|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 30, 2014 10:20:54 GMT -5
I can't imagine what it takes to moderate. I guess it means the moderator reads every post?
I don't think that's necessary, unless the moderator simply wants to.
Maybe we could "police" each other? If somebody has a problem they can PM the moderator and just say, hey, look at this.
I think maybe we don't "police" ourselves because we can leave it up to a moderator?
Maybe a part-time co-moderator of a different "philosophical" persuasion, that the moderator can go to with a decision and just say, what do you think?, when action becomes necessary.
I think Quinn and Andrew have made some valid points which Laughter is not seeing, for whatever reason. Also figgles, who quoted the un-moderated section rules.
I don't know how some objective standard might be set up.........not a standard, but a means of evaluation...maybe instead of a warning, one day banning. A day off would give a day to cool off........a chance to not-react instead of a month banning warning (which neither silver nor Tzu could get in line with, IOW one day off instead, might have meant not one month off?)........2nd violation gets five days off, 3rd violation gets ten days off (accumulative). 4th gets a month off.
I just thought we could use a place for helpful suggestions....seriously.....other helpful suggestions welcomed.
I post some on Beliefnet, less these days. One person, an atheist, killed the mysticism forum. Just....one....person. ........and he hangs around to make sure it stays dead. So I understand the need for some control.
..............or not..........
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 30, 2014 10:59:37 GMT -5
Just face it, temp bans don't work. And making mod decisions open for discussions doesn't work either, it makes the mod look like a clown instead of an authority and gives too much focus on forum politics instead on actual discussion. What worked was the ZD approach, laissez faire moderation, no temp bans and no discussion of mod decisions. A mod has to be an authority that peeps respect. I don't see any respect towards laughter happening here anymore.
Re standards, you did notice that Tzu already had a 2 day ban, a 4 day ban, a one week ban and nothing worked? There even was a gentlemen's agreement which didn't work either. How much more pampering do you want? When Peter always moderated in Silver's favor you and whole bunch of others somehow didn't mind. Why is that?
|
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Nov 30, 2014 11:05:13 GMT -5
Just curious, SDP...how did the atheist kill the mysticism forum?
I like your first suggestion, btw. About just notifying the mod if we have a problem with a post. And only in the GSD area, I would think. UM mean un-moderated - enter at your own risk. It would take a big load off of Laughter.
I would also think that anyone reporting posts repeatedly should also be subject to some time off.
Lots of room for abuse so, yeah, policing ourselves is important.
|
|
|
|
Post by silence on Nov 30, 2014 11:21:26 GMT -5
My suggestion is exactly the same to Laughter as it was a while back. That is, to take a break from the forum. In the Tzu cause, it's clear to me that Tzu has just been here largely dragging around some grudge with typically no openness for discussion. It's also clear to me that Laughter has a massive forum addiction. Being the moderator is like being a bartender for an alcoholic.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 30, 2014 11:45:54 GMT -5
My suggestion is exactly the same to Laughter as it was a while back. That is, to take a break from the forum. In the Tzu cause, it's clear to me that Tzu has just been here largely dragging around some grudge with typically no openness for discussion. It's also clear to me that Laughter has a massive forum addiction. Being the moderator is like being a bartender for an alcoholic. Thanks Si, I appreciate the advice. No joke man. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 30, 2014 20:41:03 GMT -5
My suggestion is exactly the same to Laughter as it was a while back. That is, to take a break from the forum. In the Tzu cause, it's clear to me that Tzu has just been here largely dragging around some grudge with typically no openness for discussion. It's also clear to me that Laughter has a massive forum addiction. Being the moderator is like being a bartender for an alcoholic. Thanks Si, I appreciate the advice. No joke man. Usually when advice is genuinely appreciated, it is acted upon. Does this mean you're up for taking a break from the forum as Silence suggests? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 30, 2014 21:19:29 GMT -5
My suggestion is exactly the same to Laughter as it was a while back. That is, to take a break from the forum. In the Tzu cause, it's clear to me that Tzu has just been here largely dragging around some grudge with typically no openness for discussion. It's also clear to me that Laughter has a massive forum addiction. Being the moderator is like being a bartender for an alcoholic.Perfect description.  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 30, 2014 21:28:35 GMT -5
