|
|
Guitarguy
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Rockoon.
|
posted December 26, 2010 12:46 AM |
|
|
Yeah, it's a really nice thought. But come on, it's wishful thinking. Just look at us.
-Guitarguy
____________
|
|
SwampLord
Supreme Hero
Lord of the Swamp
|
|
posted December 26, 2010 01:50 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Perhaps the OSM needs its participants to think about things by themselves. What good would an extra moderator do?
____________
They can take my swamp, they can take my town, but they will never take my FREEDOM!
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted December 26, 2010 02:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Perhaps the OSM needs its participants to think about things by themselves. What good would an extra moderator do?
Why is everyone praising this statement? It's like saying the OSM would be better if the OSM was better. It's a meaningless statement. It's like saying that laws and police aren't needed if only the people were perfect.
I think anarchy is the best idealism there could be. I can't imagine any type of Utopian society where laws and rules are needed. But we don't live in a perfect world with only perfect people. We live in the real world and therefore rules and enforcement are needed.
The OSM used to be a good place. It's not just the moderation that changed, it's the people who changed, and they changed a LOT. Of course people need to think before they post. They also need to learn to read first. It seems that more than half the people around here don't have the ability or desire to bother reading before they reply.
Maybe we should go back to the days before unlimited internet access. Back to the days when you had to pay for internet time by the minute. Back when you got online once or twice a day and quickly uploaded a post or downloaded some threads. Maybe then people would actually take the time to read what someone else said. Or more importantly, maybe they would actually think about and research the validity of what they say instead of just posting whatever they heard on the street that day without bothering to consider if it's true or even makes sense. It would slow down the entire process instead of the instant self gratification that's become so prevalent.
I've suggested it before and I'll suggest it again. One partial solution to the OSM would be major flood protect.....like 1-2 posts per day maximum. There may be some rare exceptions, but for the most part anyone posting more than that isn't reading/thinking before they post.
One of the most frustrating things is spending the time to think about your post, doing research to verify facts, taking time to articulate your thoughts; then when you are ready to post you discover that the thread is three pages longer than the last time you looked, most of which is off-topic arguing about the same old things.
Think about things? What the hell for? It takes far too much time to think. If anyone takes the time to think, the thread will already be ruined and gone off in a completely different direction. Then if you post anyway it will either be ignored because it's actually on topic which is no longer on topic; or it will be ignored because people are incapable of reading and don't know the purpose of things called sentences, paragraphs, and semi-cohesive thoughts; because all they are doing is looking for a trigger word so they can argue with you about something that you didn't even say.
Think about things? What the hell for?
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted December 26, 2010 03:20 AM |
|
|
Think about things so that we can lessen the very kind of unpleasantry you described.
It's not some overly grandiose wish like world peace and the abolishment of human suffering. It's a statement promoting the community's own part in keeping HC a nice and cool environment.
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted December 26, 2010 11:20 AM |
|
|
Binabik, you're corrent overall, but going back to "dark ages" is never a solution imho  We should adapt to possibilities, not shun them aside because they prove to be too... abusive.
However you are totally right. The statement everybody praises is impossible because you won't force certain posters to change attitudes.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted December 26, 2010 12:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps the OSM needs its participants to think about things by themselves. What good would an extra moderator do?
Why is everyone praising this statement?
Because it basically says exactly the same thing as your post, just in only one sentence. 
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted December 26, 2010 07:18 PM |
|
|
@DF: You could start by thinking about your own attitude instead of pointing at others.
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted December 26, 2010 07:28 PM |
|
|
What's wrong with my attitude?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted December 26, 2010 08:24 PM |
|
|
I don't know, but it seems like "it won't force certain posters to change" implies that you don't think that you and others could instead change the way you interact with "certain posters" in order to make things better. It's not surrendering to being bullied or being punished for feeling bad, it's complicated social stuff or something.
Then again, there might be nothing wrong at all with your attitude. There is the possibility that you're just perfect while the rest of us suck and that there's nothing that can change that.
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 26, 2010 09:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Perhaps the OSM needs its participants to think about things by themselves. What good would an extra moderator do?
Another moderator who is active and who will fairly apply the same standards to everyone with consistancy would do a lot of good.
