Discussion in 'gV governance' started by Mars, 29 Nov 2010.
Sounds about right to me.
Thank you. Don is just a tiny bit overly sensitive today.
I still wuv you Don you know that. (thats a non passive agressive asshole hug). Its from the heart
In a sense, people are acting on it. At least to the degree that they can, which is simply to express here in the forum what they prefer and through their currently observable behaviour.
I don't believe that everyone's hindsight results in the same desires going forward.
I don't think everyone agrees on anything other than something not like that and a desire for consistency in enacting whatever the forum policy is [to be].
What is vile?
What is stalking?
What sig is too big?
What constitutes spamming?
My tolerance is likely to be much higher than someone else's.
Board members can continue to circle the roundabout, but it ultimately comes down to specifically defining these things in a way that will also account for unforeseen universally (+/- 4%) unwanted behaviour.
Additionally, once the 99 Rules (or No Rules) are established, perhaps people will discuss some other contentious issue like the G20 Seoul Summit.
You have never been wrong as far as I know
i dont like the idea of community mods, people who mod those they hang out with
can you say conflict of inteest?
some big forums hire people from outside the community to moderate to avoid this
too bad we dont have a budget
i am not beating this to death, but i STRONGLY disagree with using the banhammer to eliminate "undesirables" from the community
hell, this place was founded with mostly "undesirables;" me among those with a shit ton of being banned experience
unpopular opinions, provocation, and shit talk should not banish someone from the community
i like the trend of "i will moderate myself" in posts, but i also understand where nina is coming from
i am simply not a fan of rules where a member can be removed from a community, it is worse when a community member makes that call as it could be very unfairly used, as history has shown
if anything, a jury trial would be better as it effects the community as a whole
I'll remember that... and its here in WRITING. I want this post added to the OFFICIAL RECORD.
I don't like the voting in of forum mods. I am not keen on the idea of community moderators at all.
If there are mods, I do not want to know who the mods are, because if i disagree with them, I will hold it against them depending on the gravity of the matter being scrutinized, I am only human.
If we NEED to have mods, then they should be selected by an MCP initiated program that chooses them randomly - exposes them to whatever protocols that Phobos & Deimos use, and then set them loose for a limited time period on the forum to moderate. A person may not be a mod more than "X" number of times in their residency at gV, etc..etc.
But what road for appeal is there? How sterile if at all is this moderation process. Are decisions made by the group of moderators or individual moderator arbitrary decision making (see how i look at it?)?
What if they start revealing their identities to each other - that to me would seem to be a breach of the anonymity requirement of the role.
I don't think moderators need to be anonymous. They just need to have very clear rules to follow, and MARS would act as oversight and fire them if they don't follow such rules properly.
Here's what it could be though: the moderators are known, and we can have a few of them. But a moderator action is done anonymously (to everyone but MARS). Thus, the moderators have the option to discuss beforehand or act alone, and there's no (or less) hostility when an action is taken.
Thus, MARS responsibilities are lessened day to day (just check moderator actions for validity) and the community can move along policing itself following well defined rules.
I also believe that the best moderators would be those who don't want the job *cough*VoteMulch*cough*.
Of course, I'm assuming there are to be rules which need to be enforced. Which is hardly a given.
Moderators should be like Ninjas.
No one knows where they are.
No one knows who they are.
When they strike, someone dies, and no one knows who did it, or why, or what happened.
It's like *BAM* all of the sudden someone stops posti
oh we are sneaky!
i like the idea of moderator-types conducting official tasks in an obvious way, such as using the planet accounts. perhaps even have it unknown which planet is who. even totally anon mods sounds good, but the problem is that there is no way to stop somebody from telling their mates, 'dont tell anyone, but...'
and we know people would do that.
i like the random selection of moderator(s)
i like the anonymity of moderator(s)
though, maybe the mods could be known to each other?
i don't know....i really don't have enough forum experience to speak with any authority on this, or to really have an opinion
notice that the governance post makes no mention of moderators. only 'community standards'.
Well, the admin could be doing that too. We don't know. And really, if the problem is insoluble, I'm not going to put much energy into worrying about it. The only way to have that not happen (as much) would be to not have mods. Again, problem solved.
There was the bit about inactive whatchmacallits though. Dunno.
stupid edit/reply buttons...
no doubt something is in the roadmap. but i reckon it would have to happen after there are rules to enforce.
Beginning today, treat everyone you meet as if they were going to be dead by midnight. Extend to them all the care, kindness, and understanding you can muster, and do it with no thought of any reward. Your life will never be the same again.
I never liked those nasty candy bars.
Between the two of them, I preferred "5th Avenue".