I can't imagine what it takes to moderate. I guess it means the moderator reads every post? I don't think that's necessary, unless the moderator simply wants to. Maybe we could "police" each other? If somebody has a problem they can PM the moderator and just say, hey, look at this. I think maybe we don't "police" ourselves because we can leave it up to a moderator? Maybe a part-time co-moderator of a different "philosophical" persuasion, that the moderator can go to with a decision and just say, what do you think?, when action becomes necessary. I think Quinn and Andrew have made some valid points which Laughter is not seeing, for whatever reason. Also figgles, who quoted the un-moderated section rules. I don't know how some objective standard might be set up.........not a standard, but a means of evaluation...maybe instead of a warning, one day banning. A day off would give a day to cool off........a chance to not-react instead of a month banning warning (which neither silver nor Tzu could get in line with, IOW one day off instead, might have meant not one month off?)........2nd violation gets five days off, 3rd violation gets ten days off (accumulative). 4th gets a month off. I just thought we could use a place for helpful suggestions....seriously.....other helpful suggestions welcomed. I post some on Beliefnet, less these days. One person, an atheist, killed the mysticism forum. Just.... one....person. ........and he hangs around to make sure it stays dead. So I understand the need for some control. ..............or not.......... Lots of good suggestions there SDP. A co-moderator of a different philosophical persuasion, or even a less staunchly held to persuasion would indeed be a very good thing imo...it would help balance things out in terms of bias. I'd also like to make a request that anyone here who would be up for the mod position, either in adjunct to Laffy, or to replace him, make that willingness known. That way, if Shawn were to agree that changes are to happen, there'd already be options in place for a new or additional mod. As I recall, when I created the poll a ways back to see how others felt about Laffy stepping down, several expressed to me that they preferred having Laffy as a mod over no mod at all. ..and they suspected that if he were to step down, there'd be no one to fill the position. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 30, 2014 21:30:55 GMT -5
Just curious, SDP...how did the atheist kill the mysticism forum? I like your first suggestion, btw. About just notifying the mod if we have a problem with a post. And only in the GSD area, I would think. UM mean un-moderated - enter at your own risk. It would take a big load off of Laughter. I would also think that anyone reporting posts repeatedly should also be subject to some time off. Lots of room for abuse so, yeah, policing ourselves is important. There were 10-12 regular posters there and many who dropped in from time to time. He just posted from an atheist-materialist standpoint and blasted everyone with his, that's just fantasy, imaginary baloney. I'm sure everybody just stopped posting because of him. ...........I actually went there after I was here. Then, there was only spiritual friends locator here.....and some of us kept trying to forum......and Shawn chased us off saying we couldn't forum....this is only a spiritual friends locator message board . Somebody said: Hey, I know where we can go, and that was Beliefnet  . We also had a good Religion & Science forum where the theists and atheists duked it out, but it slowed down......I don't get over there much these days. There were some very sharp minds over there....... |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 30, 2014 21:45:10 GMT -5
I can't imagine what it takes to moderate. I guess it means the moderator reads every post? I don't think that's necessary, unless the moderator simply wants to. Maybe we could "police" each other? If somebody has a problem they can PM the moderator and just say, hey, look at this. I think maybe we don't "police" ourselves because we can leave it up to a moderator? Maybe a part-time co-moderator of a different "philosophical" persuasion, that the moderator can go to with a decision and just say, what do you think?, when action becomes necessary. I think Quinn and Andrew have made some valid points which Laughter is not seeing, for whatever reason. Also figgles, who quoted the un-moderated section rules. I don't know how some objective standard might be set up.........not a standard, but a means of evaluation...maybe instead of a warning, one day banning. A day off would give a day to cool off........a chance to not-react instead of a month banning warning (which neither silver nor Tzu could get in line with, IOW one day off instead, might have meant not one month off?)