The Glade 4.0 :: View topic

Rule #1

Don't be a Douche.

Mods?
We've never had mods before... why start now?

Because rule #1 is subjective.

Except that you're a conservative pissbucket that voted for Bush, so clearly you are out to oppress black people. Therefore, your preferences are meaningless.

As you can see, there is a slight flaw in your otherwise noble goal.

We do!

The trouble with rules is that when you set them, folks worm around them, and then it's a popularity contest when it comes to accountability. No mod has ever been able to be entirely impartial or fair, nor could they be expected to.

Let's just cut through the BS. We just need Monty not to post in Hellfire and all will be well.

This. In the end I really only used my mod hat to fix things like double posting because I got sick of the drama. I don't mind doing that again, though...

I don't see a need for a mod. Topics that blow up just squeeze people out until no one wants to read them anymore, but really, what damage is done except to the ego?

Disruptive people are only disruptive because people respond to them. If no one responds to those people, eventually they'll get the picture and stop posting. Or not. Some people are just dicks.

I don't see a need for a mod. Topics that blow up just squeeze people out until no one wants to read them anymore, but really, what damage is done except to the ego?

Monte wrote:

No single moderator. A handful who are willing to take on the tireless, thankless job of enforcing at least cooldown periods would work wonders.

Taamar wrote:

This. In the end I really only used my mod hat to fix things like double posting because I got sick of the drama. I don't mind doing that again, though...

No. In for a penny, in for a pound. There should be no neglect due to distaste for being questioned or disliked.

The ability to have a civil discourse is damaged.

I think the problem becomes since we've all been peers for so long I don't know if there is anyone that a reasonable amount of people would trust to do an unbiased or reasonable job of content moderation.

For the most part our problems extended to one forum. Maybe we just need to realize If you walk in the fire someone's going to burn you every now and then.

Author:	shuyung [ Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:30 pm ]
Post subject:	Minutia
Would it be possible to codify posting guidelines and appoint moderators? The need, I think, arises.

Author:	Müs [ Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:31 pm ]
Post subject:
Rule #1 Don't be a Douche. Mods? We've never had mods before... why start now?

Author:	DFK! [ Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Müs wrote: Rule #1 Don't be a Douche. Mods? We've never had mods before... why start now? Because rule #1 is subjective.

Author:	Corolinth [ Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:52 pm ]
Post subject:
We have at times in the past had mods, or at least pretended to have them. The reason to start now is that you can't stop monkeys from flinging poo.

Author:	shuyung [ Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:07 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
DFK! wrote: Because rule #1 is subjective. And has by any reasonable measure already fallen by the wayside. Don't get me wrong, for the most part and in most sections, everyone is content to live and let live. There is, however, a forum where even lax standards are seen only in the rearview mirror. It need not be that way.

The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/

Minutia https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=73	Page 1 of 3

Author:	Stathol [ Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm ]
Post subject:
I'd actually prefer that we keep the rules somewhat vague. Clearly delineated rules just give people an incentive to act as badly as they can while technically staying just barely on this side of the rules. When the rules are simply 1) "don't be an *", and 2) "mod decisions are final, so don't bother *** about them", people are much less inclined to push boundaries and argue over what constitutes personal attacks, etc., etc. It's been my observation that forums that operate this way actually wind up requiring a lot less moderation than those with detailed and explicit rules.

Author:	Corolinth [ Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:56 pm ]
Post subject:
Except that you're a conservative pissbucket that voted for Bush, so clearly you are out to oppress black people. Therefore, your preferences are meaningless. As you can see, there is a slight flaw in your otherwise noble goal.

Author:	darksiege [ Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:32 pm ]
Post subject:
I think we need a rule... if you are going to stalk someone thread to thread giving them poo... we need to have one of our resident IT gods send a packet Bomb to the offenders IP.

Author:	Stathol [ Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:34 pm ]
Post subject:
Corolinth wrote: Except that you're a conservative pissbucket that voted for Bush, so clearly you are out to oppress black people. Therefore, your preferences are meaningless. As you can see, there is a slight flaw in your otherwise noble goal. [youtube]ybIXiIL50bw[/youtube] Spoiler: All: Who controls the British crown? Who keeps the metric system down? We do! We do! Karl: Who leaves Atlantis off the maps? Lenny: Who keeps the Martians under wraps? Alien: We do! We do! All: Who holds back the electric car? Who makes Steve Gutenberg a star? We do! We do! Skinner: Who robs cavefish of their sight? Homer: Who rigs every Oscar night? All: We do! We do!

Author:	Corolinth [ Wed Sep 09, 2009 9:04 am ]
Post subject:
That is awesome.

Author:	Monte [ Wed Sep 09, 2009 12:16 pm ]
Post subject:
We do! The trouble with rules is that when you set them, folks worm around them, and then it's a popularity contest when it comes to accountability. No mod has ever been able to be entirely impartial or fair, nor could they be expected to. There are posting guidelines we all agree to when we register. Outside of that, I don't see a need for additional rules.

