liked it because it was a fairly small close group.From experience i have nice places run over by people who just want too cause trouble and soon the place becomes unbearable.So as we speak of moderation and the like,we my consider a system where a newbie would have too be submitted by a member,a supporting member and at that point the supporting member becomes responsible for that person.makes things honest,Also helps keep members careful as too who they submit.Seeing how they are sticking out their necks for them,and we don't have 50 newbie too deal with every month.

This done in a forum that I am in now and it works well for them.And yes,some members have been booted because there invited was just outright rude and did nothing too enhance the site.Just food for thought.

Shweet tatersalad wrote: .So as we speak of moderation and the like,we my consider a system where a newbie would have too be submitted by a member,a supporting member and at that point the supporting member becomes responsible for that person.makes things honest,Also helps keep members careful as too who they submit.Seeing how they are sticking out their necks for them,and we don't have 50 newbie too deal with every month.

.


Oh, I am not sure. How do we fairly decide who is "in or out"? I feel though that many really cool people would not find thier way here, simply because they did not already know someone who was already a member.

I found this place quite by accident, while looking for something else. I did not previously know anyone who belonged here.

So, unless I am missunderstanding what you are saying..and let me know if I am...I am not sure I like this method of aquiring members.

I don't like gated communities.

You know, this notion of restricting either registration or posting seems so far from what we're here for. Does it occur to nobody at all that the onus is on us, the existing posters, to react in such a way that all posts become a positive benefit? There have been some right charlies turned up in the past, the prat who savaged Abbey with a totally contrived assult on her football affiliation being just the latest. Cowering and asking for admin protection isn't the way to deal with it. Laughter works quite well.

A refusal to mistrust newbies works even better, and I'm really pleased with the last week in terms of accomodation to new faces. We did pretty well, I think, as did they.

Moderation sucks, honestly. We each have more than sufficient power on here to moderate the site without deletions or bannings. The only thing ForumGarden needs protection from is our in-fighting, and admin's occasional slow application of thread closure is all that it takes to bring us back to rational responses.

OK,All it was is some food for thought and by no means is a suggestion for action.

i do not like in-fighting either,it's I how got too leave the other sites i went too,after a while they all became more interested in beating each other up than letting it go.If you notice i use the phrase let it go alot,because i have seen what happens too a very nice forum when 200 people post every hour.

couldn't find much else too comment on so I thought I would share this with you.

Shweet tatersalad wrote: OK,All it was is some food for thought and by no means is a suggestion for action.

i do not like in-fighting either,it's I how got too leave the other sites i went too,after a while they all became more interested in beating each other up than letting it go.If you notice i use the phrase let it go alot,because i have seen what happens too a very nice forum when 200 people post every hour.

couldn't find much else too comment on so I thought I would share this with you.I like you, Shweet.

minks wrote: not to be confused with self medicate right?


No thats true, that would be a bad mistake.

cherandbuster wrote: And therein lies the problem

What do you do with unhealthy abnormal adults?


Simple, you make them celebrities.

flopstock wrote: we turn them into lemondrop dancers with tinfoil hats?



:D


Yes that as well.

Accountable wrote: I like you, Shweet.


just so you know what brought this thought too me is at last count there were are 358 guests viewing anything they want here,but only 47 members.

Shweet tatersalad wrote: just so you know what brought this thought too me is at last count there were are 358 guests viewing anything they want here,but only 47 members.and therein, of course, lies the board's advertising revenue. The more the merrier.

SnoozeControl wrote: Apropos of nothing, I like you a lot too, Shweet. I think you're a welcome addition to this forum.


I am proud too be on the stage and not in the audience.

If all the world is a stage, where does the audience sit???