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

[Bufkin]

Are you suggesting that we vote for Bob Dole's replacement?

[kcchiefsus]

Are you suggesting that we vote for Bob Dole's replacement?

Replace that asshole? Not a bad idea.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

http://cdn.niketalk.com/e/ee/350x700px-LL-ee4052e5_350x700px-LL-e29a0037_1362013842_birdmanhandrub21.gif

[SAUTO]

I think this is fucking stupid.


Austin OWNS this place, he makes the decisions.

[seclark]

I think this is fucking stupid.


Austin OWNS this place, he makes the decisions.
.

[Rausch]

http://cdn.fansided.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/229/files/2015/03/tumblr_n13wniep6p1t1qeoto1_500.gif

[Quesadilla Joe]

Hootie for president?

[loochy]

I think this is ****ing stupid.


Austin OWNS this place, he makes the decisions.

.

..

[Dayze]

Elect me as a mod, and I'll guarantee free Fresca in the cafeteria.
And Hawaiian shirt Friday's.

[FRCDFED]

I think this is ****ing stupid.


Austin OWNS this place, he makes the decisions.

/thread

[Sully]

Elect me as a mod, and I'll guarantee free Fresca in the cafeteria.
And Hawaiian shirt Friday's.

You absolutely know what I'm about to ask...

[Dayze]

You absolutely know what I'm about to ask...

I was drunk, and what I remember it only hurt a little.

[Dayze]

Oh wait....the "other question".
I'd say in a given week, I probably only do about 15 minutes of actual work.

[Predarat]

Elect me as a mod, and I'll guarantee free Fresca in the cafeteria.
And Hawaiian shirt Friday's.

My vote, you have just earned.

[Predarat]

Oh wait....the "other question".
I'd say in a given week, I probably only do about 15 minutes of actual work.

Even better, if I had two votes, I would vote for you twice.

[Sully]

Oh wait....the "other question".
I'd say in a given week, I probably only do about 15 minutes of actual work.

I'm amazed you didn't get the question...

Benefits... will we get French Benefits!!!

[Dayze]

And I promise to tackle the Chiefs Planet deficit of -$3100

[Dayze]

I'm amazed you didn't get the question...

Benefits... will we get French Benefits!!!

LMAO

Shit.

I fucking love that commercial.

[Bob Dole]

giraffe

[cosmo20002]

Are you suggesting that we vote for Bob Dole's replacement?

Could he also be replaced as a poster? Cosmo nominates the little ball of lint I see on the floor to replace him.

[Graystoke]

And I promise to tackle the Chiefs Planet deficit of -$3100

ROFL

[Pasta Little Brioni]

I nominate Sweet Daddy

[Pasta Little Brioni]

And I promise to tackle the Chiefs Planet deficit of -$3100

Well fuck ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

[Dave Lane]

Are you suggesting that we vote for Bob Dole's replacement?

It's time, time to send him off in honor while he's still alive to enjoy it.

[bevischief]

He who PM's Bob Dole the most wins.

[unlurking]

Based on recent king of the noobs results, fuck no!

[Reerun_KC]

I think this is ****ing stupid.


Austin OWNS this place, he makes the decisions.

Well considering many of us have donated to keep the site up, server costs, etc... That pretty much gives those folks a voice in the matter.


I feel that mods spots should be up for renewal on yearly terms. Reason is simply the human element tends to get in the way of moderation after a period of time.

Some folks cant put there personal differences behind them when it comes to moderation. They abuse their rights and unfairly screw with other posters because of personal feelings.

Yearly terms should be voted on and new folks should have the opportunity to help police the site.

Otherwise we will revert to the Old star board levels or dear lord even the Orange mange...

[DaFace]

My thoughts:
I don't mind the idea and like the concept of cycling people in and out just to get some new perspectives and prevent the direction from going stale. However...
I think it'd be a pretty painful and messy transition if it ever went that way. I think most of the current mods like it for the most part, and it'd be hard to kick someone out just because of this new system when they haven't done anything wrong.
I doubt Kyle has strong feelings one way or another. He's like me in that he likes doing the backend work and likes CP being here for his own entertainment, but prefers to let the place largely run itself.

[cosmo20002]

My thoughts:
I don't mind the idea and like the concept of cycling people in and out just to get some new perspectives and prevent the direction from going stale. However...
I think it'd be a pretty painful and messy transition if it ever went that way. I think most of the current mods like it for the most part, and it'd be hard to kick someone out just because of this new system when they haven't done anything wrong.
I doubt Kyle has strong feelings one way or another. He's like me in that he likes doing the backend work and likes CP being here for his own entertainment, but prefers to let the place largely run itself.

Oh, now wouldn't that just be a shame. Can't a have a mod booted for some bullshit reason.

[Gonzo]

You'll never overthrow my Reich. I am your czar, fetch me a fresca.

[Reerun_KC]

My thoughts:
I don't mind the idea and like the concept of cycling people in and out just to get some new perspectives and prevent the direction from going stale. However...
I think it'd be a pretty painful and messy transition if it ever went that way. I think most of the current mods like it for the most part, and it'd be hard to kick someone out just because of this new system when they haven't done anything wrong.
I doubt Kyle has strong feelings one way or another. He's like me in that he likes doing the backend work and likes CP being here for his own entertainment, but prefers to let the place largely run itself.


I am sure there are plenty of folks that would debate the bolded part.

What if someone wants to be a mod? How can they go about being one?

[DaFace]

I am sure there are plenty of folks that would debate the bolded part.

What if someone wants to be a mod? How can they go about being one?

Historically, it's largely been just consensus of the existing mods with member input. So if you currently hate the existing group of mods, you're probably out of luck. :D

[Reerun_KC]

You'll never overthrow my Reich. I am your czar, fetch me a fresca.

Do you want Fries with that?

[Reerun_KC]

Historically, it's largely been just consensus of the existing mods with member input. So if you currently hate the existing group of mods, you're probably out of luck. :D

No I only hate you and Buehler_445...:harumph:

Was just wondering what the protocol was.

[Dave Lane]

What about an up or down vote every two years like they do judges? Might reel in any rogue mods. Fresh blood is normally good.

I'm pretty sure all the mods would be renewed, but it would be epic (and terminally stupid) to let mods run for office like the noob contest, offering bribes and such LMAO

[stevieray]

Bob Dole isnt a moderator.

[Bob Dole]

Oh, now wouldn't that just be a shame. Can't a have a mod booted for some bullshit reason.

Heads up, you should probably change your pad. The one you're wearing now is leaking.

[DaFace]

What about an up or down vote every two years like they do judges? Might reel in any rogue mods. Fresh blood is normally good.

I'm pretty sure all the mods would be renewed, but it would be epic (and terminally stupid) to let mods run for office like the noob contest, offering bribes and such LMAO

Yeah, that's the main thing. Unless someone is doing something egregiously bad, I seriously doubt anyone would ever be "voted out."

[Pasta Little Brioni]

I also nominate Reerun

[Reerun_KC]

I also nominate ReerunWhat the hell did I miss here?

[Bearcat]

This place once almost voted in luv as a mod.



It's not a terrible idea, but I'd think it would have to be done like it was last time, where AC, the current mods, and maybe even a handful of long time regulars have the final say. Like DaFace said though, I don't know of anyone wanting to get out... not sure we really need another one.

