iaink

"Completely abusive" is another one of those subjective terms that needs a person to make a call. A joke or a remark at someones expense is OK, but Id rather stop well short of "complete" abuse.

Moderation by opinion poll, wouldnt that be something. Not particularly practical given the nature of the job and its ability to attract criticism. If half the population think you do too much and half think you do too little, then you are probably about right, but that gives you a popularity rating of 2, and they are probably both mods anyway. The only person who has a say in who moderates is Sue, she after all is the one with most to lose or gain. I suspect that when mods go its either a falling out with her, or deciding that they dont have the time to devote to it. No one becomes a mod to improve their popularity, that much is clear.

LOL, As far as not having carte blanche goes, Several times Ive found myself holding back on posting what I really think about certain members simply because its not worth the trouble it would be to clean up the thread afterwards.

I can understand why people would be reticent to post their opinions one way or other in this thread, but I have invited discussion in private and not one person on the <the mods suck> side has taken up that offer, so what am I supposed to think other than its just half a dozen noisy malcontents who have been the ones most affected by the more active moderation.

iaink

But where does it say that the maple leaf was OK for abusive or insulting posts, or putting down newbies?


Insulting and abusive are subjective I guess....hence the advice that if you dont like the intervention here (although we mostly only intervene when posts are reported by others) you can try your luck in TIO or the lounge etc with the other mods....

BristolUK

micknev

Ah,PM =private message????????????Whats all this abuse stuff,take more than a few naughty words to give me the hump and put me orf posting,mods,do they still ride scooters????actually quite like being abused!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jandro

That's too bad. I enjoyed your commentary on life in the lower mainland over the years.

Butch Cassidy

Her Bratty daughter is too busy trawling the threads looking for 'naughty' words.

rae

[QUOTE=iaink;7830052Moderation by opinion poll, wouldnt that be something.
[/QUOTE]

quite and why not.

moderators to serve a tenure of no more than 1yr.

moderators must have at least 1,000 post to their name and 1yr on the forum to evidence they have contributed and know what its all about.

moderation is a condition of membership of the forum, everyone takes their turn on a rotational basis, worked on seniority.
this way everyone takes a bite of the s++t sandwich and experiences what its like/has the chance to do it if they want.

just a thought.

rae

hhheeeeyyyyyyyyyyyyy, ban just this minute ended mate, ha ha ha ha

livermanl

The reason why I persue this so much is that I moderate 3 forums.

I am a moderator in a boxing forum, an IT forum and a video game forum.

I have to apply the same rules as posted on this site and it never gets out of hand.

If 2 people disagree then as a mod you should either ignore it or get rid of BOTH members rarely is it one person attacking the other and rarely is it a one thread argument (typically arguments happen over every thread each member is in).

This is why I prefer to say ignore it. Much better to have an auto-reply of "if you want to be banned also then stop reporting this person as both of you are breaking rules".

There is nothing worse in my opinion than someone who provokes an issue then reports the reply...

I know it is challenging keeping up with all the bickering which occurs over lengths of time and threads, this is why it is best to ignore individuals fighting and if it really gets out of hand then step in and just say you will both be banned if you keep it up. Why should only one person be banned when it's normally between 2 or more people?

rae

but this what we all do iain and it is even more expected of the mods because of the position, its a given, not something to be applauded. so when its abused it gets peoples backs up.
[F]do as i say, not as i do. the worst, the abject worst thing ever.[/FONT]

iaink

Run it by Sue, but I suspect she is happy enough the way it is.

There are many long time posters with <1000 posts who would probably make great mods. Having lots of previous history here does not necessarily make it easy as a mod, some people tend to take liberties based on that ongoing relationship.

Moderation based on seniority would likely make it an old boys club, and would reduce the chances of the mods sticking up for new posters for fear of what their friends think. In fact I seem to recall being accused of that too

iaink

We do read the whole thread before acting, and often do nothing or caution both sides.

As far as Im aware no one has ever been banned for a first offence, there is always a warning to behave first. I think I've banned two people in 8 months, Dont think CO has even banned that many. Talk of bans is thoroughly overblown here.

If people have been banned for getting into verbal conflict its because its a pattern of behaviour and failure to heed previous warnings, not a question of who said what to whom first.

livermanl

If only you read my WHOLE post... I said rarely is it over one thread...typically it happens over numerous threads and this is why it is difficult to judge.

FlirtyKnickers

LOL...Thats fantastic!

iaink

And if you read my reply you would see that we dont ban people for one offence, they get at least one warning and ample opportunity to state their side of whatever is going on.

If they continue to act without head for the warning, then all bets are off. Its relatively easy to ignore people who wind you up here, or to take a break as butch seems to have done recently.