|
|
Post by lolly on Apr 9, 2017 18:58:53 GMT -5
So far I'm happy enough with the 'Reefs effect' because I don't Giraffe anyway and I'm sure I'll be warned if I go on a crusade, which is helpful to me. I reckon a temp ban could have a place, because sometimes people experiencing difficult life circumstances get a bit antsy. Perhaps if their transgressions are not usually characteristic of the person, they might have a lot going on at home or something... so I guess temp bans are suitable for temporary problematic behaviours. I mean Gopal's banning was fair by any reasonable standard, and Satch is free to leave or stay, as is any member, so nothing has gone wrong and everything has been done right, I say, good job and good luck (and I pity the foo), and we'll see what happens next? Apparently the vetting process for moderators these days is a colossal joke if anyone can appoint themselves.Can you appoint yourself moderator, or is your claim complete nonsense? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 9, 2017 21:26:22 GMT -5
I didn't vote for reefs as a moderator. When did democracy turn into a dictatorship? I for one do not recognize the authority of a self appointed and bias moderator. Seriously...no matter how good intentioned, this forum is on the road to hell. IMO Then you have to find yourself another forum. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 9, 2017 21:35:28 GMT -5
Well sure, the owner of the forum is getting click revenue no doubt about it. One way or another. But reefs lame rule of not engaging someone to make them wrong is absurd. Especially since reefs doesn't know the difference between that and one-upmanship. I say someone should organize a vote on this travesty. And as if acting ones age is a discerning factor for wisdom...idiocy. Source, what you did before your mini hiatus would indeed qualify as crusading under the new rules. And name calling is a violation of the original user guidelines. So consider this your official warning #1. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2017 21:39:53 GMT -5
the Reefocalypse has begun!   Dudes you don't have to worry. Relax. G-man, sincerely sorry to see your harikari.  Satch, hang with us! It won't be hard. Just discuss and share like usual. You've got a lot to offer. Thank you for your kind words max. I'll see what happens. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 9, 2017 21:43:03 GMT -5
If anyone wants to "make someone wrong," play one-upsmanship games, have food fights, or hurl ridicule, they can always post in the unmoderated section. I just hope that Reefs can make the moderated section a civil place where mutual respect is the norm rather than the rare exception. He has my full support, and I suspect that he'll have the full support of many others. The user guidelines and new rules will be enforced across the entire board as stated in the OP. Moving the toxicity from one corner into another corner is counterproductive and doesn't make any sense - at least as long as we are still in a transition phase. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 9, 2017 22:01:03 GMT -5
So far I'm happy enough with the 'Reefs effect' because I don't Giraffe anyway and I'm sure I'll be warned if I go on a crusade, which is helpful to me. I reckon a temp ban could have a place, because sometimes people experiencing difficult life circumstances get a bit antsy. Perhaps if their transgressions are not usually characteristic of the person, they might have a lot going on at home or something... so I guess temp bans are suitable for temporary problematic behaviours. I mean Gopal's banning was fair by any reasonable standard, and Satch is free to leave or stay, as is any member, so nothing has gone wrong and everything has been done right, so I say, good job and good luck (and I pity the foo), and we'll see what happens next? And besides, we might have lost the giraffe, but we've still got the strawman - at least for now. Thanks, Lolly. About banning members, I would prefer to just stick to nudging in the way I just did with Satch and Tano. Open name calling will always earn you a warning though. And you will be banned only after 3 official warnings. I think that's enough leeway for anyone to make up their minds if they want to fit in or not. Spammers will be banned without warning though. Also, nothing has changed regarding Peter. Peter has his own moderation style. He may still issue temp bans and discuss mod decisions. I am not going to interfere there. But my moderation style is different, I won't issue temp bans and I also won't discuss mod decisions because that only encourages game playing. ZD will probably only step in if there's an extreme case of violation of forum rules. Realistically speaking, I don't think a zero giraffe policy is even feasible. I still expect the occasional giraffe to show up here and there and I expect you to resolve that issue all by yourselves in a couple of posts or a page or two at the most. What won't be tolerated though is giraffing or litigation for dozens or even hundreds of pages. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 9, 2017 22:09:14 GMT -5