I think DaFace's last thread about the amount of content that turned into a thread about moderation was pretty successful... given the fact that we all work together to form a consensus on issues and none of us are exactly set on doing things one specific way, I'm not sure a "people's mod" would make a much more significant impact than simply having open discussions from time to time.

[SAUTO]

Well considering many of us have donated to keep the site up, server costs, etc... That pretty much gives those folks a voice in the matter.


I feel that mods spots should be up for renewal on yearly terms. Reason is simply the human element tends to get in the way of moderation after a period of time.

Some folks cant put there personal differences behind them when it comes to moderation. They abuse their rights and unfairly screw with other posters because of personal feelings.

Yearly terms should be voted on and new folks should have the opportunity to help police the site.

Otherwise we will revert to the Old star board levels or dear lord even the Orange mange...
you should have gotten that in writing because donating doesnt "pretty much" give anyone a say in anything.

i donated too buddy and the thought that i have a say in it never crossed my mind

[SAUTO]

I am sure there are plenty of folks that would debate the bolded part.

What if someone wants to be a mod? How can they go about being one?

ask austinchief. again he OWNS the place.

[RealSNR]

There are only so many posters on this forum, and a limited number of them are capable of doing the job of mod.

There's nothing wrong with the mod team as it is. If you want a shot, wait until one of them gets sick of doing the job, then bribe the powers that be to get the position.

[KC native]

I should be made to be a mod. It would provide insta-burst to the entire site.

[Eleazar]

Austin owns this place and the mods serve at his pleasure.

That being said, I think we could use some new blood, both to stay out of personal disputes with posters and board politics and gambling, and to try to improve the tenor of discussion here. I think taking a half a step toward a firmer tack against trolling and serial insulters as well as thread derailment would go a long way to helping bring CP back to being as good a place to be as it once was.

[Brock]

Austin owns this place and the mods serve at his pleasure.

That being said, I think we could use some new blood, both to stay out of personal disputes with posters and board politics and gambling, and to try to improve the tenor of discussion here. I think taking a half a step toward a firmer tack against trolling and serial insulters as well as thread derailment would go a long way to helping bring CP back to being as good a place to be as it once was.

More nostalgia for what never was

[Eleazar]

More nostalgia for what never was

Don't you think there used to be a lot smarter football talk around here?

[KC native]

MODS, MAKE ME A MOD FOR MAXIMUM CP BURST! IT WOULD BE AWESOME!

[Bearcat]

Austin owns this place and the mods serve at his pleasure.

That being said, I think we could use some new blood, both to stay out of personal disputes with posters and board politics and gambling, and to try to improve the tenor of discussion here. I think taking a half a step toward a firmer tack against trolling and serial insulters as well as thread derailment would go a long way to helping bring CP back to being as good a place to be as it once was.

I don't disagree there, but new mods don't exactly change that... AC asked us to calm down on the bans a while back. We've been doing more lately in terms of banning people from threads, but while I wouldn't say our hands are completely tied, but it's also not our board... new mods aren't exactly going to change that.

I agree with Brock for the most part... I think the "good old days" is more of a product of long time posters growing up and growing tired of the same old shit, not so much the site changing a whole lot. Maybe there's more noise now, and I think some of the anti-trolling/mocking stuff gets out of hand more often these days.

[Eleazar]

I don't disagree there, but new mods don't exactly change that... AC asked us to calm down on the bans a while back. We've been doing more lately in terms of banning people from threads, but while I wouldn't say our hands are completely tied, but it's also not our board... new mods aren't exactly going to change that.

I agree with Brock for the most part... I think the "good old days" is more of a product of long time posters growing up and growing tired of the same old shit, not so much the site changing a whole lot. Maybe there's more noise now, and I think some of the anti-trolling/mocking stuff gets out of hand more often these days.

When we had the threads a few weeks/months ago, basically everyone agrees that this place is much more low brow than it used to be. The team hasn't really been competitive since the early 2000s at least, so you can't blame the team. Nothing has changed with the team.

I suppose we can do what we've been doing but I think being more proactive could help. There used to be more collegial debate and higher brow football talk and not just insult fests derailed into 'doesn't matter QB sucks'

[Rausch]

You'll never overthrow my Reich. I am your czar,...

First rule of the Reich: NEVER include the fucking bolsheviks...

[Bearcat]

When we had the threads a few weeks/months ago, basically everyone agrees that this place is much more low brow than it used to be. The team hasn't really been competitive since the early 2000s at least, so you can't blame the team. Nothing has changed with the team.

I suppose we can do what we've been doing but I think being more proactive could help. There used to be more collegial debate and higher brow football talk and not just insult fests derailed into 'doesn't matter QB sucks'

A lot of people have that "good old days" thing... I think there's some truth to it, the board has become a lot bigger, people move on for various reasons, etc. But, I've always taken breaks from this place... game day threads have always been terrible... there have always been trolls... some of the worst posters have been here for years.

Like I said though, I don't disagree that it can't be better... I've always been a fan of removing those who bring absolutely nothing to the table, but 1) it's not my board, 2) my definition will differ from other members.

We have been more active with banning people from threads, but there's still only so much we can do because everyone has a different opinion of what needs to be done. If you read all of the reported posts, I think you'd agree how ridiculous some of them can be... I personally wouldn't mind kicking out all of the chicken littles every time the most clutch team you've ever seen goes down a run, but settle for dumping the worst of it. Hell, we were even going to ban the winner of Douche of the Year for like a week and got overturned.

[Reerun_KC]

A lot of people have that "good old days" thing... I think there's some truth to it, the board has become a lot bigger, people move on for various reasons, etc. But, I've always taken breaks from this place... game day threads have always been terrible... there have always been trolls... some of the worst posters have been here for years.

Like I said though, I don't disagree that it can't be better... I've always been a fan of removing those who bring absolutely nothing to the table, but 1) it's not my board, 2) my definition will differ from other members.

We have been more active with banning people from threads, but there's still only so much we can do because everyone has a different opinion of what needs to be done. If you read all of the reported posts, I think you'd agree how ridiculous some of them can be... I personally wouldn't mind kicking out all of the chicken littles every time the most clutch team you've ever seen goes down a run, but settle for dumping the worst of it. Hell, we were even going to ban the winner of Douche of the Year for like a week and got overturned.

What I have noticed lately is that if you don't go along with the popular voice (blame Smith, turn every thread into Smith bashing) then the masses really start to whine to the Mods...

Actual football discussion or discussion about the root of this teams problems are overshadowed by the constant whining of Smith...

[Dave Lane]

What I have noticed lately is that if you don't go along with the popular voice (blame Smith, turn every thread into Smith bashing) then the masses really start to whine to the Mods...

Actual football discussion or discussion about the root of this teams problems are overshadowed by the constant whining of Smith...

Its like a black fly in your chardonnay...

[KC native]

Seriously, if you guys would just make me a mod then I would have this site turned around in about 30 minutes.

[Bearcat]

What I have noticed lately is that if you don't go along with the popular voice (blame Smith, turn every thread into Smith bashing) then the masses really start to whine to the Mods...

Actual football discussion or discussion about the root of this teams problems are overshadowed by the constant whining of Smith...

Coming from someone whose 50k posts can be condensed into about twenty. Tell us again about 3 point defense or Andy Reid.

[Reerun_KC]

Coming from someone whose 50k posts can be condensed into about twenty. Tell us again about 3 point defense or Andy Reid.

