31 Jan 09
Originally posted by CrowleyRuss? Or possibly a board of volunteers that we vote on. With "re-elections" every year or so?
This is fine, I could get behind this type of idea.
BUT
Firstly, who will be this 'arbiter'?
Secondly, I would want every user to have a very limited amount of appeals - something like recs. Say 2 per month.
If a the appeal is declined, then 1 appeal 'ticket' is used and if the appeal is upheld, then no 'ticket' is used.
I like your second idea but I would say more than 2 a month.
31 Jan 09
everything is too complicated. this is not a democracy. this is a business. mods should just do what russ tells them to do. russ in turn should do what i want him to do. get mods who will make the forums useable by jane austin or elizabeth gaskell. this is the standard. no appeals. no discussion. play and or pay and play or move on to some other site. this is life in reinfelds town ( where russ will soon be lodging when he sees that i am right ). cranford village still knows manners.
31 Jan 09
Originally posted by Frank BurnsI don't think Russ would want to pay for a service he can get for free.
I've thought that the mods should be hired employees who are not in any other way affiliated with RHP. They can't be subscribers or members of any nature other than employees. They should be anonymous to the RHP community and devoid of any relationship with the owners of the site or the members of the site. Perhaps this would allow better consistency d ...[text shortened]... get notified by this staff that they need to get back in line with RHP's membership policies.
01 Feb 09
Originally posted by CrowleyWould that above comment carry any opinion at all? or Bias?
[b]This is the problem with the likes of you.
You need to answer that Crowley, in your own mind - not to me.
What MissO has raised here is the opportunity for moderators, including yourself, not to be shot at too! If they are unknown then there is no opinion or bias towards them.
I've picked you up here because your comment about Frank is loaded. As you being a moderator, I expect you to rise above comments like that. If you were unknown to me as a moderator then it is unlikely I would have picked you up on it. I would have just thought you were normal PFC scum and ignored it. However, you have responsibility to be fair minded as a mod, and not pre-empted in your decision making about certain people. I think you fail miserably in that last qualification.
See any significant difference in being an unknown moderator now?
And, to ask you further, if your function as a mod were unknown would you volunteer the same time?
01 Feb 09
Originally posted by mikelomCan you provide an example that shows a moderator's (preferably one from the PFC) biased opinion in the public forums affecting a moderating decision?
Would that above comment carry any opinion at all? or Bias?
You need to answer that Crowley, in your own mind - not to me.
What MissO has raised here is the opportunity for moderators, including yourself, not to be shot at too! If they are unknown then there is no opinion or bias towards them.
I've picked you up here because your comment about Fran ...[text shortened]... , to ask you further, if your function as a mod were unknown would you volunteer the same time?
01 Feb 09
Originally posted by Daemon SinIf I had the evidence after the event has happened then it wouldn't have taken place would it!
Can you provide an example that shows a moderator's (preferably one from the PFC) biased opinion in the public forums affecting a moderating decision?
That doesn't really run in parallel with the point I was making though.
01 Feb 09
Originally posted by Raven69Russ barely has the time now.
Russ? Or possibly a board of volunteers that we vote on. With "re-elections" every year or so?
I like your second idea but I would say more than 2 a month.
Volunteers voted in by some kind of popularity contest? I don't know about that.
It's better than nothing, I suppose.
If it will appease all the idiots who cry mod bias every single time one of their friends get a deserved forum ban or one of their posts gets removed - I'm all for it.
I would actually just give one ticket. This means people will think really hard if the post was worth it.
02 Feb 09
Originally posted by CrowleyIt is not the fact that you posted, it is what you posted. Things like "...who cares what they and their crackpot ringleader thinks anyway?" is not what one typically calls "Civilised Discussion on Moderation."
Since I'm addressed in the thread title, I don't think me posting in here can really constitute a hijack.