When Mytical stepped up to the plate and handed out penalties for people who insulted anohter community member the Mod Squad reversed his decision and undid all penalties. Quite puzzling if they the moderators want the OSM to be a better place.
Certain people insult others at will becaus they have little reason to believe that any consequences will follow. Allowing posters to just go on without moderation and hope they will do better next time won't work.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted December 27, 2010 01:04 PM |
|
|
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 30, 2010 07:59 PM |
bonus applied by angelito on 01 Jan 2011. |
Edited by Corribus at 03:12, 31 Dec 2010.
|
Doomforge writes:
Quote:
However I agree that Corribus would be best there. Sadly, he doesn't want to.
I'm not sure I ever said that, but it might be true. At least as things stand now.
Let me say a few things about modding, from my perspective and my experience.
I've seen good mods and I've seen bad mods. Good moderation can really make a board a great place. Bad moderation can destroy it, or, at least, catalyze its destruction.
First and foremost, a moderator's job is to moderate a discussion. That might seem obvious, but consider for a second what it does not mean. A moderator is not a policeman, a judge or an executioner. Nor is a moderator a legislator, or, especially, a therapist. A moderator's job has some similarities to these other occupations, and it may be that at times a moderator must enforce rules, adjudicate disputes, mete out punishments and encode regulations, but if we think about the root word of moderator (i.e., to moderate), it is easily understood that the primary reason a moderator exists is to keep discussion civil and on topic.
In an ideal situation, most forum surfers will be well-meaning individuals who come to talk about a generalized subject that interests everyone. Because we are all people who also have a multitude of other shared interests, it is inevitable, in fact desirable, that we would need off-topic forums where users can chew the fat, goof around, and also, if the mood strikes us, discuss serious topics. Indeed, I think the measure of a healthy forum is not the quality of on-topic discussion but the quality of off-topic discussion.
Even in the best of times, people are going to disagree and personalities are going to clash. Or several participants in a thread will start to talk about a peripheral topic at the same time that the primary thread is still being woven. The moderator’s primary job in these circumstances is to reduce the cacophony that results from these kinds of disturbances. To break off thread fragments or temporarily defuse a heated discussion by sequestering the offending voices. This does not necessitate an antagonistic relationship between mods and users. Remember, the job of a moderator is not to be “fair” to everyone or ensure “equal treatment”. It’s to keep discussion clean and enjoyable for the majority of users, whatever the topics are. The mods are there for the benefit of everyone, and if users gets offended when a mod kindly tells them to stay on topic, to tone down the rhetoric, or to go sit in a corner and cool off, then these individuals are forgetting why the mods are there in the first place. Nevertheless, the point is that in a healthy forum, moderators really need be little more than a guiding hand that gently nudges conversations in the right direction, either through careful thread management or by reprimanding people who get too far out of line.
Of course, on occasion certain users become such a disruptive influence that the moderator must become an instrument of punishment, but I submit that if a moderator finds that his role is no longer about moderating but strictly about punishing wrongdoers, then the forum is really no longer healthy and, more to the point, he’s already proven himself to be a failure as a moderator. In his defense, he’s also proven that he probably doesn’t have adequate administrator support and that he was doomed to failure no matter what he did.
In any case, here’s my take on what is required to be a good moderator:
Rule #1: A good poster CAN make a bad mod, and being a good mod requires more than good intentions.
First, not everyone is cut out to be a moderator, and if someone fails at the role, that says nothing about their qualities as a person, their disposition, their intelligence or their desire to succeed. Hell, failure doesn’t even necessarily have much to do with their quality as a moderator, as failure can be precipitated by factors well outside their control.
That said, being a moderator takes a lot of work, commitment, and the willingness to make unpopular decisions. You can’t hope to effectively moderate, particularly a forum like the OSM, simply by being nice and hoping not to offend anyone. Mytical, god love him, is a perfect example of why good intentions are not sufficient to be a good moderator. Mytical may very well be an excellent moderator of other forums at HC, but the OSM requires less equivocation and more decisiveness than other forums.
There’s an old saying that you can’t be a good friend and a good parent to your children at the same time. I’m not sure those two things are completely mutually exclusive, but many people fail at parenting because they are unwilling to risk their child’s resentment by disciplining them. Well, children aren’t the only people who need well-established boundaries. If you’re unwilling to set boundaries for the posters in a forum, and punish people who stray beyond them, then you won’t be successful at being a moderator.
