Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[The Merchant Of Menace]

I don't know if the smf software would support this, but a formal warning system, where moderators can issue a formal warning, one per member per day may be possible. If a person accrues x amount of warnings they are muted for a day. The logic being, if they come to the attention of, say, three moderators, they are muted which give Toady and ThreeToe some breathing room...

[RedKing]

I don't know if the smf software would support this, but a formal warning system, where moderators can issue a formal warning, one per member per day may be possible. If a person accrues x amount of warnings they are muted for a day. The logic being, if they come to the attention of, say, three moderators, they are muted which give Toady and ThreeToe some breathing room...

That seems like a good compromise too.

[G-Flex]

I think some of you are overcomplicating thing. I don't think we need any sort of new, byzantine moderation architecture in place. Simplicity has value, and I think that if a new moderator (or two, or three) is necessary, then the relevant questions are the relatively simple ones, like "should they be able to ban people and delete posts?" and "what boards should they moderate?".

[Zangi]

I think some of you are overcomplicating thing. I don't think we need any sort of new, byzantine moderation architecture in place. Simplicity has value, and I think that if a new moderator (or two, or three) is necessary, then the relevant questions are the relatively simple ones, like "should they be able to ban people and delete posts?" and "what boards should they moderate?".

No Ban
No Delete
Lower Forums

[Zrk2]

I like the idea in the few above posts, or we could simply select a few other people to make full on moderators. That would take the weight of Toady and Threetoe and not require a vast new system to be imposed.

What is the big problem with one word posts? Do they simply [place to much strain on the server or something for the (lack of) content added?

[G-Flex]

In those guidelines, Toady is talking about things that don't contribute to meaningful discussion in general. It's pretty rare for a post of only one word to be justified, so that's used as an example.

[Footkerchief]

Toady has previously discussed the idea of appointing moderators:

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=38415.msg642138#msg642138

I haven't wanted to appoint moderators since that seems to build ill-will in the long run, but if there's a lot of porn spam I might have to do that just to delete the crap when Threetoe and I aren't around.

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=33805.msg503108#msg503108

Just doesn't seem like I should be moderating a sludge board instead of working on the game, and once you're to the point of considering appointing moderators just to handle a sludge board, something has gone wrong, and the root cause should be addressed.

People have occasionally crossed the line, but I haven't seen much of a need to appoint separate moderators at this point.  Everything seems to be going well.  If there are any problem threads, you can email me.

[LordNagash]

I have a suggestion to the original problem, if possible: Give thread creators the power to delete the posts of other people in their thread (replacing it with "this topic has been deleted by topic moderator" or even to lock a topic for a specific user. Abuse of this power is unlikely, since nobody who overuses it is likely to draw much conversation.

I know this was a fair while ago and the discussion has sort of moved on, but I really had to address that this is just a really bad idea that is rife with abuse potential. I don't like the power to lock threads that thread creators already have for the same reason, let alone the ability to delete posts.

[Zangi]

I have a suggestion to the original problem, if possible: Give thread creators the power to delete the posts of other people in their thread (replacing it with "this topic has been deleted by topic moderator" or even to lock a topic for a specific user. Abuse of this power is unlikely, since nobody who overuses it is likely to draw much conversation.

I know this was a fair while ago and the discussion has sort of moved on, but I really had to address that this is just a really bad idea that is rife with abuse potential. I don't like the power to lock threads that thread creators already have for the same reason, let alone the ability to delete posts.

Locking threads is not bad. 
Its either a sign of:
1) Discussion finished.  Go home. 
2) Time to cool down before I reopen this thread.

I've never noticed thread creators opening it up to put in another last word and then locking it back up or whatever abuses have you fancied.

[LordNagash]

I have a suggestion to the original problem, if possible: Give thread creators the power to delete the posts of other people in their thread (replacing it with "this topic has been deleted by topic moderator" or even to lock a topic for a specific user. Abuse of this power is unlikely, since nobody who overuses it is likely to draw much conversation.

I know this was a fair while ago and the discussion has sort of moved on, but I really had to address that this is just a really bad idea that is rife with abuse potential. I don't like the power to lock threads that thread creators already have for the same reason, let alone the ability to delete posts.