Yet you can condense the whole site and the last 4,567,765,332,456,789,543,546,789 posts into one post that says Alex Smith sucks. Some riveting football discussion we have here...

Yet, question Andy Reids play calling or game mgmt. or heaven forbid replace Andy Reid.... Meltdown....

[Iowanian]

I should be made to be a mod. It would provide insta-burst to the entire site.


I'll just throw this out there. Anyone who wants to be a mod, probably shouldn't be.
It's a crap, thankless job.

If a douchebag like Native is a mod, I'll be done here.

[KC native]

I'll just throw this out there. Anyone who wants to be a mod, probably shouldn't be.
It's a crap, thankless job.

If a douchebag like Native is a mod, I'll be done here.

See. Just the possibility of me becoming a mod would improve the site.

[Bearcat]

Yet you can condense the whole site and the last 4,567,765,332,456,789,543,546,789 posts into one post that says Alex Smith sucks. Some riveting football discussion we have here...

Yet, question Andy Reids play calling or game mgmt. or heaven forbid replace Andy Reid.... Meltdown....

Thanks in advance for being part of the solution... maybe use red text or something when you finally decide to contribute something.

[Iowanian]

See. Just the possibility of me becoming a mod would improve the site.

I'm certain you would be about as good at being a mod as keeping a happy wife.

[cosmo20002]

Austin owns this place and the mods serve at his pleasure.



So they're pleasuring him? That explains a few things.

[Reerun_KC]

Thanks in advance for being part of the solution... maybe use red text or something when you finally decide to contribute something.

Ill do my best, you're welcome!

Alex Smith Sucks!

[KC native]

I'm certain you would be about as good at being a mod as keeping a happy wife.

I would be the most awesome mod ever.

You would still be a shit-tier poster that googles jokes.

[cosmo20002]

If a douchebag like Native is a mod, I'll be done here.

I second the Native nomination.

[DaNewGuy]

Native's love of TCU is his only drawback.

[Iowanian]

I second the Native nomination.

May your FUPA reduction surgery be successful.

[KC native]

Native's love of TCU is his only drawback.

:thumb: Sorry, not sorry. I graduated from there.

[KC native]

I second the Native nomination.

SEE! I'M A UNITER!

[TimBone]

Its like a black fly in your chardonnay...

Coming from someone whose 50k posts can be condensed into about twenty. Tell us again about 3 point defense or Andy Reid.
I started a similar response, but decided to let it go. I'm glad you guys put it out there, though.

[Mr. Plow]

Thanks in advance for being part of the solution... maybe use red text or something when you finally decide to contribute something.

LMAO

[Brock]

When we had the threads a few weeks/months ago, basically everyone agrees that this place is much more low brow than it used to be. The team hasn't really been competitive since the early 2000s at least, so you can't blame the team. Nothing has changed with the team.

I suppose we can do what we've been doing but I think being more proactive could help. There used to be more collegial debate and higher brow football talk and not just insult fests derailed into 'doesn't matter QB sucks'

Nothing has changed with the team. Exactly. The same arguments have been had here for 15 years. I can remember back on the old star board that people used to point out grbac isn't very good and why do we keep trading for backup qbs, and people would rage on about how drafting a qb is too risky.

Nothing has changed. The same things keep happening over and over again. If you want to remember it differently, it's fine. That's how I remember it.

[Fire Me Boy!]

What about an up or down vote every two years like they do judges? Might reel in any rogue mods. Fresh blood is normally good.

I'm pretty sure all the mods would be renewed, but it would be epic (and terminally stupid) to let mods run for office like the noob contest, offering bribes and such LMAO

Yeah, that's the main thing. Unless someone is doing something egregiously bad, I seriously doubt anyone would ever be "voted out."

Would never work without transparency from the mod team. Unless the discussions where opinions and actions were publicly known, how would anyone know who the "bad" mods are?

[Hydrae]

MODS, MAKE ME A MOD FOR MAXIMUM CP BURST! IT WOULD BE AWESOME!

Hey Mods, I think he is asking for a name change to something like KC Burster. :)

[SAUTO]

Nothing has changed with the team. Exactly. The same arguments have been had here for 15 years. I can remember back on the old star board that people used to point out grbac isn't very good and why do we keep trading for backup qbs, and people would rage on about how drafting a qb is too risky.

Nothing has changed. The same things keep happening over and over again. If you want to remember it differently, it's fine. That's how I remember it.

even most people who didnt think it was the qb are now saying it is the qb

[Bearcat]

Would never work without transparency from the mod team. Unless the discussions where opinions and actions were publicly known, how would anyone know who the "bad" mods are?

In what ways should we be more transparent?

[KC native]

In what ways should we be more transparent?

By making me a mod.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant and I'm a huge ball of sunshine. :D

[TimBone]

In what ways should we be more transparent?
We're all gonna need access to the mod lounge.

[TimeForWasp]

And I promise to tackle the Chiefs Planet deficit of -$3100

That deficit will be almost doubled by the year 11/01/2015

GIRAFFE

[luv]

First rule should be that you cannot nominate yourself.

[Just Passin' By]

Keep the censorship as close to zero as possible, while upholding AC's rules
Keep the bannings as close to zero as possible, while upholding AC's rules


As long as that's happening, why should anyone give a shit who the mods are at any given time?

[Bearcat]

We're all gonna need access to the mod lounge.

Besides the free booze, hookers, the Ban Wheel, there's really nothing to do in there.


Posted from Austin Chief's private jet

[vailpass]

Well considering many of us have donated to keep the site up, server costs, etc... That pretty much gives those folks a voice in the matter.


I feel that mods spots should be up for renewal on yearly terms. Reason is simply the human element tends to get in the way of moderation after a period of time.

Some folks cant put there personal differences behind them when it comes to moderation. They abuse their rights and unfairly screw with other posters because of personal feelings.

Yearly terms should be voted on and new folks should have the opportunity to help police the site.

Otherwise we will revert to the Old star board levels or dear lord even the Orange mange...

Did you hit your head on the sidewalk really hard?

[Eleazar]

In what ways should we be more transparent?

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

[TimBone]

Besides the free booze, hookers, the Ban Wheel, there's really nothing to do in there.


Posted from Austin Chief's private jet
See, I've got it stuck in my head that Kate Upton is shows up in there every couple of weeks to blow everyone. It's driving me nuts.

[Lex Luthors]

Well considering many of us have donated to keep the site up, server costs, etc... That pretty much gives those folks a voice in the matter.

I make donations every month to Time Warner Cable, Kansas City Power & Light, and American Family Insurance. For some reason they still don't listen to me when I tell them how to run their businesses.

[Fire Me Boy!]

In what ways should we be more transparent?

I'm not saying do away with the mod lounge. You need somewhere to discuss without input from the peanut gallery.

But I'd start by asking that you publicly talk about actions being taken. Hell, make it a megathread. If you ban someone, say so, say why (post a link to the thread, if possible), and post the mod vote (is it even voted on, or is it one mod deciding action should be taken?). Say when that person will be reprieved.

[Fire Me Boy!]

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

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

[Reerun_KC]

Did you hit your head on the sidewalk really hard?

No, but did hit the O2 mask the other day for the hell of it... That must of done it...

:hmmm:

[Reerun_KC]

Besides the free booze, hookers, the Ban Wheel, there's really nothing to do in there.


Posted from Austin Chief's private jet

Sounds like one of our Jet trips to Vegas at the top of the Aria....