Apparently the vetting process for moderators these days is a colossal joke if anyone can appoint themselves. It is what it is now. And the entire mod team is on the same page in terms of new rules and new forum direction, as is probably the vast majority of active members. So deal with it. If you can't live with it, then leave. There's no point in throwing temper tantrums. You are not going to change this arrangement. You are just getting yourself banned. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 10, 2017 6:32:13 GMT -5
If anyone wants to "make someone wrong," play one-upsmanship games, have food fights, or hurl ridicule, they can always post in the unmoderated section. I just hope that Reefs can make the moderated section a civil place where mutual respect is the norm rather than the rare exception. He has my full support, and I suspect that he'll have the full support of many others. The user guidelines and new rules will be enforced across the entire board as stated in the OP. Moving the toxicity from one corner into another corner is counterproductive and doesn't make any sense - at least as long as we are still in a transition phase. That sounds good to me because I never read any of the posts in the unmoderated section to begin with. I'm totally on board with cleaning up the whole thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 10, 2017 10:36:06 GMT -5
I'm totally on board with cleaning up the whole thing. Yup, that's the plan. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2017 9:11:04 GMT -5
Apparently the vetting process for moderators these days is a colossal joke if anyone can appoint themselves.Can you appoint yourself moderator, or is your claim complete nonsense? Apparently I could. Were you asked to vote on a moderator? Would you accept a dictatorship in your country? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2017 9:13:07 GMT -5
Well sure, the owner of the forum is getting click revenue no doubt about it. One way or another. But reefs lame rule of not engaging someone to make them wrong is absurd. Especially since reefs doesn't know the difference between that and one-upmanship. I say someone should organize a vote on this travesty. And as if acting ones age is a discerning factor for wisdom...idiocy. Source, what you did before your mini hiatus would indeed qualify as crusading under the new rules. And name calling is a violation of the original user guidelines. So consider this your official warning #1. Is that why you became a moderator? Because I beat you at your own one-upmanship game? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2017 9:14:20 GMT -5
If anyone wants to "make someone wrong," play one-upsmanship games, have food fights, or hurl ridicule, they can always post in the unmoderated section. I just hope that Reefs can make the moderated section a civil place where mutual respect is the norm rather than the rare exception. He has my full support, and I suspect that he'll have the full support of many others. The user guidelines and new rules will be enforced across the entire board as stated in the OP. Moving the toxicity from one corner into another corner is counterproductive and doesn't make any sense - at least as long as we are still in a transition phase. What happens when the toxicity is removed? You are completely unaware that trying to get rid of toxicity is the reason that it's here. Just another vicious circle. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Apr 11, 2017 9:40:01 GMT -5
The user guidelines and new rules will be enforced across the entire board as stated in the OP. Moving the toxicity from one corner into another corner is counterproductive and doesn't make any sense - at least as long as we are still in a transition phase. What happens when the toxicity is removed? You are completely unaware that trying to get rid of toxicity is the reason that it's here. Just another vicious circle. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe just let bygones be bygones and surf with the rest of us? |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Apr 11, 2017 9:58:00 GMT -5
Can you appoint yourself moderator, or is your claim complete nonsense? Apparently I could. Were you asked to vote on a moderator? Would you accept a dictatorship in your country? Not knowing the background conversations, my impression is that this is a voluntary process. One who is interested in volunteering their services mentions to the residing moderators their interest in volunteering; maybe makes a case for it. If going ahead, the current moderators grant elevated status to the new volunteer. So it's not like Napoleon just grabbing the crown. And so far, I've appreciated all of these volunteers. Not a job I would want or could do (no time to commit). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2017 10:56:19 GMT -5
What happens when the toxicity is removed? You are completely unaware that trying to get rid of toxicity is the reason that it's here. Just another vicious circle. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe just let bygones be bygones and surf with the rest of us? Once you become aware of the one-upmanship and the double bind games that are being perpetrated on you Max. By Christians and society in general. Letting bygones be bygones is to fall prey to the, I am more tolerant than you game. See how you are unwittingly unable to not play the game. Trying to put rules on it, which is what Reefs is doing is like trying to catch the ocean in your hands. |
|