Rule #2: A moderator CAN participate in discussion.
I’ve seen a few people here claim that an OSM moderator should be someone who doesn’t post in the OSM. I disagree. I’ve also seen a lot about a moderator needing to be “unbiased”. Well, I disagree with that as well, to some extent.
We would all do well to realize an important point: This is NOT a democracy. I see nowhere in HC’s charter that everyone is entitled to express their opinion, or that every opinion needs to have equal opportunity for expression. I think a variety of opinions is a nice thing, and it’s admittedly a real draw of this place. But killing HC for the sake of equality seems pointless to my mind.
Let me explain.
Let us say that you have 9 people in a forum that like grape juice and one who does not. I’m a moderator, and I love grape juice. Now we get a thread about grape juice and the one who doesn’t like grape juice starts fighting with all the people who like grape juice. It turns into a real flame-fest. I close the thread, only to see grape-juice fights erupting in other threads involving the same people. I keep telling everyone to be nice but it just gets worse and worse. Soon, the people who don’t give a crap about grape juice, and even those who do but just can’t stand the fact that a few people can’t discuss it civilly, start to leave. Have I succeeded as a moderator?
Now, obviously, I can’t ban everyone in the forum. So what if I just banned the one person who didn’t like grape juice? Harmony prevails. Have I succeeded as a moderator?
You might rightly say that my actions were quite biased and not really fair to freedom of speech. I say: “so what?” Other discussions may now proceed nicely. Haven’t I done my job?
As a caveat I’ll add that if I displayed a consistent bias against all people who didn’t like grape juice - even those who could argue their points calmly and respectfully - eventually I would lose my credibility as a moderator, or people would just start to leave. A good moderator won’t display a systematic bias against individuals holding a certain type of viewpoint. But I see no reason why a good moderator can’t remove a few troublesome individuals because their viewpoints are presented in such a way or frequency as to seriously disrupt the entire forum.
To tie this in with Rule #2’s title, I think it’s unfair to say that a moderator can’t have an opinion on a topic or needs to be a foreigner with no interest in the forum. A good moderator should be able to dissociate his feelings on a subject from the way he moderates the discussion – but on the other hand it’s not required that he treat every viewpoint equally when trying to make the forum a place for civil discussion. He’s a moderator, not a US Congressman. In addition, if a moderator doesn’t have a vested interest in the forum, how can he possibly be expected to moderate it efficiently? Put another way: to be a moderator, one has to WANT the job. If you don’t care about the place, why would you want to govern it?
Rule #3: A moderator MUST have a policy that is clearly stated, is consistent with (ideally, identical to) those of the other moderators in a forum, and consistently implemented.
Everyone needs to know how the moderator is going to moderate. It’s not really fair to punish people for violating rules that are made up on the fly. The moderator needs to tell everyone what his or her philosophy is, what will be tolerated, what will not be tolerated, and where to voice complaints.
Moreover, the policy must be applied consistently. If one user is punished for saying “SNOW”, then every user must be punished for saying “SNOW”. A moderator that doesn’t apply his policy consistently undermines himself. This is not to say there isn’t some discretion involved – this isn’t a court of law, after all. But generally speaking people should know what the boundaries are and should understand that there will be consequences (generally speaking) for straying beyond them.
I know that my emphasis on fairness here will seem to contradict some of what I wrote in part 2. To clarify: I don’t think it’s necessary for a moderator, under some extreme circumstances, to show fair treatment to every opinion or viewpoint. In other words - posting here is a privilege, not a right, and if a moderator feels that your viewpoint is so disruptive to the community, then he should be able to get rid of it even if other viewpoints aren’t treated, on this occasion, with identical harshness.
On a day to day basis, of course, a moderator should remain as fair and consistent as possible. This is best for the health of the community as well for one’s credibility as a moderator.
Rule #4: A moderator MUST be decisive and MUST NOT send mixed messages, but also must be open to criticism.
If a moderator vacillates or equivocates, or seems unwilling to enforce his own policy, people will abuse his policy. If imposing penalties was up for debate, we wouldn’t need moderators to make decisions. This is really just a matter of attitude and confidence. A good moderator should stand by his decisions and be ready to explain, without handwaving, why he makes certain decisions.