[Eleazar]

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

Yeah, it's an old reference to a pine tar home run type banning, suddenly starting to enforce a rule. Like when it's expedient during a pissing match.

[DaFace]

I'm not saying do away with the mod lounge. You need somewhere to discuss without input from the peanut gallery.

But I'd start by asking that you publicly talk about actions being taken. Hell, make it a megathread. If you ban someone, say so, say why (post a link to the thread, if possible), and post the mod vote (is it even voted on, or is it one mod deciding action should be taken?). Say when that person will be reprieved.

Yeesh. That's what we need - a set place for everyone to bitch every time someone gets booted from a thread.

[Sorter]

I saw the Mod Lounge once.


It was glorious.

[Reerun_KC]

Yeesh. That's what we need - a set place for everyone to bitch every time someone gets booted from a thread.
So basically you want a thread to go to so you can vent while the circle jerk continues in the thread you were banned from?

[Bob Dole]

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

Stop poking the bear.

[Bob Dole]

FYI, there is a whopping total of TWO regulars on temporary bans.

[KC native]

GUYS THIS ACRIMONY COULD ALL BE RESOLVED BY MAKING ME A MOD!

[Ming the Merciless]

it would be a pretty fun idea IMO

no real power maybe except to tag

my only real input would be to time the PEOPLES MOD election with the presidential election so like Nov 2016

If we do one now, make it an interim position until the 'real' election is held simultaneous to the presidential election


Great idea if done this way IMO

[Eleazar]

GUYS THIS ACRIMONY COULD ALL BE RESOLVED BY MAKING ME A MOD!

I think KC Native's plan is irresponsible and dangerous and is definitely not going to better the working families of ChiefsPlanet.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Heh, the only response I have is I named myself "The People's Mod". Yeah, I'm the douche that gave MYSELF a nickname. Bwana, Bearcat, and...I think someone else was "elected" at the same time as myself. We've had these polls and contests on multiple occasions. Considering how much less I'm around, and how much less I'm vocal about what the mods decide to do, and how much more people have seen that I'm not some lone wolf, I'd be shocked if the results were any different than they've ever been. That said, I appreciate the many kind words I've received from people whenever these threads randomly pop up. Genuinely. It is a pretty thankless job...

[Bob Dole]

I think KC Native's plan is irresponsible and dangerous and is definitely not going to better the working families of ChiefsPlanet.

Bob Dole is wondering how many times he is going to post that before he realizes all the mods have him on ignore.

[gblowfish]

I don't care who runs this asylum, as long as it's not me.

[Bufkin]

I also agree that KC Native should be mod. I think he would be fair, and has a good grip on what is best for this board.

Make it happen mods.

[eDave]

Mets Refugees banned one of their own Mods last night. Thought that was funny.

He was going OFF on Wright.

[Fire Me Boy!]

FYI, there is a whopping total of TWO regulars on temporary bans.

Then it shouldn't be that big of a deal to be public and open about it, should it?

[Reerun_KC]

Then it shouldn't be that big of a deal to be public and open about it, should it?
That would mean accountability..... Some will tell you and be open and honest about it. You can usually talk it out and everything is fine...

[Bob Dole]

Then it shouldn't be that big of a deal to be public and open about it, should it?

Pretty sure both of them were publicly discussed.

Claynus celebrated injured KC players and CoMoChief was a complete douchebag with Royals GDT and subsequent postings.

Stop acting like there is some evil cabal behind the curtain. Dude, WTF happened to you?

[Ming the Merciless]

FYI, there is a whopping total of TWO regulars on temporary bans.


Oh you mean you ONLY let two idiots outsmart you and get under your skin and bruise your sensitive vagina this week?

You 'only' banned two out of the regulars? LOLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Is that some kind of record?

Do you want a trophy?

http://img.webme.com/pic/m/markjoseph/josephtrophy.jpg

[Bob Dole]

Oh you mean you ONLY let two idiots outsmart you and get under your skin and bruise your sensitive vagina this week?

You 'only' banned two out of the regulars? LOLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Is that some kind of record?

Do you want a trophy?

http://img.webme.com/pic/m/markjoseph/josephtrophy.jpg

Bob Dole only banned one of them.

The point is that the miserable fucks around here that probably should be banned because they offer nothing positive, are acting like there is some huge fatality rate.

[KC native]

I also agree that KC Native should be mod. I think he would be fair, and has a good grip on what is best for this board.

Make it happen mods.

SEE! I'M A CONSENSUS BUILDER! EVEN THIS WORTHLESS FUCK THINKS I SHOULD BE A MOD.

[Ming the Merciless]

Bob Dole only banned one of them.

The point is that the miserable ****s around here that probably should be banned.


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

[Bob Dole]

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.


Bob Dole has 42 people on ignore.

Well, 43 now.

[Fire Me Boy!]

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

Sounds familiar...

[Fire Me Boy!]

Dude, WTF happened to you?

I got tired of seeing people treated unfairly.

[Ming the Merciless]

Bob Dole has 42 people on ignore.

Well, 43 now.


Youre learning.

Congrats....and they said that retards were impossible to teach.

THATS how you handle it...well...if youre an adult with a normal sized ego and without a sore vag

[Brock]

Who's being treated unfairly?

[pr_capone]

Heh, the only response I have is I named myself "The People's Mod". Yeah, I'm the douche that gave MYSELF a nickname. Bwana, Bearcat, and...I think someone else was "elected" at the same time as myself. We've had these polls and contests on multiple occasions. Considering how much less I'm around, and how much less I'm vocal about what the mods decide to do, and how much more people have seen that I'm not some lone wolf, I'd be shocked if the results were any different than they've ever been. That said, I appreciate the many kind words I've received from people whenever these threads randomly pop up. Genuinely. It is a pretty thankless job...

you did read the very first thing I wrote in the OP... right?

This wasn't a negative thread about you or stating you should lose your mod powers for whatever minimal infraction. In fact, I like you better than several of the more entrenched mods.

I like the title People's Mod. It indicated who it was that voted you in. AC didn't hand pick you... you were elected by the proletariat. I like the thought of the proletariat being able to have some voice in their government... even if it is a small one.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Who's being treated unfairly?

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

[Brock]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!]

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!]

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.

[SAUTO]

That's a poor excuse for not even trying.

It's just the way life goes. It's human nature.

[Just Passin' By]

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.

I agree with you that a lot of thread bans suck. In some ways, they are even more stupid than actual full site bans. You should take it up with A.C., if you have a strong position on them, though, since the mods are obviously fine with them.

[stumppy]

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.

I got no problem with this.

[SAUTO]

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.

I've said the same thing about clay for years. He made them look silly trying to keep him out and broke their will. Thank god dole gives no fucks about what he looks like.

[SAUTO]

I agree with you that a lot of thread bans suck. In some ways, they are even more stupid than actual full site bans. You should take it up with A.C., if you have a strong position on them, though, since the mods are obviously fine with them.

Why do you think it sucks to remove someone from a thread that is just mucking it up saying the same, usually off topic, thing all the time?

[TimBone]

I saw the Mod Lounge once.


It was glorious.
Was it one of the days that Kate Upton was blowing everyone?

I know it's happening. No need to deny it.

[DaFace]

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.

People throw out "why don't you develop this capability" from time to time, and I never really understand how that's a reasonable suggestion. Any modifications we have here have been designed by other people. If there's not a plugin to do it, we can't do it. You could probably hire someone for somewhere in the low 5 figures to develop it for us, but that seems just a bit unlikely.