Author:	Nitefox [ Wed Sep 09, 2009 12:20 pm ]
Post subject:
Let's just cut through the BS. We just need Monty not to post in Hellfire and all will be well.

Author:	Taamar [ Wed Sep 09, 2009 12:22 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Monte wrote: We do! The trouble with rules is that when you set them, folks worm around them, and then it's a popularity contest when it comes to accountability. No mod has ever been able to be entirely impartial or fair, nor could they be expected to. This. In the end I really only used my mod hat to fix things like double posting because I got sick of the drama. I don't mind doing that again, though...

Author:	Corolinth [ Wed Sep 09, 2009 12:52 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Nitefox wrote: Let's just cut through the BS. We just need Monty not to post in Hellfire and all will be well. We tried that. We decided to let him through on a provisional basis and if he caused drama to revoke Hellfire permissions. Then we decided not to follow up and just let him keep flinging poo all over the place.

Page 1 of 3	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	shuyung [ Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:27 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Monte wrote: We do! The trouble with rules is that when you set them, folks worm around them, and then it's a popularity contest when it comes to accountability. No mod has ever been able to be entirely impartial or fair, nor could they be expected to. No single moderator. A handful who are willing to take on the tireless, thankless job of enforcing at least cooldown periods would work wonders. Taamar wrote: This. In the end I really only used my mod hat to fix things like double posting because I got sick of the drama. I don't mind doing that again, though... No. In for a penny, in for a pound. There should be no neglect due to distaste for being questioned or disliked.

Author:	Rafael [ Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:02 pm ]
Post subject:
I don't see a need for a mod. Topics that blow up just squeeze people out until no one wants to read them anymore, but really, what damage is done except to the ego?

Author:	LadyKate [ Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:04 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Rafael wrote: I don't see a need for a mod. Topics that blow up just squeeze people out until no one wants to read them anymore, but really, what damage is done except to the ego? This.

Author:	Raltar [ Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:42 pm ]
Post subject:
Disruptive people are only disruptive because people respond to them. If no one responds to those people, eventually they'll get the picture and stop posting. Or not. Some people are just dicks.

Author:	darksiege [ Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:50 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Raltar wrote: Disruptive people are only disruptive because people respond to them. If no one responds to those people, eventually they'll get the picture and stop posting. Or not. Some people are just dicks. The problem with this being that one of the greatest offenders will come into other threads and attack people, even if people try NOT to respond directly to that individual. Right at the end of 3.0 "people being wrong" seemed to take a lot more of a civil tone.

Author:	DFK! [ Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:07 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Rafael wrote: I don't see a need for a mod. Topics that blow up just squeeze people out until no one wants to read them anymore, but really, what damage is done except to the ego? The ability to have a civil discourse is damaged. shuyung wrote: Monte wrote: We do! The trouble with rules is that when you set them, folks worm around them, and then it's a popularity contest when it comes to accountability. No mod has ever been able to be entirely impartial or fair, nor could they be expected to. No single moderator. A handful who are willing to take on the tireless, thankless job of enforcing at least cooldown periods would work wonders. I've volunteered privately and publicly before. Consider this me doing so again. shuyung wrote: Taamar wrote: This. In the end I really only used my mod hat to fix things like double posting because I got sick of the drama. I don't mind doing that again, though... No. In for a penny, in for a pound. There should be no neglect due to distaste for being questioned or disliked. I concur.

Author:	damaged [ Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:44 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
DFK! wrote: The ability to have a civil discourse is damaged. I dunno, I wouldn't say I'm the ability to have civil discourse.

Author:	Micheal [ Wed Sep 09, 2009 4:01 pm ]
Post subject:
Pah rum pum!

Author:	Rorinthas [ Wed Sep 09, 2009 4:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Minutia
I think the problem becomes since we've all been peers for so long I don't know if there is anyone that a reasonable amount of people would trust to do an unbiased or reasonable job of content moderation. For the most part our problems extended to one forum. Maybe we just need to realize If you walk in the fire someone's going to burn you every now and then.

Author:	Uinan [ Wed Sep 09, 2009 4:22 pm ]
Post subject:
I'd trust Michael to do it.

Author:	DFK! [ Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:37 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Minutia
Rorinthas wrote: I think the problem becomes since we've all been peers for so long I don't know if there is anyone that a reasonable amount of people would trust to do an unbiased or reasonable job of content moderation. For the most part our problems extended to one forum. Maybe we just need to realize If you walk in the fire someone's going to burn you every now and then. What I trust is the ability of a consensus to overrule biased moderation. This is why you create perhaps 4 global mods to work under the admin. Perma-ban requires unanimous agreement, temp bans (say up to 14 days) just need demonstrable rationale, and warnings don't need much of anything beyond a rules violation. Then you make a few rules (which'll naturally have some subjectivity) and go from there. If somebody is a tyrant the leadership (read: admin) can remove their privileges, since its their board.