That said, he must also be willing to accept criticisms – to a point – of his decisions. Feedback is important, and if people disagree with a policy, they should be able to explain, RATIONALLY, why they disagree. Users who do so, however, should not demand that moderators change their decisions on every occasion. Feedback should shape future policies, not decisions that have already been made unless they are clearly in error.
To that end:
Rule #5: A moderator NEEDS good user support.
Here’s the crux of the matter. The moderator is here for your benefit. He’s supposed to keep threads on topic and get rid of troublemakers. He can’t do that if you’re turning yourself into a roadblock every time he makes a decision. If you don’t like something the moderator does, tell him about it. If he explains why he did it, give him the respect he deserves – assuming he deserves it – and accept his explanation. You’re not going to like every decision he makes and you have the right to tell him about it. But if the moderator changed reversed a decision every time someone complained about it – he would effectively neuter himself, and neutering oneself does not a good moderator make.
Next time you get a chance, I urge you to go to the OSM feedback thread, go back to about page 50, and start reading. What I think you’ll find is that a lot of the problems at the OSM start with users who don’t know how to properly and respectfully lodge a complaint. For that matter, it starts with users who complain too much.
Rule #6: A moderator MUST be a present.
This can’t be overstated. You can’t moderate if you’re not present.
When people complain that a forum has no moderator present, I often hear the usual defense from said invisible moderator: “I may not log in, but I read every post.”
To which I would reply, “That’s great. But there’s still no moderator present.”
Being present doesn’t mean reading every post. It’s great that you read every post, but being an active member is more than reading every post. In fact, I would almost venture to say that I would rather have a moderator who posts in every thread but reads no posts besides his own than a moderator who never posts but reads everything.
Why?
A moderator is an integral part of a community, and to be a part of a community you need to associate with other members of the community.
Analogy: A good police officer is one who walks the beat, stops and talks to people, understands their fears and hopes and concerns and sources of happiness. A good police officer isn’t one who just hides in the shadows and jumps out to nab criminals when crimes occur. A big part of crime prevention is a visible police presence – and that’s not only about showing criminals that the police are there; it’s also about showing the people that the police have a vested interested in the community. It’s a matter of trust and confidence and respect.
Not only does a visible, frequently posting moderator keep people in line by openly discouraging poor behavior, but I just feel a moderator is more effective if he’s a well-respected member of the community. People will trust him to do his job, they’ll treat his decisions with respect, they’ll be confident that they can go to him and complain civilly when they feel he’s made a mistake. Etc., etc.
Finally, the ultimate sign that a person should not be a moderator is when he or she says that he doesn’t have time to log in and read or post messages. Well if you don’t have the time, why are you a moderator?
Rule #7: A moderator NEEDS good admin support.
Look, you can blame this troublemaker or that troublemaker for the state of things, or this mod or that mod, but I’m a firm believer that responsibility lies ultimately at the top of the pyramid. Not only does a strong power structure discourage poor behavior, but a moderator sometimes needs a supervisor to make a final call, or back up a controversial decision, if only to delocalize blame and resentment. That’s why he needs good admin support.
Good admin support is also important to give users an avenue for voicing complaints about an abusive mod or a mod who is no longer around. Yeah, it basically just makes a forum a better place, and while I think we all can point our fingers at a lot of the reasons why the OSM has really sunk into the mud, I bet few of us would point at the complete lack of admin support here at HC, which may (ultimately) be the most important factor of all. HC needs some better admin support, and it needs it badly, not only for the little things but for the big things as well.
<<break>>
Anyway, here’s the thing.
I’ve been a mod before and I’ve seen a lot of mods in action. Being a mod is a lot harder than it sounds and unfortunately success isn’t completely in your control.
The OSM is in such bad shape right now that it’d be a hard road for any mod to get pointed in the right direction. For one thing, the OSM needs an infusion of new blood. For another, the OSM needs at least one new active mod. For a third, we need an administrator that is active.
The thing is that I do care about HC, yet I hate what it’s become. Would I want to mod this place? I really don’t know – I don’t think it’d be particularly fun, at least not in the beginning, and I’m not sure I could succeed. I don’t know that anyone could, at least not without proper admin support. Would I mod this place? I’d absolutely try if I was called upon, because I would love it if the OSM wasn’t the laughing stock of HC. Right now it’s just an item of derision, ironic really because looking back over old posts and old threads, it’s got some of the greatest, most insightful discussion I’ve ever seen on an internet fan site, ever.