Until then, thread bans remove the issue (people derailing good discussion) while allowing them to continue to participate in the broader forum.

[TimBone]

FYI, there is a whopping total of TWO regulars on temporary bans.
Como and Clay, correct?

[SAUTO]

Was it one of the days that Kate Upton was blowing everyone?

I know it's happening. No need to deny it.

I got to visit that day and passed on the blow job. I'm better than that.

[SAUTO]

People throw out "why don't you develop this capability" from time to time, and I never really understand how that's a reasonable suggestion. Any modifications we have here have been designed by other people. If there's not a plugin to do it, we can't do it. You could probably hire someone for somewhere in the low 5 figures to develop it for us, but that seems just a bit unlikely.

Until then, thread bans remove the issue (people derailing good discussion) while allowing them to continue to participate in the broader forum.

He actually described exactly what we have, ignore function and rep bars that are red and green.


I think he was being a smart ass.

[DaFace]

He actually described exactly what we have, ignore function and rep bars that are red and green.


I think he was being a smart ass.

Huh. If that's the case, see ad nauseum discussions about why the ignore function sucks and isn't a viable alternative.

[Bob Dole]

Como and Clay, correct?

Correct.

[MMXcalibur]

First debate question: What is your campaign's policy on Clay?

[TimBone]

Mods are allowed to make judgement calls. Clay was warned and he kept it up. Como shouldn't need explanation.
You don't understand...FMB is up in arms over Inmen's banning, of all people.

[Just Passin' By]

Why do you think it sucks to remove someone from a thread that is just mucking it up saying the same, usually off topic, thing all the time?

Because, just like with site bans, that ends up just being a starting point. And, because they are less permanent than a full site ban, they get used more quickly, which leads to bans becoming more frequent and accepted, and that's exactly the opposite of the sort of board this is supposed to be.

We've already had one person banned from the site despite apparently not having actually done anything ban worthy while on the site. We don't need mods making even more decisions of that sort.

[listopencil]

I think this is fucking stupid.


Austin OWNS this place, he makes the decisions.

^

[TimBone]

I got to visit that day and passed on the blow job. I'm better than that.
What a waste.

[SAUTO]

What a waste.

Would have been for me.

[listopencil]

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

So you're saying that if someone expresses themselves in a way that you don't approve of then it's up to you to deal with it internally and ignore it rather than trying to stifle that expression? Like, say, if someone flies a flag that you don't like then you should ignore it and move on instead of lashing out like an angry little bitch?

[Bob Dole]

Because, just like with site bans, that ends up just being a starting point. And, because they are less permanent than a full site ban, they get used more quickly, which leads to bans becoming more frequent and accepted, and that's exactly the opposite of the sort of board this is supposed to be.

We've already had one person banned from the site despite apparently not having actually done anything ban worthy while on the site. We don't need mods making even more decisions of that sort.

Yeah, there are TWO trolls on temp bans.

OH THE HUMANITY! IT'S A TROLL HOLOCAUST!!

Phuqtard

[Sully]

Heh, the only response I have is I named myself "The People's Mod". Yeah, I'm the douche that gave MYSELF a nickname. Bwana, Bearcat, and...I think someone else was "elected" at the same time as myself. We've had these polls and contests on multiple occasions. Considering how much less I'm around, and how much less I'm vocal about what the mods decide to do, and how much more people have seen that I'm not some lone wolf, I'd be shocked if the results were any different than they've ever been. That said, I appreciate the many kind words I've received from people whenever these threads randomly pop up. Genuinely. It is a pretty thankless job...
Your face is made of ass.

[seclark]

ROFL
stale...gochiefs and como...
sec

[listopencil]

Yeah, there are TWO trolls on temp bans.

OH THE HUMANITY! IT'S A TROLL HOLOCAUST!!

Phuqtard

TROLLOCAUST!

[alpha_omega]

If it ain't broke don't try to fix it.

[Bob Dole]

TROLLOCAUST!

Trollololol

[Bearcat]

Because, just like with site bans, that ends up just being a starting point. And, because they are less permanent than a full site ban, they get used more quickly, which leads to bans becoming more frequent and accepted, and that's exactly the opposite of the sort of board this is supposed to be.

We've already had one person banned from the site despite apparently not having actually done anything ban worthy while on the site. We don't need mods making even more decisions of that sort.

We're not suddenly on a slippery slope. Thread bans have been a thing for a while and dumping the worst trolls has been a thing for 15 years. Clay's been banned several times, CoMo did everything except ask to be banned. Neither of those are out of the ordinary in any way.

That said, if we do start making more of those decisions, it's because of the overwhelming response from people who want more moderation.

[seclark]

We're not suddenly on a slippery slope. Thread bans have been a thing for a while and dumping the worst trolls has been a thing for 15 years. Clay's been banned several times, CoMo did everything except ask to be banned. Neither of those are out of the ordinary in any way.

That said, if we do start making more of those decisions, it's because of the overwhelming response from people who want more moderation.

can you guys kick them in the nuts on their way out?
sec

[Just Passin' By]

Yeah, there are TWO trolls on temp bans.

OH THE HUMANITY! IT'S A TROLL HOLOCAUST!!

Phuqtard

I didn't say it would happen immediately. It's how these things typically play out over time, not the very next day.

[Ming the Merciless]

So you're saying that if someone expresses themselves in a way that you don't approve of then it's up to you to deal with it internally and ignore it rather than trying to stifle that expression? Like, say, if someone flies a flag that you don't like then you should ignore it and move on instead of lashing out like an angry little bitch?



...I mean , I really don't even mind the lashing out part..

Its the mod banning them for doing what every single other person does with no clear violation of TOS that I mind....

The lashing out is funny

[Bwana]

JHC LMAO There is about 4 "guys" in this thread that could use these.

https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-364fb35e935050a0fc99d569f0c9b147?convert_to_webp=true (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRxqFQoTCPjCtYa35sgCFUrvYwodDFENeQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.quora.com%2FWhat-is-the-smallest-tampon-size-available&bvm=bv.106130839,d.cGc&psig=AFQjCNFm6nwyur59__VcbkkFkvaonXFVrg&ust=1446165122742793)

[Bob Dole]

I didn't say it would happen immediately. It's how these things typically play out over time, not the very next day.

Thanks for still being a whiny bitch.

[BigRedChief]

We're not suddenly on a slippery slope. Thread bans have been a thing for a while and dumping the worst trolls has been a thing for 15 years. Clay's been banned several times, CoMo did everything except ask to be banned. Neither of those are out of the ordinary in any way.

That said, if we do start making more of those decisions, it's because of the overwhelming response from people who want more moderation.I think people want a more heavy hand with assholes trolling people in threads and just in general being a nuisance in threads, Ban them from individual threads.

Give the multiple violators a mini vacation to consider not being an asshole in threads. No biggie.

More posters being banned permanently I think a very few want that to happen.

[Ming the Merciless]

JHC LMAO There is about 4 "guys" in this thread that could use these.



Too bad dole's pussy is so big that he will hog all 4

the other 3 guys are gonna bleed out

[Just Passin' By]

Thanks for still being a whiny bitch.


I was answering someone's question. I wasn't whining.

[Bearcat]

I think people want a more heavy hand with assholes trolling people in threads and just in general being a nuisance in threads, Ban them from individual threads.

Give the multiple violators a mini vacation to consider not being an asshole in threads. No biggie.

