Moderation and a re-look at our Community Guidelines

[The Drongo]

Let's be honest, most of the peeps here are no where near who they are in real life (or vice versa which ever the case may be).

Except me. I'm an irritating little prick in real life too...

 

There's the reality..........

[The Drongo]

[

I'm the same person, honest. Unless I have a split personality I no know nothing about.

Nah, that was to correct a spelling mistake, don't want the grammar/ spelling police on my back.

 

know - you missed one !

Edited April 3, 2012 by The Drongo

[Spinnekop]

Impartiality is the question raised by many on this thread and elsewhere. Like trust, it takes one action to destroy, but a whole serious of actions to build. To link to other posts regarding the tenure of a moderator, what happens if moderators elected by forum members become undesirable as moderators to the rest of the forum members? Tough this, because nobody likes those who keeps them in line!

 

Is there a three strikes, or similair policy, for moderators? Not just for being objectionable as a member, but also as a moderator?

 

 

Yes, and you can't even search for pictures of a hammer However, just because the world is turning to pot does not mean we have to stand idly by. How about a broken window policy to the internet, starting with The Hub?

 

 

 

True that, however this is a cycling forum, and despite the chase for monthly fees (incoming and outgoing), it still stays a cycling forum. It is NOT a forum dedicated to general discussions, although as with many other forums it does have a sub-section to cater for general (off topic) discussions. Many of the threads that devolved into a bun fight with name calling and mud throwing started out due to some (perceived) disrespect, and a lot of those were due to a provocative, taunting & disrespectful FIRST post/dig.

 

The responders cannot be blamed if the OP clearly went out to look for trouble. It is naive to expect responders to be mature in response when they are provoked. So, RESPECT EACH OTHER, in ACTION and RE-ACTION. To me this implies staying away from topics that MAY cause people to re-act strongly and where their beliefs are challenged/attacked. (religion/race for example)

 

Not everybody has the ability, or willingness, to detach emotionally from an issue and discuss things in a logical & abstract manner. If something is very important to us, we humans undeniably tend to shoot first and ask questions later. Respect and expect that as well when posting topics and posting responses.

 

I for one, will not stand idly by and play the fiddle while something, or somebody, dear to me is burning!

 

I quite like this reply. Nicely put.

 

As for the "three strikes" and mods......I don't see what this should not be the same for everyone? Surely the mods should (Maybe a little more than the normal poster) be accountable for their actions and posts? All within the rules and not driven by a personal agenda of coarse........

[LeTurbo]

"Keep it relevant. We know that some conversations can be wide-ranging, but if you post something which is unrelated to the original topic ("off-topic") then it may be removed, in order to keep the thread on track."

 

"I take solace in the fact that I can call Tumbleweed a dog and not be moderated for it."

 

"Moderation in moderation."

 

Three of my 17 personaliies wrote those. But I'm not sure which one is writing this.

[Agteros]

"Keep it relevant. We know that some conversations can be wide-ranging, but if you post something which is unrelated to the original topic ("off-topic") then it may be removed, in order to keep the thread on track." "I take solace in the fact that I can call Tumbleweed a dog and not be moderated for it." "Moderation in moderation." Three of my 17 personaliies wrote those. But I'm not sure which one is writing this.

 

Off-topic replies should be zapped by default. Discussions regarding the zapping of those replies inside the thread should be zapped as well. If required, a sub-forum dedicated to the removal of posts can be created under "Notice board" and any discussions with the mods/admin regarding the zapped posts can be continued there. This should help a lot to keep topics on target and not waste everybody's time by forcing them to waddle through pages of junk for a few nuggets of on-topic wisdom. Sure, leave the on-topic quips and chirps but no need to let threads [d]evolve into something unrelated to the OP/topic. After all, this is not a hospital theatre!

 

if you want/have to go on a tangent about something, start a new thread, quote/refer back to the post that set you on a different course and take it from there!

['Dale]

"Keep it relevant. We know that some conversations can be wide-ranging, but if you post something which is unrelated to the original topic ("off-topic") then it may be removed, in order to keep the thread on track."

 

"I take solace in the fact that I can call Tumbleweed a dog and not be moderated for it."

 

"Moderation in moderation."

 

Three of my 17 personaliies wrote those. But I'm not sure which one is writing this.

 

[TNT1]

 

Oh, crap. Not you again.

[Galrilion]

To echo a sentiment that Stretch expressed. I frequent a forum, a very specific one, which has one of the harshest moderation policies I've yet seen on the internet. You may only start a new thread when you have made 10 un-moderated comments to existing discussion threads.

