Author Topic: O'club discussion (Read 9405 times)

Nilsen · « **Reply #75 on:** June 15, 2005, 06:42:56 PM »

The way I see it is that the fewer the mods the longer it would take to "find" a problem post, but it would be found after a short while.. Even Skuzzy alone gets to alot of them and he has other duties at HTC.

Both many and few gets the job done, its only a matter of time, and I belive that after the warning we just had it will never sink as low again.. hope not anyway.

Sox62 · « **Reply #76 on:** June 15, 2005, 06:56:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
I see you're point. Certainly schedule played a factor in the past. Skuzzy had a finite amount of time to devote to this. I just wonder if a 24/7 Skuzzy is required. This board has its moments but it doesn't seem that out of control.

I guess the guy to ask is Skuzzy. He probably knows more than any of us.

I don't know about 24/7.

I do know that Friday evening through Monday morning is primetime for people posting things that shouldn't be.

Now to update the game.Time to get back in the saddle after several months off.

Curval · « **Reply #77 on:** June 15, 2005, 07:00:34 PM »

My votes go to:

MiniD
Toad
Charon
Sandman
Nash
MT
(others I'm sure)

and lastly

lazs

..because I just have GOT to see him ban someone. (no other reason;) )

Toad · « **Reply #78 on:** June 15, 2005, 07:05:30 PM »

I assumed it would be "mod as you read" for the mods too.

Schedules? That introduces a scheduler and more complexity. I think Eskimo has it right. Do your normal reading and watch for weird threads, rapidly escalating thread counts and such.

Chairboy · « **Reply #79 on:** June 15, 2005, 07:11:49 PM »

Thanks for the nom, eskimo. I read here a lot, and I'd be glad to volunteer moderation to help keep the club around. There are too many great guys here to let something like this wither.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #80 on:** June 15, 2005, 07:11:56 PM »

I think they should have a mod forum were mods can talk things over themselves.

I also think the mods need clear rules to follow.

Bah no one nominated me, and I do it as part of my job! lol

lazs2 · « **Reply #81 on:** June 15, 2005, 07:14:26 PM »

me, nash and neilsen would make really bad moderators in my opinion.

my list my surprise

Toad, seagoon, sandman and MT is my list.

Toad I agree with 90% of the time..

seagoon is a preacher and I would never have wanted a preacher for a moderator until I read his posts.

sandman I hardly ever agree with... He is fair tho and predictable

MT...same thing... we are never in agreement. I think he could read a post by me tho that he found completely repugnant and not ban it so long as it was within the rules....

him and sandie wouldn't bend the rules to get guys who dissagreed with em banned... no matter how much they wanted to.

In the end..... My guess is that it won't work as pyro wants. It's possible but it seems unlikely.

lazs

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #82 on:** June 15, 2005, 07:15:24 PM »

On the subject of bias, or maybe the appearance of bias, it might be wise to require that a moderator who ''moderates" a post or thread post the rule or rules broken where the "moderation" takes place. A simple cut and paste of "violation of rule x, blah blah woof woof".

It is a requirement on a couple of boards on which I volunteer as a moderator and tech guru.

We had some problems on one of the boards, and it reached the point where there were complaints about moderator bias. It seemed to make a difference, it cut down on the bias claims and such.

The only person the moderators on those boards answer to is the owner. However, there is sort of a "peer review" process
that is available, and the moderators try to discuss things
pertaining to the task at ahand and what goes on, in an attempt
to prevent both members AND moderators from drifting, intentional or not.

Eagler · « **Reply #83 on:** June 15, 2005, 07:15:39 PM »

I nominate Eskimo...

because he nominated me

Doesn't matter to me who gets it, if it happens at all, as long as they agree 100% with 100% of my viewpoints

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #84 on:** June 15, 2005, 07:20:07 PM »

Oh and I like Laz's list all good guys, all fair all always civil.

Pretty much the core of what makes this place good.

Nash · « **Reply #85 on:** June 15, 2005, 07:32:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
me, nash and neilsen would make really bad moderators in my opinion. - lazs

I'd have to agree.

Since there's the possibility of more than two moderators (I don't know where I came up with 2), I'd like to add to Toad and Sandman by strongly suggesting:

MT
Seagoon
Charon
SOB
+
Sandman & Toad

Rolex · « **Reply #86 on:** June 15, 2005, 07:48:26 PM »

In general forums, posters who moderate and moderators who post can lead to (real or perceived) uneven moderation. You don't see moderators of debates offering up their opinions.

Moderators moderate; posters post.

Maverick · « **Reply #87 on:** June 15, 2005, 08:06:18 PM »

Well nuts. No one nominated me

Toad · « **Reply #88 on:** June 15, 2005, 08:10:04 PM »

Check again, Mav. Lazy ole retired guy just hanging out should be doing some work.

culero · « **Reply #89 on:** June 15, 2005, 08:31:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rolex
In general forums, posters who moderate and moderators who post can lead to (real or perceived) uneven moderation. You don't see moderators of debates offering up their opinions.

Moderators moderate; posters post.

Lotta wisdom there.

culero