More posters being banned permanently I think a very few want that to happen.

That pretty much sums up this thread.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=11844523&postcount=128

[Bob Dole]

I was answering someone's question. I wasn't whining.

Other than complaining about shit you imagine could maybe possibly happen.

Okay. Carry on.

[Bwana]

I think people want a more heavy hand with assholes trolling people in threads and just in general being a nuisance in threads, Ban them from individual threads.



Some do some don't and that's the way it's always been. If we crack down on guys like that, which we've been doing more of, some people get butt hurt about it. Everyone has their own idea of what ChiefsPlanet utopia looks like and everyone's vision is a little bit different.

[Just Passin' By]

Other than complaining about shit you imagine could maybe possibly happen.

Okay. Carry on.

I wasn't complaining about anything. Again, I was answering a question. I'm not sure why you're riding my ass about this.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Your face is made of ass.

You seem nice.

[Iconic]

Unnecessary drama. Does anyone actually give a shit lol.

[Bwana]

Unnecessary drama. Does anyone actually give a shit lol.

Not many but........

[Gonzo]

I haven't belonged to many b-board sites so I have an honest question or two.

What happens to posters at most boards when they start threads about once or twice a year bitching about moderators and admins or their decisions to punish members?

What about boards where members start threads once or twice a year bitching about mods when they bring back people who've been banned?

Not being a shit here. Just wondering if anyone's ever experienced that?
Maybe it's not very common because most boards don't give members the freedom to question the mods?

I've heard horror stories about the mange. Never really hung out there.

[LiveSteam]

Yeah, there are TWO trolls on temp bans.

OH THE HUMANITY! IT'S A TROLL HOLOCAUST!!

Phuqtard
LMAOLMAO

[Bearcat]

I haven't belonged to many b-board sites so I have an honest question or two.

What happens to posters at most boards when they start threads about once or twice a year bitching about moderators and admins or their decisions to punish members?

What about boards where members start threads once or twice a year bitching about mods when they bring back people who've been banned?

Not being a shit here. Just wondering if anyone's ever experienced that?
Maybe it's not very common because most boards don't give members the freedom to question the mods?

I've heard horror stories about the mange. Never really hung out there.

It's been my experience that moderation isn't even a question on other sites, but those sites are all heavily moderated compared to this place... meaning I've never seen threads, whether they're closed immediately or people simply don't question decisions for whatever reason.

It's hard to do anything in between heavy moderation and no moderation.

[Bwana]

It's been my experience that moderation isn't even a question on other sites, but those sites are all heavily moderated compared to this place... meaning I've never seen threads, whether they're closed immediately or people simply don't question decisions for whatever reason.

It's hard to do anything in between heavy moderation and no moderation.

Yeah likewise on some of the other places I post. This is the most loosely moderated site I have ever posted on and it's not even close. With that being said, that may be why a select few are taken back and butt hurt when something does happen. :shrug:

[Bob Dole]

Yeah likewise on some of the other places I post. This is the most loosely moderated site I have ever posted on and it's not even close. With that being said, that may be why a select few are taken back and butt hurt when something does happen. :shrug:

Or when nothing of consequence does happen.

Let's whine about nothing but what we imagine might eventually happen some day, even though history indicates it won't!

If Bob Dole went with his gut, there would be about 20 fewer users instead of 43 on his ignore list.

[Bufkin]

I'm a moderator on a major NFL message board, and I envy the type of freedom the mods at CP have. They do a damn good job.

Outside of BobDole, there isn't one mod on this board that does a shit job.

[Psyko Tek]

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


GIRAFFE. MOTHER. FUCKER.

TL:DR

[vailpass]

Yeah likewise on some of the other places I post. This is the most loosely moderated site I have ever posted on and it's not even close. With that being said, that may be why a select few are taken back and butt hurt when something does happen. :shrug:

Yep...

[Bob Dole]

I'm a moderator on a major NFL message board, and I envy the type of freedom the mods at CP have. They do a damn good job.

Outside of BobDole, there isn't one mod on this board that does a shit job.

If Bob Dole was that bad, you'd be gone already, Cupcake.

[Sorter]

Bob Dole only banned one of them.

The point is that the miserable fucks around here that probably should be banned because they offer nothing positive, are acting like there is some huge fatality rate.

This is true.


The board decided to sacrifice CoMo to the baseball Gods. Since that happened, the Royals have dominated.

[pr_capone]

Keep in mind... the original point of the post was to create a single mod position (or take's Flop's initial appointment as the rotating spot... not willing to die for either one) that would be an elected position by the users. Not to complain about the status of the moderation of the board nor about any one particular moderator.

I'm also not suggesting we make this a running for student council thing where people campaign for the position and make promises about the quality of lunches and how long passing period is... as what they can effect will actually be very little to nothing at all. What it does, though, is lend a user voice to the modly proceedings of CP.

[listopencil]

...I mean , I really don't even mind the lashing out part..

Its the mod banning them for doing what every single other person does with no clear violation of TOS that I mind....

The lashing out is funny

The bannings will continue until morale improves.

[Sorter]

The bannings will continue until morale improves.

http://38.media.tumblr.com/adfd696e1052a5571b077ac870ece8f6/tumblr_nngou7qqSf1tqumkpo5_1280.gif

[Mr. Plow]

You don't understand...FMB is up in arms over Inmen's banning, of all people.

Whoa whoa whoa...... someone is upset about that douchebag Inmen getting banned?!?

[Mr. Plow]

We're not suddenly on a slippery slope. Thread bans have been a thing for a while and dumping the worst trolls has been a thing for 15 years. Clay's been banned several times, CoMo did everything except ask to be banned. Neither of those are out of the ordinary in any way.

That said, if we do start making more of those decisions, it's because of the overwhelming response from people who want more moderation.

CoMo should have been banned a long time ago over his Kaun stupidity.

[Rausch]

This is true.


The board decided to sacrifice CoMo to the baseball Gods. Since that happened, the Royals have dominated.

We should let him on and then ban him again before every game...

[Eleazar]

I haven't belonged to many b-board sites so I have an honest question or two.

What happens to posters at most boards when they start threads about once or twice a year bitching about moderators and admins or their decisions to punish members?

What about boards where members start threads once or twice a year bitching about mods when they bring back people who've been banned?

Not being a shit here. Just wondering if anyone's ever experienced that?
Maybe it's not very common because most boards don't give members the freedom to question the mods?

I've heard horror stories about the mange. Never really hung out there.

On most boards I've been an active member of, trolls are banned pretty quickly. The mods ban people permanently because they're douches or threadwreckers and they are quickly forgotten.

[Eleazar]

First debate question: What is your campaign's policy on Clay?

My position is that he should be banned for 30 days every 30 days, and we should build a wall around CP to keep him out

[Bearcat]

On most boards I've been an active member of, trolls are banned pretty quickly. The mods ban people permanently because they're douches or threadwreckers and they are quickly forgotten.

Yep, I've been on boards where people will be warned for "being a little testy" because they make some sarcastic or passive aggressive comment... and a hockey board that has mod warnings everywhere, but haven't ever seen a thread about how the board is run.

[Bob Dole]

Yep, I've been on boards where people will be warned for "being a little testy" because they make some sarcastic or passive aggressive comment... and a hockey board that has mod warnings everywhere, but haven't ever seen a thread about how the board is run.

Probably because their users don't have the imaginations that ours do.

