Freedom of speech and moderators

Bigass post coming up, you know you love it.

Regarding a 'part time' moderator that is something we've been considering for a while. A more accurate (though less catchy) term would be an 'easy-call' moderator. That is, someone who doesn't have to make difficult decisions but can act in cases where the action to take is very obvious, for example the post "Person x is a poopy head". They don't need to discuss, know the background story, read all the posts or make a judgement call, obviously it should just be removed. In cases where it is a little less black and white that's when phone calls need to be made, lots of time needs to be spent and this is the area in which we are reluctant to have more moderators as it will increase the load, as explained in the past. But, as I say, the 'easy call' moderator could still operate in other circumstances without increasing our load which is why we've been thinking about it. I was going to bring it up with those we had in mind at Coona. In regards to freedom of speech Geoff, did you think we were too restrictive or not enough, it wasn't clear.

Keza, in regards to this issue being raised there's nothing wrong with that, despite how we're told we behave by some, input on how the forum is run IS taken into consideration and is in fact typically what we base our decisions on to a signicant degree, whether we are given credit for doing so or not. The fact that what individual members want different things to the majority of members is what some of those individual members have a hard time with.

A yes or no vote is note going to be held in the same way there won't be a yes or no vote on if the members want a solid gold key ring supplied free of charge by the forum... people might be up for the idea but there are other factors involved which aren't based purely on what the members might want. Despite the digs at us we are happy to add this to the agenda again and will listen to arguments, our decision might be the same (or might not, read paragraph above as we've already been thinking about this) but we'll never stifle people if they want to talk about it. People seem to confuse not getting what they specifically want as everybody not getting what they want or what is possible... there's a difference if people would care to notice it.

Pexzed, regarding 'inciting' VTD's this is not on, if people disagree with something then that should be the basis for their VTD decision, getting a gang to rule the forum and VTD as they see fit is not at all in the forum spirit and I would expect better from someone who has taken issue with the idea of a small number of people dictating what happens on a forum in tha past. We do see who VTD's posts and if this happens will take action, that would NOT be members acting in a manner befitting the forum.

If people find such compelling evidence that we are Vic biased put your state as Victoria in the state field in your profile and watch how suddently we let you get away with murder! Victorian members actually appear as a different colour to moderators specifically so we know to treat them better.:S

To address a very narrow audience with this paragraph:
In the paricular instance which precipitated all this the offending posts have been removed, the offending signatures have been removed, the offending parties have been spoken to, in what way have our actions (other than being around 14,000 seconds later than desired because of my social life impeding on my moderator duties) been unsatisfactory? Those who received the email I did with the financial threat in it which was made (and of course why they were sent that email when they had nothing to do with it as usual makes one ask questions) why was this said? Considering that we have always acted in the past why was it necessary to make such a ridiculous claim? It wasn't motivated by logic, or past experience, or reason, so why did that need to be said? I hope some of the people close to the source can consider this (as well as why they were included in it in the first place) to me the motivations say a lot..

There is some really good advice in this thread if you can recognize it, kudos to those who put it forward, and a very big kudos to those who choose to take it.

Ben

 

AN' ONLY COS I DO KNOW DEY ES DA BES .... which seemingly is

a far better position than where this thread has been going for some time .... and the simple solution ....??

KILL ...KILL ... KILL it, please, and let's go back to the basic purpose of this forum ...!!!!!!

:sick::sick::sick::sick::sick::sick::sick::sick::sick:

edit: an eye es nut racis, cos eye dusent do da racingk!!

 

ben .. that is a heap of good information and thank you for it ... it does

however highlight one point that has stuck with me since joining the forum some 12 months ago .. and be rest assured that i respect and appreciate the time, effort resources put into the forum along with the value of the extraordinary range of expertise provided to we newbies, in particular ...

my interest lies in the fact that it appears that only when a major "event", such as this occurs, do we, the members, learn of a new development like the one you have now advised, despite the fact that it has been an "agenda" item for a considerable period ... .... over the past twelve months, there has been a number of such similar advices, not the least being the move to the new server ....

it seems to my simple self that perhaps it is not all that difficult nor time consuming, from time to time, to let members know what is planned for the forum, both medium and long term ...

perhaps, just perhaps (???!!!),had your advice in your post here been available to the general membership, a large deal of the heartburn contained in this total thread may have been circumvented ...???

just some humble thoughts ...:zlove::zlove::zlove:

 

Hey Baz

there are always seemingly a million things, ideas, potential changes and other stuff up in the air. It seems pointless to keep people apprised of all of them when they may not take place, are a pet project, have not been thought out, have draw backs, could be misinterpreted, or are confusing. Once we've either made a decision or want to open it up to the members for their thoughts on the matter then we certainly make it known, but to do so before hand in most cases is counter productive or there's just no point in telling people about things which we haven't decided will take place yet and may fade into nothing.

Ben

 

yep, ok ...point taken ..... thanks ...

 

Re: Hey Baz

Hmm

I don't seem to remember writing anything to encourage or "Incite" people to VTD in my post.

Oh, here it is word for word

My point is, you are with in your power to contact the people on the forum who are your friends.

Friends are usually of like minds in many areas.

You may "win" a VTD simply due to the fact that others in your circle of friends actually (or co-incidentally) find the same things offensive or as downright disgusting as you do.

It is indeed the moderators in this forum who have been "encouraging" us to use the VTD function, no?!?

Ben, please take note that I am saying categorically, that "I do not recommend the abuse of the VTD function, as it will lose it's effectiveness as a self moderation tool". Maybe my grammar in the quote above is a little loose, but at least you all can now see what my intended point was.

I will also say that in the past I "have" been informed of a topic by methods outside of this forum (email or MSN aka "Have you seen this thread"), and subsequently put in a VTD.

See my point!!

I have also sent u a PM on a more private matter.

 

Youse are all NINCOMPOOPS! :LOL::LOL::LOL:

 

Re: Youse are all NINCOMPOOPS! :LOL::LOL::LOL:

hehe we all knew that already :thumbsup::LOL::thumbsup::LOL::thumbsup::LOL::thumbsup::LOL:

 

Youse are all NINCOMPOOPS!

It must be too much SUN!

 

hey I just saw a pic showing our God the "300" in pink lets trash the place

 

Oh yeah Baz, I wish this big black clowd would go away!!

so it's a nice shiney day again here in NZR..

 

Not really much need for debate IMO

I see it as fairly black and white.

There is one member in your list who must be continually fighting with at least one other member of the forum at any time. Its always constantly inappropriate comments with no attempt at even adding anything constructive to the thread.

Such ongoing behaviour with no response from the moderators ends up just leading the other party to start retaliating in kind, like we saw with method, like I have done in the past, I believe Chewy and Egg in the distant past, and probably a few members we lost on the way because of this are guilty of it also.

Two solutions are simple. One is either a moderator who simply deletes every smart ass antagonising comment with no purpose other than to shit stir (despite how many smiley faces on it) until the behaviour stops. Or two, that member is simply banned. Then 99.9% of real shit slinging matches would cease and we could actually go back to having good fiery debates on topics that stay on topic.

My 2c.

 

Here Here

 

I am responding only because my name was mentioned...

I still don't quite understand the entire prelude to all of this.

However, I think that people on this forum should be able to voice their opinions openly, as Rob has said about this thread (although it applies to all threads) VTD is always an option.

I was once told after stating that it was a public forum that it wasn't, that it was privately owned by Ben (Blipman). I then had a fight with one of his buddies, then they all chimed in and then the moderators deleted the post (not VTD).

I agree with K-Zed that the forum moderates itself and the people who make up the forum are generally the ones who affect it's content the most, this seems fair to me. In the western judicial system it is said that you are tried by a "jury of your peers" and this seems to be the case here, so again it seems fitting that those who make up the forum are the ones who have the abilities such as VTD.

If there were to be more moderators lets look at the options:

A) get someone(s) that is good friends with the Ben/Wykked crew and have an even more one-sided or "rule by gang" situation. or

B) diversitfy and have moderators that are not alway unified or of the same opinion, then they get pulled into arguments with each other and the forum is pulling in different directions and low and behold more confusion and crap.

Keep it how it is, with a couple of moderators who are never around except in case of emergency, and let the forum self-moderate.

Who decides what is good fiery debate and what is "smart ass antagonising comment with no purpose other than to shit stir" because I know for a fact there are a few people who would have interpretted your questions to UAS/Shifter as the second one. I personally could see your point, but the way you asked the questions was antagonistic and could very easily be misinterpretted despite the fact that at the end of the day your questions were valid.

I would very much hate to see this forum be governed by an iron fist just so that a few people who can't handle being called a name can sleep at night.

 

hey, nox .... you have been missing for yonks ...!!! glad you are back

and are immediately effective in providing some good sense to this thread ... well done, lad ..!!!
:LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

I just had a great idea :LOL::LOL::LOL:

Irrespective of more moderators in general, lets have another section on the front page "Heated Exchanges" or "Firey Discussions" and make Chili the moderator of that forum (as he has experience). Then anything that gets out of hand in the other sections can be moved to the designated section and fought out there. Anything that degrades to plain name calling can still be deleted either by the moderator or by VTD, and we can still leave the good stuff. That way all those who can't handle the shit fights, or don't want to be soiled by the potty mouths of the firey characters, can simply view the forum without ever going into the "Heated Exchanges" section.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

absolutely brilliant idea, scott ... let's do it ...... lol ...lol....lol.

 

I think its fairly easy...

I think the fact its mostly always contained in a heading only really gives away the fact it doesnt contribute anything.

I think most people can see that its valid other than the usual culprits that try to read a story into everything. I dont think anyone extra moderating would have any problems unless it was one of the above mentioned.

TTnet adopts the above policy and is generally quite civilised with a few exceptions. Certainly they dont have a quarter of the profanity etc we have here with a much larger user group cause the mods simply delete all the crap almost instantly.

 

Being flat chat at work Baz...

Are mangoes still in season up there??? :thumbsup:

 

When you come right down to it, all forums walk the thin free speach line

and have to choose a point upon it. You can allow complete and total free speach and anyone can call someone else whatever they want, regardless of how offensive. On the other hand you can be very tight and delete everything but you also have to limit people's free speach.

TT.net has a particular point that they've chosen, and for example almost any disagreement or debate will be removed if there is even the slightest hint of trouble brewing. I have a friend who's a moderator at Skylines Australia, they'll suspend or ban a few dozen members a month such is how much they are prepared to put up with. There is no perfect point on this line. Where we have chosen is based on the early beliefs that we had after talking to a lot of members about it (and learning from situations and mistakes), it's not completely static and we are interested in people's opinions (you'll note I asked Oni for clarification in the matter in this very thread, as I was interested in what he thought about it).

The problem can be that with no perfect point there are always compromises. If someone is unhappy with how we've reacted in a situation we could then change our position but then there will be someone else who's unhappy with the consequences of our newly adopted position.

We've been heavily criticized for both allowing too much to be said and at the same time stifling free speach, you can't win! The best we can do is try to find a point that is fair to most people and is in accordance with what most people believe is just. Does this lead to grey areas and difficult decisions? Hell yes Does this mean we have to make decisions where not 100% of the people are happy? Hell yes Do they sometimes voice their dissatisfactoin? Hell yes Do we allow them to do this? Yes, this is part of where we sit on the free speach line, and we also do listen.

As a case in point, your post about Chili being banned, we could remove this but we have chosen to leave it up as to date it has not become vindictive, intentionally insulting or nasty, it is an opinion. Some people think this post should be removed but because it does not appear to be any of the above it stays up in the interests of free speach.

This is a slightly tangental post to this current topic by the way, I'm speaking in general rather than in relation to this thread.

Ben