........2nd violation gets five days off, 3rd violation gets ten days off (accumulative). 4th gets a month off. I just thought we could use a place for helpful suggestions....seriously.....other helpful suggestions welcomed. I post some on Beliefnet, less these days. One person, an atheist, killed the mysticism forum. Just.... one....person. ........and he hangs around to make sure it stays dead. So I understand the need for some control. ..............or not.......... Lots of good suggestions there SDP. A co-moderator of a different philosophical persuasion, or even a less staunchly held to persuasion would indeed be a very good thing imo...it would help balance things out in terms of bias. I'd also like to make a request that anyone here who would be up for the mod position, either in adjunct to Laffy, or to replace him, make that willingness known. That way, if Shawn were to agree that changes are to happen, there'd already be options in place for a new or additional mod. As I recall, when I created the poll a ways back to see how others felt about Laffy stepping down, several expressed to me that they preferred having Laffy as a mod over no mod at all. ..and they suspected that if he were to step down, there'd be no one to fill the position. I was just sort of brainstorming..... I think Andrew mentioned the former one-on-one thread once upon a time. .........I think a limited number of posters for a specific thread subject might be good....... I like Laughter's strict stick to the topic of the thread approach also. But I don't understand why he told Andrew he couldn't start a thread on the topic he wanted to discuss. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Nov 30, 2014 21:57:18 GMT -5
I like Laughter's strict stick to the topic of the thread approach also. Not me. Free-floating-topics threads took a little getting used to, but now I like it. Course I'd live with it the strict way if that was the decision - it's not a biggie. Might take a couple of bannings before I remembered to stay on topic, though  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 30, 2014 22:15:41 GMT -5
Lots of good suggestions there SDP. A co-moderator of a different philosophical persuasion, or even a less staunchly held to persuasion would indeed be a very good thing imo...it would help balance things out in terms of bias. I'd also like to make a request that anyone here who would be up for the mod position, either in adjunct to Laffy, or to replace him, make that willingness known. That way, if Shawn were to agree that changes are to happen, there'd already be options in place for a new or additional mod. As I recall, when I created the poll a ways back to see how others felt about Laffy stepping down, several expressed to me that they preferred having Laffy as a mod over no mod at all. ..and they suspected that if he were to step down, there'd be no one to fill the position. I was just sort of brainstorming..... I think Andrew mentioned the former one-on-one thread once upon a time. .........I think a limited number of posters for a specific thread subject might be good....... I like Laughter's strict stick to the topic of the thread approach also. But I don't understand why he told Andrew he couldn't start a thread on the topic he wanted to discuss. Yes, In particular I like the idea of being able to designate a conversation as one on one....I can't count how many times I've started out having a good, direct conversation with one member, only to have a bunch of other like-minded folks jump in with mockery and derision, thereby derailing the conversation in process. & yeah, I get Laffy asking folks to stick to the topic, but don't understand either why he wouldn't allow Andrew to start another thread.....kinda looked like a power move just for the sake of proving he had the power...? ...I dunno. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 30, 2014 22:28:44 GMT -5
Just face it, temp bans don't work. And making mod decisions open for discussions doesn't work either, it makes the mod look like a clown instead of an authority and gives too much focus on forum politics instead on actual discussion. What worked was the ZD approach, laissez faire moderation, no temp bans and no discussion of mod decisions. A mod has to be an authority that peeps respect. I don't see any respect towards laughter happening here anymore. Re standards, you did notice that Tzu already had a 2 day ban, a 4 day ban, a one week ban and nothing worked? There even was a gentlemen's agreement which didn't work either. How much more pampering do you want? When Peter always moderated in Silver's favor you and whole bunch of others somehow didn't mind. Why is that? I think it all depends upon what you think a 'working', healthy, thriving forum looks like. I suspect you and I have very different ideas about that. Care to share your version of a healthy forum...? I'm guessing it would have little in the way of divergent opinion..? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 30, 2014 22:35:22 GMT -5