[KC native]

GUYS, I'M STILL WAITING FOR MY MOD ABILITIES TO BE GRANTED!

LET'S GET IT DONE!

[TimBone]

Whoa whoa whoa...... someone is upset about that douchebag Inmen getting banned?!?
Yeah. It was kinda sad actually. FMB is a quality poster, but he had an extreme meltdown this summer after Inmen was put on Miserable User (or maybe it was a banning). He had a long back and forth thread with the Mods where he refuse to back down, and then he disappeared for a while.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Yeah. It was kinda sad actually. FMB is a quality poster, but he had an extreme meltdown this summer after Inmen was put on Miserable User (or maybe it was a banning). He had a long back and forth thread with the Mods where he refuse to back down, and then he disappeared for a while.


I'm not going to get back into it, but believe it or not, it wasn't all about Inmem. He was a convenient example, and the timing coincided.

Though I do have a philosophical problem with Miserable User in general.

[Eleazar]

Yep, I've been on boards where people will be warned for "being a little testy" because they make some sarcastic or passive aggressive comment... and a hockey board that has mod warnings everywhere, but haven't ever seen a thread about how the board is run.

I frequent a Jeep forum and a couple of others occasionally. What usually happens is people get a warning for being a jerk and then they get banned right after if they keep it up. Most forums won't put up with long term trolling or a tendency toward personal attacks, so a troll has a very short life span.

I don't think a community ever misses trolls or self promoters or people who tell you to kill yourself so nobody cares.

[Dave Lane]

Thanks for still being a whiny bitch.

You should ban him. Just cuz...

[TimBone]

I'm not going to get back into it, but believe it or not, it wasn't all about Inmem. He was a convenient example, and the timing coincided.

Though I do have a philosophical problem with Miserable User in general.
As far as MU is concerned, I assume your argument is from somewhat of a morality standpoint? Meaning, either ban them or don't, but putting them on MU is cruel?

I agree that MU is a 'fuck you, take this' revenge type punishment. I'll be honest though, that's why I like it. The people that end up on MU, are usually folks that have done a good job of making everyone else miserable, so it's giving them a bit of their own medicine, IMO.

[Eleazar]

MU is a good solution for people who would keep coming back after they are banned. I don't know if he had the know-how to do that, but he was definitely a 'miserable user'

[Fire Me Boy!]

As far as MU is concerned, I assume your argument is from somewhat of a morality standpoint? Meaning, either ban them or don't, but putting them on MU is cruel?

I agree that MU is a 'fuck you, take this' revenge type punishment. I'll be honest though, that's why I like it. The people that end up on MU, are usually folks that have done a good job of making everyone else miserable, so it's giving them a bit of their own medicine, IMO.


You are correct. Either ban them or don't. I wouldn't say cruel. I'd say childish. Sack up and ban them, don't "mostly" ban them.

And Inmem was pleasant and contributive in the food threads.

[cosmo20002]

In what ways should we be more transparent?

If someone is banned, for 24 hours or "perma," post who and why.
Keeps rumors from floating about the "BS reasons" said person was banned.
Could possibly serve as a deterrent for future behavior from others.
Keeps mods who are on the rag and having a bad day from acting stupid.
Now, no one knows what the fuck is going on.

[cosmo20002]

Pretty sure both of them were publicly discussed.

Claynus celebrated injured KC players and CoMoChief was a complete douchebag with Royals GDT and subsequent postings.

Stop acting like there is some evil cabal behind the curtain. Dude, WTF happened to you?

Heard of Hootie? So, we're up to three now. Who else is there?
Bob Dole not being honest.

[cosmo20002]

Bob Dole has 42 people on ignore.

Well, 43 now.

Why is a mod putting anyone on ignore? Aren't mods supposed to be seeing stuff that people are posting? JFC...you are horrible

[Bob Dole]

44

[Bob Dole]

From the FAQ:

Respect for Moderator Team

Moderators are members of the site first and leadership secondarily. Nobody expects you to kiss their ass or accept every decision as perfect and final. However, if you dispute a decision in which you were moderated, you may wish to use some tact if you expect to gain any favor. Use some common sense and you should be fine. Attack and disrespect the leadership and we offer no apologies for the duration of your vacation from this site.

[TLO]

By popular demand, I've decided to accept a moderator position, effective immediately.

[cosmo20002]

44

Ban-happy mod won't be seeing my posts...how awful

[Fire Me Boy!]

From the FAQ:



Respect for Moderator Team



Moderators are members of the site first and leadership secondarily. Nobody expects you to kiss their ass or accept every decision as perfect and final. However, if you dispute a decision in which you were moderated, you may wish to use some tact if you expect to gain any favor. Use some common sense and you should be fine. Attack and disrespect the leadership and we offer no apologies for the duration of your vacation from this site.


I don't mean to be an ass, really. This is a genuine question: Why do mods deserve any more or less respect than any other member here? By that very rule, mods are members first, just like everyone else. Wouldn't a better rule be "Respect for fellow members"?

[stevieray]

Ban-happy mod won't be seeing my posts...how awful
It' s not like he'd be missing anything of substance.

[stevieray]

I don't mean to be an ass, really. This is a genuine question: Why do mods deserve any more or less respect than any other member here? By that very rule, mods are members first, just like everyone else. Wouldn't a better rule be "Respect for fellow members"?

"I fight authority , authority always wins"

[Fire Me Boy!]

"I fight authority , authority always wins"


I think disagreement can be healthy. It leads to better understanding.

[Sassy Squatch]

Why is Bob Dole getting shit on? He seems to be the only one willing to take the trash out on his own when needed.

[eDave]

44

ROFL

[pr_capone]

I think disagreement can be healthy. It leads to better understanding.

No it doesn't, you and your ideas are fucking stupid. Go die from your mother's aids infested twat.

/cp's reaction to anything that challenges the status quo

[RunKC]

You are correct. Either ban them or don't. I wouldn't say cruel. I'd say childish. Sack up and ban them, don't "mostly" ban them.

And Inmem was pleasant and contributive in the food threads.

Is that guy on MU still? He's been gone for quite awhile. Wonder if the mods will let him come back?

[Fire Me Boy!]

Is that guy on MU still? He's been gone for quite awhile. Wonder if the mods will let him come back?


Yes, he is. And I doubt it. They let him back under another username and the instruction he couldn't reveal he was Inmem, then got pissed because he was "trolling the mods" when he was denying being Inmem.

[Sassy Squatch]

Yes, he is. And I doubt it. They let him back under another username and the instruction he couldn't reveal he was Inmem, then got pissed because he was "trolling the mods" when he was denying being Inmem.
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Let them back on with stricter parameters or lock them out for good. Don't play games with them.

[SAUTO]

No it doesn't, you and your ideas are fucking stupid. Go die from your mother's aids infested twat.

/cp's reaction to anything that challenges the status quo

Once again, AC OWNS this place, "the people" don't.


I'm not getting how people don't understand this...

[Eleazar]

Why is Bob Dole getting shit on? He seems to be the only one willing to take the trash out on his own when needed.

We need more of that, when the trash needs to go out because they are a negative for the board.

[Bearcat]

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Let them back on with stricter parameters or lock them out for good. Don't play games with them.

He's banned... we were fine with him coming back under a new name, figuring he could start over and not carry over his reputation. He was outed almost immediately, which wasn't even an issue and we figured could happen... the whole trying to out him with every post thing got kind of tired though, so I outed him one night. He goes on to play the whole "I'm not Inmem thing" with the mods who let him back in.

