patteeu |
01-28-2009 12:45 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by dirk digler
(Post 5433667)
To add some background supporters pay $10 a month and they get the ability to issue infractions or warnings and if the person gets enough of infractions he gets temp ban for a day or 2.
Some of the people in DC are upset that shtsprayer got temp banned because of some comments he made and believe that supporter powers are too strong.
On the flip side DaFace made a good point yesterday that if it wasn't for the few of us supporters Malboro Chief would have posted a ton of porn yesterday but we were able to ban him almost immediately.
So what does everyone think? Good idea, bad idea?
|
I thought they were called "hall monitor" powers.
Relying on actual moderators to ban people posting porn has never been a big issue in the past.
I think it's great that people are donating to ChiefsPlanet. I don't mind those people getting some fringe benefits in return. I think it's a bad idea to have a policy that any yahoo can buy a slice of moderator power, though. There are several people around here who shouldn't be anywhere near the ban button. If we need more people with the ability to flag posts as offensive because our moderators are stretched too thin, then they ought to be selected with an eye toward their temperament and judgment.
One of the big attractions of ChiefsPlanet over other Chiefs message boards or other message boards in general (especially corporate sponsored boards) is the fact that it is lightly moderated. This place is like the wild west of message boards and I think that's a good thing. The lighter the moderation the better, IMO.
|