| |
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....
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
yes he has a point, like i said. solves some problems, creates some new. and those who run the site decide what they prefer. and, again, this particular problem is largely blown out of proportions. i'd totally support the idea if we had an actual problem of moderators closing threads and deleting posts all the time. i'd also like to point martin to post number #51 again - what about if users can not complain if they are involved either? or atleast, they cant do it anywhere else but in the originating thread (and not open whining threads like this one, which as mason mentioned piss off a good number of people aswell)? |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Groepaz, this was not started as a whine thread. It is constructive criticism.
The example you gave is not a good example because it incorrectly conflates banning a user with actively posting rubbish in a thread and then wanting to abuse mod tools to hide that mistake.
In the case of your mistake being able to act quickly as a mod makes the mistake worse not better.
To have good moderation someone else needs to act quickly, not you.
That is the whole point. |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
As for the off topic point in post 51 you mention.
The fact that one side, the mods, have a private forum and tools unfairly stacks against the users. It is therefore healthy to users to complain.
If the users were able to vote for the mods at regular intervals you might have a point though. |
| |
Stainless Steel
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 966 |
Quoting Groepaz i'd totally support the idea if we had an actual problem of moderators closing threads and deleting posts all the time. Well, one could argue that the two recently closed threads were enough to start the fire. |
| |
Stainless Steel
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 966 |
Quoting The Communistand "we give a fuck" means "we care about" ? Actually, thats exactly what it means.
If you give a fuck, you care. If you don't give a fuck, you don't.
|
| |
JCB
Account closed
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 241 |
Quote: Quoting The Communistand "we give a fuck" means "we care about" ? Actually, thats exactly what it means.
If you give a fuck, you care. If you don't give a fuck, you don't.
I've seen that one cause confusion before. It's just not used in England, and it seems some other countries ;) It's like the (I believe) American one, I "could" give a fuck about which is the same as I "don't"..
Now the lot of you, care off!! :P
|
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Earlier on in the thread I detailed a technical way in which this can be implemented. If the board coder(s) are too busy just send me the source code and I can do the job in less than a day. It is very trivial to implement. |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Quoting Groepazwether sometime some thread started a fire doesnt mean anything, even if a moderator was involved. it is *by far* not the rule. it happens very rarely. ie, no problem. nothing to see. move on.
Looking back of the threads in this forum it isn't so rare to have related problems.
Quote:to have good moderation, everyone must be able to act quickly.
Incorrect because as shown it was your actions that caused the problem.
Quote:and in that time a thread would be completely destroyed.
You destroyed the thread by first posting off topic comments, then locking and then removing on topic relevant posts useful to others.
That little fact alone is enough to refute your claims.
Quote:and we are also yet again back to the point where only matters what those who run the site think.
Not only because...
Quote:wether YOU think it is practical to work like this however is irrelevant.
... what I think is relevant since I have produced strong arguments. The opposing arguments have been tackled and refuted. Everyone can see that because this is a public forum.
Quote:and no, perff doesnt need help to implement this nonsense. =P another very useful (and up to now, missing here) moderation feature might surface though. =P
It isn't nonsense. As others have pointed out what I've proposed looks sensible.
The offer of coding help still stands and I don't think you have the authority to refuse it on Perff's behalf.
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
Quote:Looking back of the threads in this forum it isn't so rare to have related problems.
it happens a few times a year. compared with other forums this is nothing.
Quote:Incorrect because as shown it was your actions that caused the problem.
as said countless times before, mistakes happen.
Quote:... what I think is relevant since I have produced strong arguments.
what you think is irrelevant because you are not going to do the work. those who run the site decide how they want to work.
Quote:It isn't nonsense. As others have pointed out what I've proposed looks sensible.
i can find someone pointing out whatever i'd like to look sensible on the internet.
Quote:The offer of coding help still stands and I don't think you have the authority to refuse it on Perff's behalf.
i dont need to. if he wanted to implement it, he'd just do it. no help needed, really. |
| Previous - 1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 - Next |
