29 Sep 06
Originally posted by catfoodtimdid phlabs tell you to post this ?
I think the site has outgrown the current roles of voluntary moderators.
The site needs either more moderators, with specific tasks, responsibilties and instructions as what posts to remove and how to work consistently, or a permanent moderator who can maximise the time spent enforcing the Terms of Service.
There also needs to be more accountabili ...[text shortened]... rity and it shows that the forums need to be looked at seriously, and moved to the next stage.
01 Nov 06
2 edits
Originally posted by catfoodtimI think you are right about more moderators needed etc.
I think the current state of the forums is a symptom of the site's popularity and it shows that the forums need to be looked at seriously, and moved to the next stage.
What do you mean by "the current state of the forums"?
Do you [like me] think the site is becoming less popular because of the rubbish in the forums?
[obviously I don't have all the statistics so I couldn't know for certain]
01 Nov 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveI think Debate is a HUGE black mark on RHP.
I think you are right about more moderators needed etc.
What do you mean by "the current state of the forums"?
Do you [like me] think the site is becoming less popular because of the rubbish in the forums?
[obviously I don't have all the statistics so I couldn't know for certain]
The problem is some users put racist trash out and it upsets one group of users, another group treats it like an interesting topic and debates against it, and yet another group takes the whole thing as a way for them to say more racist crap.
I as a moderator only go near Help, Site Ideas, Chess, and General. Posers once in a bit, and Spirits sometimes also. Once in a while I will go and take something really bad from debates, but for the most part when I mod I want to clean it all or nothing. Debates has gotten way past what I can do to clean it up. Removing one thing is hard when there is so much... and as bad as a topic might be there is always a good user there to debate the topic in a logical fashion.
P-
01 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by PhlabibitBy its very nature the Debates Forum is going to bring out heated, 'objectionable' crap that riles up people and offends. The Spirituality Forum sometimes does, as well.
I think Debate is a HUGE black mark on RHP.
The problem is some users put racist trash out and it upsets one group of users, another group treats it like an interesting topic and debates against it, and yet another group takes the whole thing as a way for them to say more racist crap.
I as a moderator only go near Help, Site Ideas, Chess, and Gener ...[text shortened]... topic might be there is always a good user there to debate the topic in a logical fashion.
P-
I think removing one or both, however, would be - in your words - a HUGE black mark against RHP. The forums would be reduced to a colorless, insipid little caricature of what they are now - a thriving, informative, humorous, and yes, at times, angry little place where people meet.
Whether it was Russ' intention or not when he started this site, the Forums have grown to be an integral, and to some people, the most important part of this site.
Besides, I have no idea what the stats would show, but I imagine a large number of the people who come to RHP never even go into the forums.
Maybe the little note below the 'Post' button now referring to 'no flaming, spamming ... posts may be subject to moderation' could be moved to the top of a new post and made a little more visible?
Other than that, I don't know - a couple more people with the power to moderate.
I think having a different name for the moderator (as opposed to the mods now using the name they play and post under) - and having Russ add those names to an official 'mod list' would be good.
I also think that rather than removing posts/threads, locking them with a last post reason from a moderator would be good - let everyone see who/what caused a thread to be locked.
02 Nov 06
Originally posted by treetalkI think that is a much better idea than deleting threads entirely. It is aggravating when you are engaging other people when suddenly the thread disappears.
I also think that rather than removing posts/threads, locking them with a last post reason from a moderator would be good - let everyone see who/what caused a thread to be locked.
02 Nov 06
Originally posted by DraxusI'm sorry, but I don't agree. Things are removed because they don't belong at RHP. Most often, I feel the user knows and is just 'going for it' with hopes it gets past moderation at RHP.
I think that is a much better idea than deleting threads entirely. It is aggravating when you are engaging other people when suddenly the thread disappears.
When things go over the line at RHP, they are removed. There is no area where you have things that 'shouldn't be' at RHP but stay on RHP.
P-
06 Nov 06
Originally posted by royalchickenWhen you wake up in the morning does your bed get out of you?
The state of the forums is such that while I was a primary agitator against the mods in the first Forum Drama two years ago, I would be squarely on their side in any that ensues in the future, and I agree with the side I have taken/would take in each case.
06 Nov 06
Originally posted by royalchickenAs the laws of motion tell us that you cannot reach two different positions on a line without being in every point in between at some point in time as what time were you neither in favour nor opposed to the mods?
The state of the forums is such that while I was a primary agitator against the mods in the first Forum Drama two years ago, I would be squarely on their side in any that ensues in the future, and I agree with the side I have taken/would take in each case.
At this point in time you would be neither a mod nor a rocker and therefore must fall into a different category thereby showing that mod != ~rocker.
And furthermore, as this third case exists and you are the first documented member of said case, what do you want your name to be?
06 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZContinuity of the sort of transformations which model motion is a feature of the model, not of the motion itself. Besides, motion itself is a bad analogy for a changing opinion in altered circumstances. An electrical engineer should be able to name numerous better analogies from xyr own field.
As the laws of motion tell us that you cannot reach two different positions on a line without being in every point in between at some point in time as what time were you neither in favour nor opposed to the mods?
At this point in time you would be neither a mod nor a rocker and therefore must fall into a different category thereby showing that mod != ~ro ...[text shortened]... e exists and you are the first documented member of said case, what do you want your name to be?
The second part is true, but it does not follow from the first part at all. Although I am neither mod nor rocker (which proves the second part), it's not your silly motion analogy which shows this. Instead, much more simply, I am not on the mod team and do not currently rock.
Thirdly, I'd like to be called Hrothgar the Rocker, He Who Mods, in a typical gesture of dramatic irony for which the Hrothgaro-Lapps are famous, as was most evident during the ironic failure to reach Warsaw during the invasion of Poland.
NOSTALGIC EDIT: This takes me back to the days of false analogies.