Moderation Discussion Thread

[chilidog0425]

I don't get why 2+2 upper management would rather create a bastard step child of a forum like this one, than remove the problem in the original forum. They are acknowledging that a problem exists by the creation of this forum, yet choose to ignore it rather than clean up the real B&M. I don't get it.

I'm all for a looser application of the rules here and will I'm sure contribute (or at least post) here, I just dont understand the logic of this experiment.

[RayPowers]

Palimax, so.. as a very specific moderation question: What powers DO you have here? And, has the question been answered about how threads will be copied from B&M to here?

[The Palimax]

Originally Posted by RayPowers

Palimax, so.. as a very specific moderation question: What powers DO you have here? And, has the question been answered about how threads will be copied from B&M to here?

I suppose it's difficult to describe succinctly, but I can manage posts just fine.

And, no, we have no answer to how to duplicate threads of interest.

[The Palimax]

Moderation note:

Because I'm a formatting nit, I will be fixing the occasional thread title.

As a result, you may have noticed a change to the "**** old guys say" thread, which, in theory violates the word-filter rule.

I won't be touching your posts, unless there's some sort of gross violation.

[RayPowers]

I'm here to help now, but also note that in this case, I take my direction from you. I'll be following the sticky guidelines, and I also will get any post reports (not sure if you do or not). If I get one's that are questionable according to the sticky, I'll discuss with you.

If no one has an issue with it, I'll stick with the semi site wide standard escalating infraction policy of warning->10 points->20 points->40 Points->You probably just hit 100 points bye bye.

[The Palimax]

Your post has been reported (for "Ray Sucks"). It does not go to my attention. Lucky you get to take care of those for the time being.

I'll make some minor formatting changes to the sticky, but I think it's content-correct.

The only important items to note are that "concise" doesn't mean no-content, and that people need to play nice. +1 is acceptable in moderation, and unless someone's specifically asking for your opinion of their scummy move, please refrain from questioning their parentage. ...even then, be civil.

[Lottery Larry]

Originally Posted by chilidog0425

They are acknowledging that a problem exists by the creation of this forum, yet choose to ignore it rather than clean up the real B&M. I don't get it.

The perception of a problem exists, which may be enough of a problem that it should be fixed... perhaps.

Or not. I guess we'll find out.

I don't have a lot of time for this now, but I will say that allowing various types of moderation styles means that you'll have various conflicts and complaints. I don't see that as an over-arching problem... but that's not up to me.

[Lottery Larry]

dammit, I don't have time for this.... this is why I've been staying away!

FML

Originally Posted by AlanBostick

Do yourself a favor and read Clay Shirky's essay, "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy." (Actually, I think everyone who runs any sort of online forum should read this.)

"Geoff Cohen has a great observation about this. He said "The likelihood that any unmoderated group will eventually get into a flame-war about whether or not to have a moderator approaches one as time increases." As a group commits to its existence as a group, and begins to think that the group is good or important, the chance that they will begin to call for additional structure, in order to defend themselves from themselves, gets very, very high. "


"2.) The second thing you have to accept: Members are different than users. A pattern will arise in which there is some group of users that cares more than average about the integrity and success of the group as a whole. And that becomes your core group, Art Kleiner's phrase for "the group within the group that matters most"

"3.) The third thing you need to accept: The core group has rights that trump individual rights in some situations. This pulls against the libertarian view that's quite common on the network, and it absolutely pulls against the one person/one vote notion. But you can see examples of how bad an idea voting is when citizenship is the same as ability to log in"

[callipygian]

Originally Posted by AlanBostick

The reason we are here is because of the way Rapini mismoderates B&M.

...

Do yourself a favor and read Clay Shirky's essay, "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy." (Actually, I think everyone who runs any sort of online forum should read this.)

There's absolutely no subtext or hidden commentary here (and I assume you had no subtext or hidden commentary when you posted the link), but I just had to giggle when I read this (from the linked article) in light of the anti-Rapini comments earlier in your post:

"So even if someone isn't really your enemy, identifying them as an enemy can cause a pleasant sense of group cohesion. And groups often gravitate towards members who are the most paranoid and make them leaders, because those are the people who are best at identifying external enemies."

[EADGBE]

is there a way to share the casino threads somehow? like link to that subforum?

[RayPowers]

We could copy them, but some people have already started their own versions here. I'm not sure which is better personally, but i lean towards "make new one's here, but copy any incredibly important faq type posts if needed"

[chillrob]

OK, maybe I'm a dummy, but I have been using 2+2, and B&M for years, and I have no idea what "ATF" is, nor can I find a forum with those initials.

[caseycjc]

About the forums

[The Palimax]

I've been considering marking "low content enabled" threads as such.

The thought in B&M, previously, was that users wouldn't be able to mentally separate the two types of threads within one forum, and couldn't +1 and FYP themselves silly in [LOW CONTENT] tagged threads without accidentally crapping themselves all over "serious" threads.

If we did that, the community-type and less-serious containment-type threads would get a [LOW CONTENT] marker on them, and we'd update the FAQ/Rules.

Thoughts?

[callipygian]

Originally Posted by The Palimax

The thought in B&M, previously, was that users wouldn't be able to mentally separate the two types of threads within one forum, and couldn't +1 and FYP themselves silly in [LOW CONTENT] tagged threads without accidentally crapping themselves all over "serious" threads.

Sorry if this is just a rehash of what I posted in the B&M "+1 poll" thread, but fundamentally I don't see +1 as necessarily being low content or crap, although I agree it can be abused.

A lot of times, someone asks a more-or-less factual question and of the first 5 responses, one is correct, and four are not. There's really no point in retyping the factual answer over and over again, but it's also not helpful if the correct answer just appears to be one of many possible correct answers.

I think there's legitimate concerns about someone quoting 656 lines of text just to +1 it (or any other sort of one-liner like "haha" or "omg" or "zing"); if that's the case, just penalize people who abuse the quote function, not the people who use (but don't abuse) +1.