| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Proposed rule change
I would like to propose a rule change. If an admin is involved in posting in a thread they are not allowed to use their admin powers to delete posts, issue warnings or lock threads. This would help stop the situations where an admin who loses an argument can abuse their powers to remove the posts they personally disagree with.
|
|
... 138 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Sixx
Registered: May 2005
Posts: 229 |
omg |
| |
Fungus
Registered: Sep 2002
Posts: 686 |
OK so if this like old BBS now, then I propose that the cock for non posters be added immediate.
Also, I propose 90% of the people here are black listed immediate as they are not 31337.
Also, I propose that all non scene releases be deleted immediate as it has nothing to do with the scene, therefore irrelevant.
Also, after all elite BBS protocols and management has been instituted, enjoy csdb as much as possible when 3 posts per month, and nearly no one visiting it ever like SH.
:P |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3057 |
Yeah. Fungus is right.
Therefore I really enjoy whenever we have some lively active people around ... like the one who posted this lovely message for us mods:
Quote:"... is a troll, should not be a mod, my opinion will not change, do whatever you want idiots."
Looking into the mirror would help. |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Please try to keep the replies on topic. The proposed change has been made to try to help improve the relationship between mods and posters. Which would therefore help improve debate in the forums. |
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
Martin has a fair point don't you think?
Mod=Moderator
definition:
mod·er·a·tor/ˈmädəˌrātər/Noun
1. An arbitrator or mediator.
2. A presiding officer, esp. a chairman of a debate.
therefore to be a "moderator" the person in question should, by definition, remain neutral.
They "should" therefore logically, give up moderator rights on any debate they become actively "involved" in on a personal basis.
you aren't allowed to be a prosecuting or defence counsel and a judge at the same time are you?
Steve |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Thank you Steve. You explained it better than I. |
| |
The Communist
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 485 |
Is this a private site ? |
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
see now thats getting personally involved in a debate isn't it?
exactly what we are referring to. |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Public or private isn't an argument against the proposed change per se. |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3057 |
Martin. As I see it. What happened was moderators mistake. He should have clicked the evil "censor" button on the posts starting by yours, and fill in the reason "off topic". He might eventually also close the thread, because it wasn't serving the purpose anymore anyway.
You can't avoid such situations completely.
The rule wouldn't change much. We would have internal debate and then give the person who made the mess the "green light" on cleaning of the mess that he has made.
|
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 15 - Next |
