Board index › Administration › WrongPlanet.net discussion

More moderators?

Page 5 of 14 [ 211 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 14  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

RTSgamerFTW
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,410

10 Mar 2007, 11:49 pm

Quatermass wrote:
Flagg wrote:
hale_bopp wrote:
I personally think random discussion should be deleted.

It encourages spammers. There was little trouble with SPAM before that place existed.


In my experience nothing attracts spammers to a site more then an RD section.

They seep into every corner of the site and bring down the quality.


Will it solve the issue? I think not.
Of course not!


_________________
My sig pwns.


Quatermass
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,779
Location: Right behind you...

11 Mar 2007, 12:28 am

Unknown wrote:
Quatermass wrote:
Flagg wrote:
hale_bopp wrote:
I personally think random discussion should be deleted.

It encourages spammers. There was little trouble with SPAM before that place existed.


In my experience nothing attracts spammers to a site more then an RD section.

They seep into every corner of the site and bring down the quality.


Will it solve the issue? I think not.
Of course not!


Ahhh. It must be something when we are in accord.


_________________
(No longer a mod)

On sabbatical...


hale_bopp
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2004
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,054
Location: None

11 Mar 2007, 2:16 am

You're only saying that because then you would lose your place to SPAM.

The people that post in random discussion all the time have ruined WP.



Starr
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Age: 69
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,052

11 Mar 2007, 3:43 am

Someone spammed and flamed in the Haven once. Even I'd have stopped that straight away had I been able to.

I think Claradoon's idea of putting threads on hold pending moderation is a good one. Things aren't always clear-cut. We are on the spectrum and sometimes non-trolls get a bit carried away and I wouldn't like to see someone banned who, most of the time, behaved reasonably. Would it be possible to put someone hold for a short while, so they couldn't post at all, until they calmed down? (Like a sin-bin in rugby? lol.)



Quatermass
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,779
Location: Right behind you...

11 Mar 2007, 7:20 am

hale_bopp wrote:
You're only saying that because then you would lose your place to SPAM.

The people that post in random discussion all the time have ruined WP.


You talking about me, or Unknown???

Have I ruined WP? I post in the Random Discussion forum more often than not, but have I ruined WP? Obviously, no I have not. Consider your statements carefully, before generalising them to the entirety of WP.


_________________
(No longer a mod)

On sabbatical...


Flagg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,399
Location: Western US

11 Mar 2007, 2:28 pm

Starr wrote:
Someone spammed and flamed in the Haven once. Even I'd have stopped that straight away had I been able to.

I think Claradoon's idea of putting threads on hold pending moderation is a good one. Things aren't always clear-cut. We are on the spectrum and sometimes non-trolls get a bit carried away and I wouldn't like to see someone banned who, most of the time, behaved reasonably. Would it be possible to put someone hold for a short while, so they couldn't post at all, until they calmed down? (Like a sin-bin in rugby? lol.)


That's why we have week-long bans.

And "marking" threads for moderation would only make mods job harder and give spammers a new way to terrorize WP. By overloading the mods PM boxes and causing them to ping out.


_________________
How good music and bad reasons sound when one marches against an enemy!


Starr
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Age: 69
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,052

11 Mar 2007, 2:33 pm

Flagg wrote:
Starr wrote:
Someone spammed and flamed in the Haven once. Even I'd have stopped that straight away had I been able to.

I think Claradoon's idea of putting threads on hold pending moderation is a good one. Things aren't always clear-cut. We are on the spectrum and sometimes non-trolls get a bit carried away and I wouldn't like to see someone banned who, most of the time, behaved reasonably. Would it be possible to put someone hold for a short while, so they couldn't post at all, until they calmed down? (Like a sin-bin in rugby? lol.)


That's why we have week-long bans.


We do?!? Oh, that's good. :oops: I didn't know. I thought I'd come up with the idea myself. What's that saying about reinventing the wheel? :lol:



Anubis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2006
Age: 137
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,911
Location: Mount Herculaneum/England

11 Mar 2007, 3:38 pm

hale_bopp wrote:
You're only saying that because then you would lose your place to SPAM.

The people that post in random discussion all the time have ruined WP.


I disagree. It is there for fun, relaxed, not necessarily serious discussion- yes there are people who spam up the place and post worthless trollop, but those are in the minority. Perhaps it should be renamed to discourage spam, but it is essential to WP.


_________________
Lalalalai.... I'll cut you up!


renaeden
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2005
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,453
Location: Western Australia

11 Mar 2007, 10:45 pm

bizarre wrote:
People got upset when someone closed their thread without letting them know why or who did it.