I can't imagine what it takes to moderate. I guess it means the moderator reads every post? I don't think that's necessary, unless the moderator simply wants to. Maybe we could "police" each other? If somebody has a problem they can PM the moderator and just say, hey, look at this. I think maybe we don't "police" ourselves because we can leave it up to a moderator? Maybe a part-time co-moderator of a different "philosophical" persuasion, that the moderator can go to with a decision and just say, what do you think?, when action becomes necessary. I think Quinn and Andrew have made some valid points which Laughter is not seeing, for whatever reason. Also figgles, who quoted the un-moderated section rules. I don't know how some objective standard might be set up.........not a standard, but a means of evaluation...maybe instead of a warning, one day banning. A day off would give a day to cool off........a chance to not-react instead of a month banning warning (which neither silver nor Tzu could get in line with, IOW one day off instead, might have meant not one month off?)........2nd violation gets five days off, 3rd violation gets ten days off (accumulative). 4th gets a month off. I just thought we could use a place for helpful suggestions....seriously.....other helpful suggestions welcomed. I post some on Beliefnet, less these days. One person, an atheist, killed the mysticism forum. Just.... one....person. ........and he hangs around to make sure it stays dead. So I understand the need for some control. ..............or not.......... Lots of good suggestions there SDP. A co-moderator of a different philosophical persuasion, or even a less staunchly held to persuasion would indeed be a very good thing imo...it would help balance things out in terms of bias. I'd also like to make a request that anyone here who would be up for the mod position, either in adjunct to Laffy, or to replace him, make that willingness known. That way, if Shawn were to agree that changes are to happen, there'd already be options in place for a new or additional mod. As I recall, when I created the poll a ways back to see how others felt about Laffy stepping down, several expressed to me that they preferred having Laffy as a mod over no mod at all. ..and they suspected that if he were to step down, there'd be no one to fill the position. Aren't you a little too pushy again? Let's face it, the driving force that was behind the poll designed to get rid of Laffy as mod earlier this year was you (backed by Andy) and the driving force that is behind this call for getting rid of Laffy as mod is - again! - you (not sure about Andy anymore). And since you are a serial offender that has some serious beef with Laffy, this smells too much like personal revenge agenda. And we all know how changes in forum structure based on personal agenda end - in chaos. This moderation chaos is the result of the forum split, which Laffy is not responsible for, he just has to deal with it as best as he can. And it's impossible to deal with it without ruffling feathers. It's folks like you and Andy and Silver who were in favor of it - which you now - ironically - seem to all regret. The forum split was already driven by personal agenda (i.e. containing Reefs and Enigma) and your poll and your ongoing campaigning against Laffy is again driven by personal agenda (i.e. containing Laffy, Reefs and Enigma). It seems this is forum is your bouncy house where you and your compadres let your spiritual egos run amok. I would suggest though that Laffy stays out of the unmoderated section and just do his mod job there and leave the moralists to their own negativity. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 30, 2014 22:37:58 GMT -5
Just face it, temp bans don't work. And making mod decisions open for discussions doesn't work either, it makes the mod look like a clown instead of an authority and gives too much focus on forum politics instead on actual discussion. What worked was the ZD approach, laissez faire moderation, no temp bans and no discussion of mod decisions. A mod has to be an authority that peeps respect. I don't see any respect towards laughter happening here anymore. Re standards, you did notice that Tzu already had a 2 day ban, a 4 day ban, a one week ban and nothing worked? There even was a gentlemen's agreement which didn't work either. How much more pampering do you want? When Peter always moderated in Silver's favor you and whole bunch of others somehow didn't mind. Why is that? I think it all depends upon what you think a 'working', healthy, thriving forum looks like. I suspect you and I have very different ideas about that. Care to share your version of a healthy forum...? I'm guessing it would have little in the way of divergent opinion..? Read what I wrote!  |
|
. We also had a good Religion & Science forum where the theists and atheists duked it out, but it slowed down......I don't get over there much these days. There were some very sharp minds over there.......