 

Moderation is severe in the extreme. New Threads themselves are only allowed if it's a brand new line of thought, otherwise all you're doing is duplicating discussion points. Anything that doesn't add constructively to the discussion receives an infraction and the post is removed, if it's a borderline case, then you get a warning and your post can remain, but it doesn't count to the 10 post limit you need to get your new thread licence. Language is moderated, typing style is moderated, no chat speech, no "b4" instead of "Before", no slandering of other members - you may pick someone out for a comment they made if you can provide adequate proof that you have a constructive reason for doing so ... the list goes on - it's a harsh environment to try and be an airy-fairy pointless poster who just likes to use the forum to mini blog what's on his mind - you'll get nowhere there if that's you.

 

Now a lot of people in the community that this forum serves moan about the moderation of the forum saying that it's too severe and only certain people are allowed to post there. The reality is, yes, it's severe, and yes, only certain people end up posting there, but that's more because of natural selection and less because of favoritism, but you know one thing is certain, posts and comments you read on that forum are relevant, helpful, meaningful, and totally devoid of anything frivolous. Basically, this forum is the central go to point if you need any information at all, because the posts and threads there contain only well thought out, relevant information which posters have researched or are discussing in a mature, intelligent manner, anything less is not tolerated. Heck, even some of the longest standing and valuable contributors to that site have been suspended for breaking the rules, and they take the suspension in the light it was given, and that is to ensure the integrity of the forum as an outstanding well of information.

 

I'm not saying the Hub should become like that, but the point is that moderators need to be there to do a job that allows the forum to contain relevant information for the community it serves. I've not been on here for a while (I've actually forgotten what my login details are, hence the new account), but what I see here is a shade of what the Hub used to be, and given that I see there has already been fervent attempts of moderation (which is clearly not to the liking of those that have been the recipient of said moderation), I would hate to see what the Hub would look like if those efforts were not in existence. I would hesitate to say that the Hub would have ceased to exist a while back were it not for the efforts of admin and the moderation team.

 

So, the bottom line, if you're worried about your comment being moderated, perhaps you should think about whether you should make the comment at all. Is your comment adding to the discussion constructively, is your comment adding to the building of a pleasant and helpful cycling community forum, or is your comment simply going to be made to incite aggression in others and start (or maybe even continue) an argument which would do nothing to add to the forum / discussion.

 

/steps off sanctimonious soapbox ;-)

[Kranswurm]

Let's be honest, most of the peeps here are no where near who they are in real life (or vice versa which ever the case may be).

 

Speak for yourself........

[Grebel]

Speak for yourself........

 

You again? Do I need to revert to a PM?

[Kranswurm]

You again? Do I need to revert to a PM?

 

He he...just feeling a bit left out so I thought I had to pick on someone

Been away on business and missed out on all the abuse on this thread.Seems to have simmered down tho

[Grebel]

He he...just feeling a bit left out so I thought I had to pick on someone

Been away on business and missed out on all the abuse on this thread.Seems to have simmered down tho

 

Welcome back! It is good to kick the beehive every now and again to see what flies out

[Iwan Kemp]

On voting and re-selecting and the likes we have implemented a system at work for our worker's committee and a couple of other committees running.

 

When voting opens up for new moderators only replace half of the team. Then every six months or max one year replace the oldest 50% with new moderators. Can be through democratic vote, but there need to be some criteria in place.

 

Maybe...

1. Only senior members can nominate
   
2. If you have a previous suspension you're automatically excluded
   
3. Have to be member on The Hub for more than one year
   
4. If your marketplace ranking is negative you're excluded (if merited)
   
5. ???
   
6. ???
   

By only replacing half the team you get knowledge transfer and you keep some experience in the team. Nothing worse than starting from scratch every six months. Things will never be consistent which will lead to frustration and confusion.

Edited April 4, 2012 by The Crow

[Kranswurm]

On voting and re-selecting and the likes we have implemented a system at work for our worker committee and a couple of other committees running.

 

When voting opens up for new moderators only replace half of the team. Then every six months or max one year replace the oldest 50% with new moderators. Can be through democratic vote, but there need to be some criteria in place.

 

Maybe...

1. Only senior members can nominate
   
2. If you have a previous suspension you're automatically excluded
   
3. Have to be member on The Hub for more than one year
   
4. ???
   
5. ???
   

By only replacing half the team you get knowledge transfer and you keep some experience in the team. Nothing worse than starting from scratch every six months. Things will never be consistent which will lead to frustration and confusion.

 

Does that also apply to self suspension???

[Garfield2010]

Guys I just wanted to let you know upfront that I will not be available to serve as a moderator. Sorry to dissapoint all of you.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Garfield2010

[scotty]

CV's for mods