Here's how I think a moderation policy should be formulated:
(1) I’d be fairly open to salty language and bickering. There’s a clear difference between barbs, taunts and even insults on the one hand and outright hostility, threats and abusive language on the other. I’d probably let a lot slide before I issued warnings, but once warnings were ignored there’d be hell to pay.
(2) Threads would need to stay generally on topic, and I’d do my best to keep them that way. In cases where tangents were being discussed at length and interrupting the main thread, I’d encourage people to start new threads (or start them myself), but I think people here are pretty good about that anyway.
(3) I’d be present every day that I could be. If I found my time (or interest) dwindling, I’d voluntarily retire.
(4) I’d have an open door for complaints and feedback. However, after consideration of requests for re-evaluation, decisions would be final. I would kindly ask that further complaints on the matter be kept to HCM.
(5) I would issue more QPs to deserving posts and would encourage recommendations.
(6) I would push hard for a unified moderation policy.
(7) I would set out guidelines for good posting etiquette and sticky them. These would not be rules but I would do my best to get people to adhere to them.
(8) Consistently troublesome users would be banned. No second chances. And “troublesome” would not be restricted to overt violations of the code of conduct.
Ah, well. It’s sort of a moot point, though, because without admin support there will be no new mods and this place will just continue sinking down into the rectum of the internet.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted December 30, 2010 08:49 PM |
|
|
I think it would be interesting (if impractical) to rotate new people into mod positions every couple of months or so. Perhaps it would give those individuals a new perspective and insight on how to make the forums a better place.
As mentioned, it is not a very practical idea and I'm sure within a week it would be abused, but it still could be an interesting experiment.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted December 30, 2010 09:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Here's how I think a moderation policy should be formulated:
(1) I’d be fairly open to salty language and bickering. There’s a clear difference between barbs, taunts and even insults on the one hand and outright hostility, threats and abusive language on the other. I’d probably let a lot slide before I issued warnings, but once warnings were ignored there’d be hell to pay.
(2) Threads would need to stay generally on topic, and I’d do my best to keep them that way. In cases where tangents were being discussed at length and interrupting the main thread, I’d encourage people to start new threads (or start them myself), but I think people here are pretty good about that anyway.
(3) I’d be present every day that I could be. If I found my time (or interest) dwindling, I’d voluntarily retire.
(4) I’d have an open door for complaints and feedback. However, after consideration of requests for re-evaluation, decisions would be final. I would kindly ask that further complaints on the matter be kept to HCM.
(5) I would issue more QPs to deserving posts and would encourage recommendations.
(6) I would push hard for a unified moderation policy.
(7) I would set out guidelines for good posting etiquette and sticky them. These would not be rules but I would do my best to get people to adhere to them.
(8) Consistently troublesome users would be banned. No second chances. And “troublesome” would not be restricted to overt violations of the code of conduct.
Ah, well. It’s sort of a moot point, though, because without admin support there will be no new mods and this place will just continue sinking down into the rectum of the internet.
Obviously, everybody can support these point on a general level. Problem is that in recent years, posting in some fora, particularly OSM, has grown rather explosively. I don't know how many posts are made each day - 50? 100? And some of them very long, some of them containing many (many!) quotes, etc.
It requires a lot of time to go thoroughly through all that. An unreasonable amount of time, I would even dare to say. I, for one, understand that the OSM team have been hard pressed to manage everything, everyday, day after day. And I don't even read OSM, so I honestly can't judge the job they do there (nor have I any intention of doing it). But I think people could do well in considering the amount of job necessary in moderating a place like OSM, and help however they can (which is not so much in telling other members how to act but by pointing mods to things that need fixing).
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 30, 2010 09:38 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 21:40, 30 Dec 2010.
|
@Alci
Quote:
I, for one, understand that the OSM team have been hard pressed to manage everything, everyday, day after day. And I don't even read OSM, so I honestly can't judge the job they do there (nor have I any intention of doing it). But I think people could do well in considering the amount of job necessary in moderating a place like OSM, and help however they can (which is not so much in telling other members how to act but by pointing mods to things that need fixing).
Agreed. Which is why good moderating depends, as I said, on user support. HC members should practice good self-government and be stewards of this place.
