![$vboptions[bbtitle]](images/master_col.bmp)
Reply With QuoteSOD OFF !Originally Posted by DavidJames
Jumping the gun a bit here.
But if some people do think we need moderation, what's the best way of achieving it without damaging the atmosphere of the place?
- More / more interventionist moderators?
- Some other automated mechanism (e.g. penalty points for bad behaviour)
- More members "reporting" bad posts?
- More use of negative rep?
- Some sort of structural re-vamp ('coz they're always fun)?
- Other suggestions?
I'm looking forward to another civilised and polite discussion, respecting each others' views...
SOD OFF !
To be honest, as I've got to know this forum and its posters, I'm surprised at some of the stuff people get away with saying. I'd go for more moderators and tougher moderating.
More use of neg rep would just create more opportunities for online strops, so I'd avoid that! Penalty points... ASBO's... not sure anyone would give a stuff and they'd just be treated as a joke.
An afternoon in with Radio Four?
DJ lights another flaming bag of poo and leaves it on the doorstep?
online strop for neg rep? If I saw that, I'd neg rep them for a laff!
DJ im beginning to think you are a little bit of a naughty boy. You land a nice link, sit back and wait for the fireworks dont you.
tsk tsk
THATS MY BOY !!!!
Mmm...a standing rule that any post moaning about neg rep is fair game for neg repping by everyone would be interesting. Probably end up with the moderators setting up a creche for all the bruised egos though.
Suggestion: if a thread goes Outside, it is closed to new posts after an agreed period of inactivity, say 2-3 days. Are threads ever closed on this Forum?
One of the most recent threads to end up Outside became a Zombie which wouldn't die - every few days it was brought boringly back to life by an occasional forumite who'd just picked it up in "New Posts", and felt compelled to add:
And then everyone else would pipe up again...
By closing the thread after a pause, any johnny-come-lately has to start a new related thread to get involved, and a basic rule of the internet is that the more clicks it takes for something to happen, the less likely it happens. Even the morally indignant are lazy f***s at heart...
I think... we need every single post to be independently assessed by a full committee of impartial third party observers.
In order to help them do their jobs correctly, when submitting a post, we need to do a pre-assessment of the levels of humour, vitriol, fact, assistance, bullsh1t, stirring, fantasy, sexual content, negativity, optimism, self-deceit, hopeless longing, controversy, bigotry, open-mindedness, prejudice, sexism, self-disparagement, childishness, aged and refined wisdom, incalculable elegance, geekiness, dance-related content and pornographic images of lobsters to be found within the post.
If they judge that the post lies relatively close in content to the assessment of the poster, and that those levels fall within the acceptable boundaries for the thread concerned (taking into account the any allowed the poster based on their past contributions and overall value to the forum), the post will be added to the desired thread (or an alternative thread to be selected by the committee or a sub-committee designated by the above, or by the tossing of a disc-shaped unit of currency)
Turnaraound should be kept within a time-limit of seven days, in order to keep the flow of banter to an acceptable level.
A system of targets should be established and maintained religiously by each forum member for numbers of posts, quantities of each of the above named categories to be achieved over the course of each month, reputation to be received and given, and so on. Forum members failing to meet their own personal targets will be subject to the usual disciplinary measures.
I think that this system will go a long way towards achieving the feeling of harmony and unity within the forum that we all subconciously yearn for.
Good suggestion.
I'd also suggest (widening the discussion a bit) that all polls should be closed after a certain amount of time automatically - say, 6 months. That'd kill the Fat People thread off at last...
David's Dungeon? Anyone the mods find guilty of disrespect, gets three hours with you in your dungeon to do with as you please. They could clean the loo, watch SCD reruns, be put in chains, whipped within an inch of their lives, made to practise tango crosses or simply listen to you discussing how you felt used and abused on this forum.Oooh, and we could have a poll for most 'popular' David's Dungeon activities ...
Just imagine what you could do with ESG or SilverFox ...
I think I need to go and lie down
And I thought *I* was a stirrer... I've got to hand it to the master though.
Personally I'd just vote for DavidJames as moderator ...
At the moment you can't start threads Outside. This means if you do want to have a "heated discussion" or throw around brickbats you've got to do it in the existing threads.
How about a separate area, one step calmer than Take It Outside, where people who don't want to have
can do so and the more sensitive can carefully avoid (or watch from a distance and throw rep) with the caveat that the other threads, especially the Technical Ones then do have
No, that's a rubbish idea. Nobody "decides" they're going to have a heated discussion. It's a regular discussion, all ways around, until somebody posts something that requires heat. That's a spur-of-the-moment thing.
I know quite a few people for whom it isn't a spur of the moment thing, they just enjoy heated debate from time to time (or constantly). In fact on another Forum they've actually done this and it seems to work quite well.
Sure, I like heated debate too - but I don't sit down at my computer and think "I'm going to have a heated debate today, which thread shall I pick?". I just respond with whatever's on my mind in threads that I find interesting.
How about people behave in a civilised way, and respect the views of others?
Define (or at least elaborate upon) "respect the views of others", please.
Elaborating:
Accept that reasonable people can have differing views.
Acknowledge that people with differing views are unlikely to have chosen them as a personal slight to yourself.
Accept that convincing everyone to share your views is typically impossible and pointless.
Try to understand the views of others before slagging them off.
Listen to what people think, don't tell them what they think.
Realise that it is possible to be the person who is incorrect.
OK.
My view is that I do all of those things even in the heat of argument. (I do remember arguing fiercely that reasonable people can hold different views many many times on this Forum.) That view extends far enough to consider that I might be incorrect in that view. Before you (or anyone else) jumps in to disagree, let me ask you to accord me the same respect in my holdling of that view as you would wish me to accord you in the holding of the same - or different view.
Incidentally - I see very little merit in making a habit of expressing a strongly-held view weakly, by saying "I might be wrong but I think...". Let the reader take for granted that you might be wrong, and credit them with the intelligence to understand that what you are about to say is what you think. Saying "I might be wrong but I think..." all the time is a way for lazy people to exhibit a lack of confidence in what they're about to say.
(If you prefer, you can preface the last sentence thusly: 'I might be wrong but I think that saying "I might be wrong but I think...." all the time is a way....'. The difference is meaningless.)
Last edited by El Salsero Gringo; 3rd-November-2006 at 08:58 PM.
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favour of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
~ Dean Inge
Simply reading the sister thread and looking at the poll, there appears to be two differing perspectives on what Martin's talking about. I don't think at this point either side is likely to change their view on what actually is "reasonable", no matter how well or clearly the other side expresses it.
I like David's idea of trying to find other solutions before we get to the point where all the sheep either leave or become lurkers.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks