LNBS - The People's Mod... term limits?

[pr_capone]

First and foremost... I want to express to Flop that this thread is not in any way shape or form meant to show disrespect or a lack of gratitude for the work done.

Second... this thread is not created to express interest in being a moderator here.

-----

Listening to a conversation tonight were people were talking politics (upcoming election and complaining about entrenched representatives) and it got me thinking to when Flop was voted in as the mod in 2011 and was dubbed "The People's Mod". I was wondering what you all thought about having a single mod position being an elected position for a term of 4 years.

In my head:

* Every 4 years a thread is created by an Admin asking for nominations for "The Peoples Mod".

* People would nominate... then vote

* The incumbent mod could very well be re-elected or a new one would take their place.

What say you?

/this thread is brought to you by insomnia

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!

Fair would imply that rules are enforced equally. They are not.

Mods are allowed to make judgement calls. Clay was warned and he kept it up. Como shouldn't need explanation.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Cochise

I don't think transparency is a major problem, but maybe when someone is banned, a stated reason (what rule was violated) and who banned them might be good. This could help give people a clearer idea of where the lines are so they don't cross them, and show the rest of us that enforcement does occur. Showing that it's all above board might also lead to less "you poked the bear" moderation

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!

JMO, but there should be no such thing as "you poked the bear" moderation. Retaliation is not a reason for moderation.

I think we're pretty transparent when people ask, but I don't see the point in a thread for all that info... I don't know why people would particularly care, and very rarely would there be 100% agreement. It would just open the door to arguments over every little thing and I don't see how it could be productive at all.

As far as "poke the bear moderation"... if someone breaks a clear rule for the first time or it's something they rarely do, they'll get a warning, and then at worse a short ban.

As far as dumping trolls, there's a long list of times when we've been far too lenient, have let people come back multiple times, etc. And if I dumped a long time troll today, the main question they should ask themselves is "why did those idiots keep me around for so long?!"

From my time moderating, two things happen when douchebags are banned...
- They apologize for being a douchebag, come back and possibly start contributing.
- They don't get it and never will get it.

"I had no idea I was being such a douchebag!" is not a thing. If nothing else, how we moderate prevents it from ever being a thing, because you have to be a pretty big douchebag to get banned in the first place.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!

Fair would imply that rules are enforced equally. They are not.

That's the exact same thing as real life.

There isn't one place that the rule are the same for everyone in this country, guaranteed.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

I think we're pretty transparent when people ask, but I don't see the point in a thread for all that info... I don't know why people would particularly care, and very rarely would there be 100% agreement. It would just open the door to arguments over every little thing and I don't see how it could be productive at all.

As far as "poke the bear moderation"... if someone breaks a clear rule for the first time or it's something they rarely do, they'll get a warning, and then at worse a short ban.

As far as dumping trolls, there's a long list of times when we've been far too lenient, have let people come back multiple times, etc. And if I dumped a long time troll today, the main question they should ask themselves is "why did those idiots keep me around for so long?!"

From my time moderating, two things happen when douchebags are banned...
- They apologize for being a douchebag, come back and possibly start contributing.
- They don't get it and never will get it.

"I had no idea I was being such a douchebag!" is not a thing. If nothing else, how we moderate prevents it from ever being a thing, because you have to be a pretty big douchebag to get banned in the first place.

It seems like thread bans have been much more common lately (and that's a good thing). If someone continually gets banned from threads yet doesn't see any issue with what they're doing, they shouldn't be particularly surprised when they eventually get booted out entirely.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by DaFace

It seems like thread bans have been much more common lately (and that's a good thing). If someone continually gets banned from threads yet doesn't see any issue with what they're doing, they shouldn't be particularly surprised when they eventually get booted out entirely.

This.

How many times was clay banned from threads? He should have gotten the hint.


And I'll state again, AC OWNS this place. If he's good with what happens that should be good enough.


If I owned a house and sold drugs and ran hookers out of it and gave drugs and hookers to some people hanging out but didn't give everyone some the only options the ones who were treated differently would have would be to GTFO Or stay and deal with it.


Same as here.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

Youre dead wrong. They haven't violated any TOS, and they are getting banned arbitrarily for saying something you don't like.

A much better way to handle it would be if everyone was responsible to ignore people they don't like.

I personally like reading some of the things you don't think are 'positive'. Everyone is going to have a different opinion on where that line is....

To ban SOME people for these violations and not others is stupid and unfair.

Either have a rule where you cant say anything negative in game threads or don't. Don't make it selective based on a whim. Limit people to post once every 5 minutes or 3 minutes if you want to cut down the number of posts. But make it fair and transparent and easily understandable.

I would be saying the same thing about anyone. Even the people I disagree with. I do not think you are handling this correctly. If you were the one getting banned for being an asshat, I would be sticking up for you...even though I don't like you.

Just my 2 cents

The ignore function sucks, even though their is a script that makes it better.

The "some people" are the worst offenders... the bottom 1%. We'll never have a rule that you can't say negative things, that's just dumb, especially on a Chiefs board. But, if you spend all day everyday posting nothing but the same drivel over and over, yeah, we'll eventually do something about it.

There's no lack of self awareness here... Clay's been here a long time, just as other douchebags. Bob Dole actually warned Clay in a game thread and then reposted the warning several times and that was weeks ago.

[Bob Dole]

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!

Fair would imply that rules are enforced equally. They are not.

Which trolls do you think should be banned that haven't been banned?

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by DaFace

It seems like thread bans have been much more common lately (and that's a good thing). If someone continually gets banned from threads yet doesn't see any issue with what they're doing, they shouldn't be particularly surprised when they eventually get booted out entirely.

Yeah, that came from your thread several weeks ago, a lot of people voiced their displeasure with people taking over threads, so we're cleaning up a bit more these days.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Yeah, that came from your thread several weeks ago, a lot of people voiced their displeasure with people taking over threads, so we're cleaning up a bit more these days.

Probably the best contribution daface has ever had here, and that's not slighting anything else he's done

[Ming the Merciless]

Originally Posted by DaFace

It seems like thread bans have been much more common lately (and that's a good thing). If someone continually gets banned from threads yet doesn't see any issue with what they're doing, they shouldn't be particularly surprised when they eventually get booted out entirely.

Just curious why that's a good thing...I don't know about everyone else but the reason I spend time here is the exact opposite of 'thread bans are a good thing'.

Its surprising to hear people think this is OK..

Perhaps instead of a ban, you can have a thread/user tool that hides their post with a warning..like 'this user has been deemed to have been trolling this thread, to remove this user from ignore or unhide the posts in this thread, click here' or something...

Isnt there some way of handling this by allowing the users to determine who to ignore and who not to? And still show the users that you have deemed this person a troll?

I would seriously pursue this kind of idea rather than 'thread bannings are great' kind of attitude...and an arbitrary / willy-nilly enforcement of some vague 'don't be TOO negative' "rule"

Just my 2 cents.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

Just curious why that's a good thing...I don't know about everyone else but the reason I spend time here is the exact opposite of 'thread bans are a good thing'.

Its surprising to hear people think this is OK..

Perhaps instead of a ban, you can have a thread/user tool that hides their post with a warning..like 'this user has been deemed to have been trolling this thread, to remove this user from ignore or unhide the posts in this thread, click here' or something...

Isnt there some way of handling this by allowing the users to determine who to ignore and who not to? And still show the users that you have deemed this person a troll?

I would seriously pursue this kind of idea rather than 'thread bannings are great' kind of attitude...and an arbitrary / willy-nilly enforcement of some vague 'don't be TOO negative' "rule"

Just my 2 cents.

OR they can just be sensible and use a thread ban on people who decide to try and ruin every thread crying about the same shit just like they are.


If you miss clay so much I'm betting he isn't too hard to find

[Otter]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

Just curious why that's a good thing...I don't know about everyone else but the reason I spend time here is the exact opposite of 'thread bans are a good thing'.

Its surprising to hear people think this is OK..

Perhaps instead of a ban, you can have a thread/user tool that hides their post with a warning..like 'this user has been deemed to have been trolling this thread, to remove this user from ignore or unhide the posts in this thread, click here' or something...

Isnt there some way of handling this by allowing the users to determine who to ignore and who not to? And still show the users that you have deemed this person a troll?

I would seriously pursue this kind of idea rather than 'thread bannings are great' kind of attitude...and an arbitrary / willy-nilly enforcement of some vague 'don't be TOO negative' "rule"

Just my 2 cents.

We eagerly await your code for this completely rational solution that will have absolutely no unintended consequences. You have to work for the government.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

That's the exact same thing as real life.

There isn't one place that the rule are the same for everyone in this country, guaranteed.

That's a poor excuse for not even trying.

[Bearcat]

Thread bans aren't done on a whim. I'd say the vast majority of the time, it's done after others in the thread have spoken out about someone hijacking the thread or being a douche. Again, we're talking about a very small percentage of people who are either self aware enough to stop being a douche or won't ever get it anyway.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

Which trolls do you think should be banned that haven't been banned?

I didn't specify trolls. But since you asked, Clay has only recently been banned, but that guy's been shitting all over this board for years. No one even tries to curtail that dude (present, very recent company excluded). And it's because he's gotten around y'all every time you've tried, so you've given up. That's not OK. At least not to me.

Anyway, you all know my feelings. I've said my piece. I'll bow out unless someone has something specific they'd like me to address. I'm not going to get into it like I did last time.