But with all due respect, the OSM moderating "team" consists of Shadowcaster, who hasn't been around in... well, forever; Angelito, who rarely posts outside of the feedback thread; and Mytical, who makes it clear with every word he writes that he has no desire for the job at all.
I don't think the number of posts at the OSM is even close to outrageous to manage for a team of two dedicated, active people. Particularly if Some Posters were to start behaving or disappear completely.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 31, 2010 11:31 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 23:36, 31 Dec 2010.
|
@Corribus
While I agree with much of what you have written I disagree that a moderator should not necessarily moderate in an unbiased manner. I agree that the moderator should be free to express his opinions on issues when he is posting in a thread but when it comes to the moderation of the thread he should moderate in an unbiased manner, enforcing the rules, not using the moderator gavel to advance or hinder a viewpoint.
Quote:
I’ve seen a few people here claim that an OSM moderator should be someone who doesn’t post in the OSM. I disagree. I’ve also seen a lot about a moderator needing to be “unbiased”. Well, I disagree with that as well, to some extent.
We would all do well to realize an important point: This is NOT a democracy. I see nowhere in HC’s charter that everyone is entitled to express their opinion, or that every opinion needs to have equal opportunity for expression. I think a variety of opinions is a nice thing, and it’s admittedly a real draw of this place. But killing HC for the sake of equality seems pointless to my mind.
So let's consider a real world topic instead of grape juice.
If a theist and 8 people who are opposed to theism are engaged in a discussion and the anti-theists can't stand for the theist to express his viewpoints in the thread then the theist is the one disrupting the thread instead of the people who are intolerant of theism?
In my opinion the people breaking the COC by flaming others are the disrupters, not the person who does not express the majority viewpoint of the people engaged in the thread.
Rather than have the OSM favor atheists or Christians or Muslims or Democrats or Republicans or America or Germany the OSM should be a place where people can engage in civilized discussions and not be thrown out of the forum because the majority of the forum participants are atheists who can't tolerate theism or Americans who can't tolerate Germans [merely examples.]
Otherwise the OSM would be a farce for pretending to be an open forum of real world discussion and would merely be a propaganda machine for whatever the "majority viewpoint" (as determined by the moderator) is.
All members of the Heroes Community should be welcome to present their viewpoints in the OSM, not just atheists or Christians or Germans or whatever. The only disruptive posters are those who break the COC, not the community members who are expressing an "unpopular" (as determined by the moderator) viewpoint.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted January 01, 2011 02:05 AM |
|
|
@Elodin: I think Corribus did say that the ones on the watch list are the troublemakers and ruffians. He is saying that it's not in the troublemaker's defence that he is of a minority opinion. Though I can't really speak for him.
_______
Greatly inspired by Corribus' great post that totally should be quality awarded, I support his cause and have found completely new levels of respect for moderation.
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted January 01, 2011 04:02 AM |
|
|
|
The hell with OSM Corribus. Hang out in the tavern for awhile. Bedlam's always more fun anyway.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted January 10, 2011 01:20 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 13:26, 10 Jan 2011.
|
Rule #1:
I can not agree more with this. I will say, however, that certain people seem to be given special treatment or preferences..which is wrong regardless how you cut it. All I will say about that.
Rule #2: While yes a Moderator can and will have an opinion on a subject, the really good Moderator must set aside their opinion on something when in 'Moderator Mode'. Penalizing/Silencing everybody who disagrees with you sounds good .. on paper. Not so much in reality.
Rule #3 - #7. While I don't agree with everything, for the most part..well said.
The next part was also very well said.
Here's how I think a moderation policy should be formulated: I will only comment on a few here.
(3) Some are here at least 5 nights a week...
(4) That is what the feedback WAS for...
Now a few personal notes.
One thing you are mistaken about is the fact that I am no longer interested in Moderating the OSM. There are things I can't say, or rather WONT say because I respect the people it would be about. A lot of things you covered here have somewhat to do about it.
Am I frustrated? Yes.
It's easy to sit on the other side of this and judge. Which I freely admit is my own fault. I am too nice, started out too willing to debate and hear others viewpoints. Now it is too late. Dang if I do, and dang if I don't.
____________
Message received.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted January 10, 2011 02:05 PM |
|
|
After reading this thread, it makes me wonder why anyone wants to be a mod. Doesn't seem worth the hassle.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
