dubi said:johnrth said:
I'm still waiting/hoping for one of the ex great posters to pop into this thread and just be like
That's a good place to end the night
dubi said:johnrth said:
I'm still waiting/hoping for one of the ex great posters to pop into this thread and just be like
dubi said:johnrth said:
I'm still waiting/hoping for one of the ex great posters to pop into this thread and just be like
3- yes. I don't think more moderation is needed. You can ignore posters you don't like - literally now.WatchOle said:
3. I'm open to ideas about how to move OB to a better place. Reading through this thread it seems that it isn't all about moderating less. In fact, there seems to be a decent amount of sentiment that cuts against the idea of moderating less in favor of moderating more the posts that one doesn't like (snowflakes, Charpie, etc.). Am I misreading that?
zooguy96 said:
The ignore function has solved a lot of problems involving moderation. If I don't want to see what somebody has typed, then I don't have to see it.
Yes, but if you do, they can always ignore you, so it really solves lots of problems.Naveronski said:zooguy96 said:
The ignore function has solved a lot of problems involving moderation. If I don't want to see what somebody has typed, then I don't have to see it.
This, exactly.
Though there is the temptation to let everyone know why they're wrong.
WatchOle said:
OB,
I wanted to come back around with my on summary:
2. Moderators with remain anonymous for the reasons I indicated above. Moderators are accountable to me, I am accountable to you. That's why I'm here before you now.
WatchOle said:
It would be interesting to list the top ignored posters. Why should we make ignore free?
Which one of her socks is?WatchOle said:
OB,
I wanted to come back around with my on summary:
1. We will be more transparent regarding the reasons for the removal of topics and posts. We've already decided how we'd like to do that and will start that immediately. I think this will help.
2. Moderators with remain anonymous for the reasons I indicated above. Moderators are accountable to me, I am accountable to you. That's why I'm here before you now.
3. I'm open to ideas about how to move OB to a better place. Reading through this thread it seems that it isn't all about moderating less. In fact, there seems to be a decent amount of sentiment that cuts against the idea of moderating less in favor of moderating more the posts that one doesn't like (snowflakes, Charpie, etc.). Am I misreading that?
4. No, Charpie is not a moderator.
Is that a serious question? When would deleting forum friendly boobs ever be considered "working?"WatchOle said:
Thanks IceCream. So in the Astros example, is that moderation working or not working?
Is it a bad thing for moderators to be susceptible to influence? Doesn't that make your job easier and allow them to adapt to the various boards as they evolve? Influence or accountability has many benefits as well.WatchOle said:
We've had mods that were outed in the past. I found that when out they were more susceptible to influence by parts of the community.
WatchOle said:
How does that make my points about anonymous moderators faulty?
WatchOle said:
Three main reasons:
1. I want moderators to be able to participate on the forums as normal posters without the social burden of being a moderator.
2. I want moderators to moderate based on policy and not based community pressure.
3. I want moderators to be free on real world retribution by disgruntled community members.
WatchOle said:
I don't think number 3 is a reality. One has to run a pretty tight ship to stay completely anonymous online.