[maks_holi]

I fear a thread on moderation events would be to satisfy curiosity only and not be helpful, except in circumstances where a lot of people are being modded for the same thing and are unsure why.

I like the idea of having a note attached to an offending post- or having the contents of the post deleted with a comment, e.g. Deleted by mod. Reason: insulting another member.

[arindiruppyr]

Most of the moderating that is done is just deleting spam, and banning spammers, trolls, and griefers(around 50 just yesterday alone).

Which was, most people said, the major function they wanted mods to perform on the old forum. And if there's that many, you mods are doing a great job. [/suckup]

Would it be helpful to have a thread that lists moderation events?

Probably not.

Now, Serious advice needed. Do I put a smiley face here or not?

Yes, it makes you seem friendly and approachable no matter what you say.

See?

[cemDrymnVem]

e.g. Deleted by mod. Reason: insulting another member. or deleted by mod. reason: using snide hooks to provoke response.

[Zarekylin75]

Would it be helpful to have a thread that lists moderation events?

No. It would lead to endless shit-fights and the Moderators will have to spend their time defending each individual decision. In other forums I post at people can become quite obsessed with arguing over moderation, such that it drowns out the rest of the topics.

Just do your best, if anyone feels unjustly treated they can discuss via PM. In my experience this is the best way of keeping the forums going.

[maks_holi]

or deleted by mod. reason: using snide hooks to provoke response.

Yeah. Stuff like that. (I see what you did there...)

[usaguedriedax]

Any other useful suggestions to improve the forumming experience will be seriously considered and/or implemented. That is what this thread is for.

I brought it up in the other "gripe" thread and I will bring it up here again, but I really think there are far too many cat orientated "sub-names" [or whatever it is that they are called...

Now, Serious advice needed. Do I put a smiley face here or not?

You have spoken well in text and thus an emoticon is not necessary...

[maks_holi]

Yeah- what's with the kitteh fetish?? Perhaps we need more bilby related ones.

[DownloadADOBEsoftware]

Now, Serious advice needed.

My views have already been noted.

Modding invisibly is simply the wrong way to do it, full stop.
Identify the core trouble-makers and sort them out rather than punishing the people that get upset by them.

[qzgCVHex]

I brought it up in the other "gripe" thread and I will bring it up here again, but I really think there are far too many cat orientated "sub-names" [or whatever it is that they are called...

Yes, there has been a few of them removed already, but it is something that Admin has to do, and he has enough in his list already. I have several urgent things to be dealt with by him first when he next logs in. I will mention it again though.

You have spoken well in text and thus an emoticon is not necessary...

But I don't like being all serious, I prefer to be the class clown, making people laugh is what brings me joy. Now I have to go from being court jester to head of security at a moments notice. It makes it hard to be a funny bugger when people think I am carrying a weapon.

So no smiley emoticon here then.

Now laugh dammit, or I'll start shooting at your feet!

[arindiruppyr]

Identify the core trouble-makers and sort them out rather than punishing the people that get upset by them.

I think that's also the wrong way to do it, personally. The problem being that "trouble-makers" here needs a clear definition which is pretty much impossible. I mean, to use the example everyone is thinking of, why mod BC? Because he continues to go on and on about the same things without listening to the point of view of others? Well, other people I'd say who are guilty of that would be AuDigga, Zepplin, Dropbear (yes), me (I try not to but I've caught myself in the past, in retrospect)...

So why single out BC? Because he does it more often and has less redeeming features than the others? That's a bit too subjective for me. Objectively, I can't single him out enough. Like I said, if it were my forum, people would be allowed to say exactly what they thought of his opinions, but that's actually more work for mods because it turns into a giant s***fight, so I understand why the admin doesn't want that.

I'm happy enough with how things are and more worried about any changes ruining that dynamic.

[freddyujnf]

My views have already been noted.

Modding invisibly is simply the wrong way to do it, full stop.
Identify the core trouble-makers and sort them out rather than punishing the people that get upset by them.

one *could* change that last sentence to read
" ban those whose postings we don't like and will not ignore, and don't punish anyone who cannot control their responses"

seriously people... you don't join conversations in pubs if you don't like the group or person or the topic... how hard could it be to apply that here ?

*runs *

[usaguedriedax]

Now laugh dammit, or I'll start shooting at your feet!

I promise that if you say something that I find funny I will laugh regardless of the inclusion of any smiley...

[BodoidearoLew]

I promise that if you say something that I find funny I will laugh regardless of the inclusion of any smiley...

I dont like emoticons, I think they are lame. Which works against me when I post something that is very obviously (to me anyway) massively TIC and people take it serial.

[masterso]

I think that's also the wrong way to do it, personally. The problem being that "trouble-makers" here needs a clear definition which is pretty much impossible. I mean, to use the example everyone is thinking of, why mod BC? Because he continues to go on and on about the same things without listening to the point of view of others? Well, other people I'd say who are guilty of that would be AuDigga, Zepplin, Dropbear (yes), me (I try not to but I've caught myself in the past, in retrospect)...

So why single out BC? Because he does it more often and has less redeeming features than the others? That's a bit too subjective for me. Objectively, I can't single him out enough. Like I said, if it were my forum, people would be allowed to say exactly what they thought of his opinions, but that's actually more work for mods because it turns into a giant s***fight, so I understand why the admin doesn't want that.

I'm happy enough with how things are and more worried about any changes ruining that dynamic.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that BC should be moderated

[usaguedriedax]

I dont like emoticons, I think they are lame. Which works against me when I post something that is very obviously (to me anyway) massively TIC and people take it serial.

I am 100% on the same page as you on that particular matter...

[masterso]

I dont like emoticons, I think they are lame. Which works against me when I post something that is very obviously (to me anyway) massively TIC and people take it serial.

You're joking right?

[CULTDIAMONDS]

I promise that if you say something that I find funny I will laugh regardless of the inclusion of any smiley...

Don't forget the shooting...

[arindiruppyr]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that BC should be moderated

I think plenty of people are...

[masterso]

I think plenty of people are...

really...?? I fail to see a reason to support it... (other than name calling which may get him a sin bin from time to time)

[JohnfAclambrJA]

I'm in favour of whatever standard of moderating the Admin sees fit to use, as long as it is fair and equitable and applied across the board...Oh, and there are indeed a hard core that would not only want to see me moderated, they would see me hung drawn and quartered!

And yes, I'm satisfied with the way its being run.


I'm not a Christian, but sometimes you are able to find some good from what they preach.
"Do Unto Others, as you would them do unto you"

If we all played like that, everything would be OK.