That's why if someone is able to close a thread, it should say,
"This thread is now closed because....." And then the reason written there.

I notice there is a lot more foul language on WP since the old Moderators all got taken off moderating.
This being a "family friendly" site, something should be done about it.



TheMachine1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,011
Location: 9099 will be my last post...what the hell 9011 will be.

11 Mar 2007, 11:27 pm

renaeden wrote:
bizarre wrote:
People got upset when someone closed their thread without letting them know why or who did it.

That's why if someone is able to close a thread, it should say,
"This thread is now closed because....." And then the reason written there.

I notice there is a lot more foul language on WP since the old Moderators all got taken off moderating.
This being a "family friendly" site, something should be done about it.



I think the law technically requires those under 13 to be under adult supervision to be permitted to access a site that has a "terms of service" agreement that must be agreed
to. So that in my mind means WP by American movie definition is rated PG-13
and not G(family). Which means all areas but the pre-teen area should follow a PG-13 code of standards. And only the adult area should have mature talk.

I think Alex has seen the site grow massively using less moderation. So until the site
growth stops or goes down its unlikely he will change the formula. There is absolutely no way he can make all people happy all the time but the sure number of growth in new users means he doing a pretty good job in an imperfect world.



Flagg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,399
Location: Western US

11 Mar 2007, 11:43 pm

TheMachine1 wrote:
renaeden wrote:
bizarre wrote:
People got upset when someone closed their thread without letting them know why or who did it.

That's why if someone is able to close a thread, it should say,
"This thread is now closed because....." And then the reason written there.

I notice there is a lot more foul language on WP since the old Moderators all got taken off moderating.
This being a "family friendly" site, something should be done about it.



I think the law technically requires those under 13 to be under adult supervision to be permitted to access a site that has a "terms of service" agreement that must be agreed
to. So that in my mind means WP by American movie definition is rated PG-13
and not G(family). Which means all areas but the pre-teen area should follow a PG-13 code of standards. And only the adult area should have mature talk.

I think Alex has seen the site grow massively using less moderation. So until the site
growth stops or goes down its unlikely he will change the formula. There is absolutely no way he can make all people happy all the time but the sure number of growth in new users means he doing a pretty good job in an imperfect world.


Indeed, but recent attacks have shown that we need to at least have more mods around to keep spammers and trolls at bay.


_________________
How good music and bad reasons sound when one marches against an enemy!


Roxas_XIII
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jan 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,217
Location: Laramie, WY

12 Mar 2007, 1:15 pm

I usually unofficialy moderate forums by breaking up arguments before they get to the point where the thread needs to be locked. I don't have any moderator powers, but i do try and keep things civil. I'm more of an arbiter than a moderator.

But i do concur, we do need more moderators with lock/ban power, even if they are cloaked, especially now that we have 9592 members, with 628 online even as i speak...


_________________
"Yeah, so this one time, I tried playing poker with tarot cards... got a full house, and about four people died." ~ Unknown comedian

Happy New Year from WP's resident fortune-teller! May the cards be ever in your favor.


Starbuline
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,577
Location: .....Russia

12 Mar 2007, 5:48 pm

Where are the mods? I feel alone. 8O



shadexiii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,545

12 Mar 2007, 5:52 pm

Roxas_XIII wrote:
especially now that we have 9592 members, with 628 online even as i speak...


The online now bit is a little deceptive. For instance, it currently says 639 members on. This is broken up in the People Online: part

People Online:
Visitors: 529
Members: 110
[snip]

SO, there may be 639 people online at the writing of this, but only 110 of them are members.

I want to say that (memory serving me right, and it doesn't frequently) visitors can't post. If that's the case, that's only 110 people that can post. Of that, I think a bunch are lurkers, or just leave the page up, because it doesn't seem like there's 110 unique names listed in all the sub-forums. Granted, that's not all that easy to check, but nonetheless I think the "actual" number of active posters is al ot lower than the Online Now figure.



Graelwyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,601
Location: Hants, Uk

12 Mar 2007, 5:53 pm

Now tell me more mods are not needed! This is ridiculous. This could have been bought under control ages ago were their adequate moderators/admin personnel and organisation. I love this forum, and it irks me to see it becoming overrun by this c**p when it could be resolved relatively simply.


_________________
I am diagnosed as a human being.


Quatermass
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,779
Location: Right behind you...

12 Mar 2007, 5:56 pm

Yes! We need more mods!


_________________
(No longer a mod)

On sabbatical...