The Glade 4.0

We're shooting cheeps? Are these any relation to peeps? Because a barrage of scary yellow marshmallow animals is quite horrific.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

This, with an added feeling of obligation to present a differing view than the vast majority in here, if for no other reason than balance.

yes. we're shooting cheeps.

And people to nitpick my distracted spelling.

I felt some humor was needed in this thread

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

Used to be I felt the need to provide balance. Not much anymore.

Now, I just read the OP, the previous replies, then just for grins I throw my 2c about the subject into the ring. If nobody bites, I move on.

If someone posted in what I consider to be an effort to make life difficult for someone, I may return the favor. It's purely discretionary, no rhyme nor reason.

Got a glass house and want to throw stones? Can I play too?

People that read it don't care, people with the glass house may, that's their privilege. I don't expect it to make a difference, I just feel complete when I help what goes around go around.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Isn't that basically just trolling then Taskiss?

Nope, I don't think so, I post on topic or in response to another poster. I don't post to provoke, I post to express my opinion. If someone posts a provocative message and gets one in return, it's more a derail than a troll.

Unless you're opinion of trolling is different than mine, that is. If that's the case, you go right ahead and feel that way.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Fair enough.

I work very hard to derail things when they're going too seriously.

Sometimes, when I don't have anything meaningful to add, I'll post something ridiculous.

But for this, I don't have even that, so here's a picture of a man with a fish on his head.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Honestly, I liked the moderation approach that was initially attempted on this iteration (a year ago, or whatever). A team of moderators does work best. I think there were a few members of the team who were not interested in acting appropriately as moderators, however, and I think the team was, as a whole, too lenient, and I won't bother publicly speculating on why.

Temporary bans are fine. They should be short, given out fairly and consistently (perhaps even aggressively, in comparison to our moderative history here), and should lead to more permanent solutions for repeat offenses. The temporary bans show the willingness to act and maintain order, and the permanent bans they can lead to, if the community has the faith that they'll be followed through on, serve as either a deterrent or final (if regrettable; it's not like we're growing as a community at a rate where permabans are to be shrugged off) solution.

That said, I, of all people, realize that moderation is hard. We've all accumulated a lot of years' worth of baggage with regards to other members, and it takes a lot of maturity to resist the urge to not step aside or ask for a second opinion on a decision that involves unpacking those bags. That's why it's important to have a team, both to spread the work and to ensure that, if we're not necessarily absolutely impartial, at least the biases will be spread around the bell curve some. Obviously, there's a limit where the number of moderators becomes too cumbersome to make decisions or reach agreement, but I don't think we've ever pushed that line, so I mention it more out of a sense of completion than anything else.

What we had originally was working, though. I think it was just a little to permissive, and so the community stopped bothering to report things, as too many of the reports we made went uncommented on, even if the comment was "this doesn't appear to warrant action" or "we're looking into it."

I think Dash's tantrum back in February hasn't improved Hellfire in the least, and Heckfire is so sparsely used as to not be really relevant in any way. I'd like to see a return to the active team approach rather than the limp, generally indecisive and "fend for yourselves and 'self-moderate'" message we've currently been sent. Self moderation is a pipe dream in a community as diverse as this one when it is essentially isolated from the rest of our lives via anonymity and obscurity. When there are no consequences beyond this community, and all our significant needs can be met outside this community, shaming doesn't work.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

And which do people gravitate to? I think the answer is obvious. If people wanted moderation they'd post in Heckfire.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

or, when people post in other forums, if someone wants to fire a volley at someone they just drag it into hellfire.

As I said in the other thread: thirty days is not a ban, it's a suspension. In that regard, why aren't seven or fourteen day suspension possible?

I will also point out that one of the moderators was removed for comments made when not acting in a moderator capacity, and in an unmoderated subforum. (As compared to Michael's decision to switch to a moderator role in a moderated subforum, in what appears to have been an attempt to win an argument with Rynar. I am not passing judgement on his motives, only stating the appearance.) That incident either caused or strongly contributed to the loss of our best moderator. Any hope of actual moderation on this board died with DFK.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

I still think that if there's moderation, that there should be a single "moderator" account, and noone should know who the moderation team is.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Thats a really good idea, actually.

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

The first rule about Mod Club...

And now we turn the thread over to our tame racing moderator.

Some say that he only knows two facts about ducks... and both are wrong. And that he's illegal in 17 US States.

All we know is he's called StigMod.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I am Jack's Banhammer.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

They are. "Temp ban" and "suspension" are synonymous. People call it a "temp ban" because the moderator uses the same function to do both of them.



You seem to forget that the incident in question started in a moderated forum, not an unmoderated one, and got moved here. That portion of that incident (which was really mainly about Bery's creating the entire mess in the first place by using an apparently innocuous thread to sneak a political argument in General) was about the fact that we keep the mess in here.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

We were originally going to have a secret mod team, but there was a mixup and the mods were announced. You can't really undo that, unless you fire the current staff and start over.

_________________

The only way to get moderation to work here is that Mookow is going to need to decide that he wants it (his forums now) and get someone in that slot who has the intestinal fortitude to enforce what the rules are.

DFK! was actually doing that and doing a pretty reasonable job all things considered. Unfortunately where DFK! falls down as a mod IMHO is that he's a completely by the book person. And there were WAY too many people trying to game the system to either make it fail or to get Monty banned/suspended.

A good mod is a benevolent dictator. Anything else is doomed to failure. They need to be able to be "above the law" as it were, because anything else requires too much time/effort and will eventually unravel. I also think it needs to be a single person of good character, or you get too much waffling between mods.

My forums now?

_________________

No, there was no one trying to game the system to get Monty banned. There was no need to. Monty, despite his screaming to the contrary, was the worst abuser of the rules. He was the single most prolific generator of reports, and he wanted the mod system to be something he could use as a weapon against other viewpoints. He sees an "impartial" moderation system as one that protects his viewpoints because they're decent, while other people's are "offensive" or "bigoted".

Yes, everyone knew Monty was likely to get banned if there was a moderation system. That wasn't the point of the system, Coro's attempts to create some sort of two-faced hypocrisy after the fact notwithstanding. The point was that Monty simply couldn't survive on a message board where he was required to follow any sort of rules and not just go into a screaming fit of victimhood or moral superiority any time anyone disagreed with him.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Very accurate description, if I say so myself.

Thanks.


The by the book thing is true though: have rules and follow them, or don't have rules, IMNSHO.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Nope - ran him off.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.