Locking threads is not bad. 
Its either a sign of:
1) Discussion finished.  Go home. 
2) Time to cool down before I reopen this thread.

I've never noticed thread creators opening it up to put in another last word and then locking it back up or whatever abuses have you fancied.

The thread creator shouldn't have the power to declare 'Discussion finished', though. That easily leads to 'well nobody in this thread agrees with me, discussion over.' Not saying it's used like that all the time but the potential for it is worrying enough.

[G-Flex]

I've never noticed thread creators opening it up to put in another last word and then locking it back up or whatever abuses have you fancied.

I have. Several times. I've also seen thread creators lock, re-open, lock (and so forth) a thread when they don't like where it's going in an attempt to control it.

Also, he's responding to the idea that thread creators should be able to delete other people's posts, and shun specific people from their own threads. He's not talking about thread owners being able to lock their threads.

[Zrk2]

I have a suggestion to the original problem, if possible: Give thread creators the power to delete the posts of other people in their thread (replacing it with "this topic has been deleted by topic moderator" or even to lock a topic for a specific user. Abuse of this power is unlikely, since nobody who overuses it is likely to draw much conversation.

I know this was a fair while ago and the discussion has sort of moved on, but I really had to address that this is just a really bad idea that is rife with abuse potential. I don't like the power to lock threads that thread creators already have for the same reason, let alone the ability to delete posts.

I disagree, I think letting thread creators have greater power over the posts in the thread is a great idea, because it will delegate out the power and allow for derails to be stopped quickly. Also, it will mean less need for moderation by Toady, which is the point.

[The Merchant Of Menace]

And then someone disagrees with the creator and gets blocked from posting?
It's unlikely that most people would abuse it like that, but the possibility is there?

[Zangi]

The thread creator shouldn't have the power to declare 'Discussion finished', though. That easily leads to 'well nobody in this thread agrees with me, discussion over.' Not saying it's used like that all the time but the potential for it is worrying enough.

Personally, I don't mind that the thread creator can say Discussion Finished. 
Technically, they started the discussion.  They can shut it down.

I've never noticed thread creators opening it up to put in another last word and then locking it back up or whatever abuses have you fancied.

I have. Several times. I've also seen thread creators lock, re-open, lock (and so forth) a thread when they don't like where it's going in an attempt to control it.

Also, he's responding to the idea that thread creators should be able to delete other people's posts, and shun specific people from their own threads. He's not talking about thread owners being able to lock their threads.

Ah, guess I'm not active enough or just don't partake in those particular threads.
And he brought forth the dislike lock/unlock powers, so I said something about it. 
I am already in agreement with the no delete stance.

[LordNagash]

I have a suggestion to the original problem, if possible: Give thread creators the power to delete the posts of other people in their thread (replacing it with "this topic has been deleted by topic moderator" or even to lock a topic for a specific user. Abuse of this power is unlikely, since nobody who overuses it is likely to draw much conversation.

I know this was a fair while ago and the discussion has sort of moved on, but I really had to address that this is just a really bad idea that is rife with abuse potential. I don't like the power to lock threads that thread creators already have for the same reason, let alone the ability to delete posts.

I disagree, I think letting thread creators have greater power over the posts in the thread is a great idea, because it will delegate out the power and allow for derails to be stopped quickly. Also, it will mean less need for moderation by Toady, which is the point.

Except who decides what counts as a derail, exactly? I'm not sure if I understand so let me restate what I think this is - everyone has been complaining that nobody can be trusted with mod powers because they'll ruin everything with their draconian control, so the solution is instead to give these powers to everyone? How does that make sense, exactly? 'Nobody can be trusted with power, so we must give the power to everyone'

Edit -

Personally, I don't mind that the thread creator can say Discussion Finished. 
Technically, they started the discussion.  They can shut it down.

I don't like the idea that starting a discussion somehow means you 'own' the discussion, and you get to decide where it goes and whether or not it's over or not. You just started the discussion, after that it belongs to everyone posting in it