It wasn't playing games, even once he was outed, we were fine with him sticking around. As I've said, there are two types, those who own up to being a douche and being (well, almost) universally hated, and turn it around... or those who will never get it.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=11673697&postcount=211
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=291357



And I have no plans on rehashing it for the entire evening, but feel free to discuss and/or be outraged among yourselves. :)

[Fire Me Boy!]

He goes on to play the whole "I'm not Inmem thing" with the mods who let him back in.


It wasn't about you. He was playing the part you asked him to play. What did you expect? He didn't want to publicly admit he was Inmem because you all didn't want that.

[Sassy Squatch]

He's banned... we were fine with him coming back under a new name, figuring he could start over and not carry over his reputation. He was outed almost immediately, which wasn't even an issue and we figured could happen... the whole trying to out him with every post thing got kind of tired though, so I outed him one night. He goes on to play the whole "I'm not Inmem thing" with the mods who let him back in.

It wasn't playing games, even once he was outed, we were fine with him sticking around. As I've said, there are two types, those who own up to being a douche and being (well, almost) universally hated, and turn it around... or those who will never get it.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=11673697&postcount=211
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=291357



And I have no plans on rehashing it for the entire evening, but feel free to discuss and/or be outraged among yourselves. :)
Don't agree personally but I can see why you'd do it like that.

[Fire Me Boy!]

He also offered to come back and stick entirely to food threads until or if the mods felt he'd proven he had changed.

[Bearcat]

It wasn't about you. He was playing the part you asked him to play. What did you expect? He didn't want to publicly admit he was Inmem because you all didn't want that.

Mods tell him to lay low.
He's outed immediately, but denies it over and over (which is fine).
Mods say TimBone was right, it's really inmem.


You would have to be really fucking dense to think "guess I'll keep denying it while being a smartass to the mods, because they don't want me to say anything!"

[Fire Me Boy!]

Mods tell him to lay low.

He's outed immediately, but denies it over and over (which is fine).

Mods say TimBone was right, it's really inmem.





You would have to be really fucking dense to think "guess I'll keep denying it while being a smartass to the mods, because they don't want me to say anything!"


May be, but you tell the guy to lay low then ban him for doing just that. Then don't give him a chance to explain himself, when it genuinely sounds like a misunderstanding. Maybe I give him too much credit.

What about letting him back to stick to the food threads? He fucks it up, perma ban him, temp ban me, and I'll never mention another word about it.

[Bwana]

He also offered to come back and stick entirely to food threads until or if the mods felt he'd proven he had changed.

Are you seriously pining away for that ass hat, again. :shake:

[Fire Me Boy!]

Are you seriously pining away for that ass hat, again. :shake:

Someone else brought him up, I just responded.

But why do you care?

[Rams Fan]

Someone else brought him up, I just responded.

But why do you care?

For the same reason you care about a poster who contributed nothing but posts that contained variations of saying "Alex Smith sucks" for months, if not well over a year.

[Fire Me Boy!]

For the same reason you care about a poster who contributed nothing but posts that contained variations of saying "Alex Smith sucks" for months, if not well over a year.


Simply untrue.

[Bwana]

Someone else brought him up, I just responded.

But why do you care?

I really really don't I just find it bizarre. Did the dude give you a top notch recipe at some point or what? :shrug:

[Rams Fan]

Simply untrue.

I'm exaggerating, but from my experience, almost any football thread that he posted in contained that underlying message.

[Fire Me Boy!]

I really really don't I just find it bizarre. Did the dude give you a top notch recipe at some point or what? :shrug:


Goldfish hamburgers, dude. ;)

No, really, I think he's an OK dude. Granted, 99 percent of my interaction with him was in the What's for Dinner thread, but there at least he was genuinely likeable. And I think he tried to make amends, but the damage he did was already done and Bearcat didn't give him an inch. The Mr. Shhh thing was a miscommunication, I truly believe.

Like I said earlier, maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but I like to not think the worst about people.

[Sassy Squatch]

Goldfish hamburgers, dude. ;)

No, really, I think he's an OK dude. Granted, 99 percent of my interaction with him was in the What's for Dinner thread, but there at least he was genuinely likeable. And I think he tried to make amends, but the damage he did was already done and Bearcat didn't give him an inch. The Mr. Shhh thing was a miscommunication, I truly believe.

Like I said earlier, maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but I like to not think the worst about people.
You might be the only person that wants him back outside of the usual contrarians.

[Bearcat]

I actually didn't ban him.

And looking at his original account, four different mods banned him at some point, and none of those were me.... putting him on MU so he had to come back with a new account was all me though.

Apparently he wasn't well liked, go figure.

[Fire Me Boy!]

I actually didn't ban him.



And looking at his original account, four different mods banned him at some point, and none of those were me.... putting him on MU so he had to come back with a new account was all me though.



Apparently he wasn't well liked, go figure.


My apologies. Can someone describe his bannable offense on this last one?

[Bwana]

Goldfish hamburgers, dude. ;)

No, really, I think he's an OK dude. Granted, 99 percent of my interaction with him was in the What's for Dinner thread, but there at least he was genuinely likeable. And I think he tried to make amends, but the damage he did was already done and Bearcat didn't give him an inch. The Mr. Shhh thing was a miscommunication, I truly believe.

Like I said earlier, maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but I like to not think the worst about people.

Ok fair enough Captain, I was just curious.

[stevieray]

No it doesn't, you and your ideas are ****ing stupid. Go die from your mother's aids infested twat.

/cp's reaction to anything that challenges the status quo

you get nominated for this performance?

;)

[TimBone]

You are correct. Either ban them or don't. I wouldn't say cruel. I'd say childish. Sack up and ban them, don't "mostly" ban them.

And Inmem was pleasant and contributive in the food threads.
He was. But in your meltdown thread, you admitted that you didn't spend much time in other threads, and almost everyone explained to you that the dude was a pinheaded, annoying twat in every other thread. Your thread was really the first time I ever saw a banned user have only ONE person come to their defense. Outside of you, everyone was in agreement that he was worthless.

[TimBone]

44
LMAO

[stevieray]

He was. But in your meltdown thread, you admitted that you didn't spend much time in other threads, and almost everyone explained to you that the dude was a pinhead, annoying twat in every other thread. Your thread was really the first time I ever saw a banned user have only ONE person come to their defense. Outside of you, everyone was in agreement that he was worthless.

....sounds legit.

[TimBone]

May be, but you tell the guy to lay low then ban him for doing just that. Then don't give him a chance to explain himself, when it genuinely sounds like a misunderstanding. Maybe I give him too much credit.

What about letting him back to stick to the food threads? He fucks it up, perma ban him, temp ban me, and I'll never mention another word about it.

BINGO

[Buzz]

Hell, I'm a dumbass fuck, just ask Dane, not sure why I haven't been banned? Oh, and I may or may not have gas, and several beers.

[go bo]

My position is that he should be banned for 30 days every 30 days, and we should build a wall around CP to keep him out

are you going to make mexico clay pay for it?

[Lzen]

I vote for Bob Dole to ban all this little crybabies that are complaining about him. :)

[jspchief]

well theres only about 10 people left posting here, so might as well keep banning them.

[Bob Dole]

well theres only about 10 people left posting here, so might as well keep banning them.

You're not good with the maths.