Author: KarinsDad
Date: 14:19:29 05/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 1999 at 17:08:15, Dann Corbit wrote: >On May 07, 1999 at 16:30:08, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On May 07, 1999 at 15:49:55, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>Shamelessly purloined from one of Bruce's messages: >>> >>>"There is no need for more process baggage to be dumped on the moderators. It >>>is enough to remind them that: >>> >>>1) They should behave with some sensitivity toward those who elected them. >>>2) Actions such as post deletion be accompanied by appropriate email. >>>3) They should attempt to achieve some concensus within their own group." >>> >>>I would like to add that if some tools could be built to assist them, it would >>>make their horrible, thankless job much easier. For instance, to delete a >>>message, a form would open. It would contain the text of the message with the >>>email address of the offender and the other CCC moderators. There would be a >>>standard list of checkboxes as to why the message was bounced >>>(profanity/personal attack/whatever) and, if none of those applied a typing area >>>labelled "other". >>> >>>Then the other moderators and the person getting the boot would all know what is >>>going on, and the post would not be dropped until at least two out of three >>>agreed to do so (my opinion). >>> >>>Other ideas? >> >>Yeah, I liked mine (posted earlier). Same advantages. No automation needed. No >>"stuffing of the ballot box" type of things due to some people have 50 accounts. >>Way less of a hassle. JMO. >I think the ENOUGH idea is not going to work. It really just means that >everyone is a moderator. And what happens if 3 people say "ENOUGH" but the >moderators disagree. Sounds like it will generate lots of discord. IMO-YMMV. >Further, suppose that something really rotten gets posted. Should the >moderators wait for someone to holler "ENOUGH"? >What if someone puts "ENOUGH" in the subject line and that really is the >subject. > >What you are proposing is thousands of moderators, each of which has exactly >zero authority. > >Alterting the moderators is already easy using the moderator notice form. Actually, I did not propose that anyone else should post ENOUGH!!!, just the moderators. And it could be a special post that really doesn't correspond to a subject line (although not making it the subject line would require a technical solution). My solution would still use the standard "notify the moderators" Email by members, however, my solution could be abused too (ENOUGH!!! from KarinsDad). I think most people could be persuaded to not post ENOUGH!!! as a subject, however, you are right, there is still the chance for abuse, so there is no really good solutions yet. Voting for bad posts, although, is worse (IMO). It effectively gives you thousands of moderators, etc. etc. etc. It requires an automation change. It has the same problem as when something really rotten gets posted as the Enough solution (i.e. the really rotten thing sticks around). And it takes a long time to vote (just look at the opinion polls). So, all in all, we are in the same situation. Our current moderation (which I for one think works fine) is where we are at. KarinsDad :)
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.