FED UP

[Stephen Lindsay]

It certainly does not paint the forum in a good light, does it.  Re. moderation, i think we've already done this one to death as well. Most of those that have commented on the topic in the past are in favour of increased mods, but Admin for reasons known only to himself remains quiet on the subject.  It was even sugested when the forum got its revamp, but alas was passed over.  I saw nothing wrong with the way it was originally set up, providing the mods remain active members.

My thoughts exactly. Give it a few days and it will all die down, then sense will prevail for a while till the next argument starts.

[George]

We need better moderation to knock this kind of thing on the head before it starts, Can't see it happening though. :

Les

It's not happened yet Les and for that reason I am inclined to agree with you. CA was probably the most active moderator but he gave it up. George has recently been a moderator (and still is I assume) who has undertaken to deal with the spam. Stew (admin), the owner of the site appoints moderators.

I hear what several people are saying as in 'we need better moderation'. On balance, I think I disagree, and here's why, as I've said before:

I agreed initially with Stew that I would only delete pure spam messages. My role was later extended to edit out four letter words and the worst insults.

CA executed the role by deleting whole blocks of posts, and taking a subjective view of what he found acceptable, and who he was most against. This got various peoples' backs up. I think any moderator gets into dangerous territory when they think they know best, on what's acceptable and what's not, so I don't want to adopt anything like that approach.

I therefore suggest that 'better moderation' would actually be far worse. For a start, I'd probably delete this whole thread. How can that be desirable, if people want to enter into a debate about any topic which interests them?

[Peripatetic Phil]

I hear what several people are saying as in 'we need better moderation'. On balance, I think I disagree, and here's why, as I've said before:

I agreed initially with Stew that I would only delete pure spam messages. My role was later extended to edit out four letter words and the worst insults.

CA executed the role by deleting whole blocks of posts, and taking a subjective view of what he found acceptable, and who he was most against. This got various peoples' backs up. I think any moderator gets into dangerous territory when they think they know best, on what's acceptable and what's not, so I don't want to adopt anything like that approach.

I therefore suggest that 'better moderation' would actually be far worse. For a start, I'd probably delete this whole thread. How can that be desirable, if people want to enter into a debate about any topic which interests them?

George, I don't think we need better moderation, I think we need better self-control.  But nor do I think that your closing remark reflects reality (or what should be reality) -- why would you delete this thread, when everyone participating it is being objective and polite ?  I would certainly have no objections to your deleting virtually everything after the opening post in 'Can "posts" be relied upon', since it almost immediately went off-topic and the subsequent contributions had no relevance to "Forum Administration" whatsoever, but this thread is arguably in the correct place and has been conducted with politeness and respect :  on what basis do you believe that you would be justified in deleting it ?

As regards the actions of a former moderator, I am not sure why you adduce this as evidence.  It is clear that you can see that his moderation left something to be desired, so if you and Stew were to agree that you could adopt a more pro-active role in moderating, could you not also ensure that you avoid the errors of your predecessor ?

** Phil.

[Curryking32000]

I can see your point George but I've seen posts recently which are designed to deliberately enflame bad feeling and damages the integrity of the forum.  We are all adults with a common interest and should be pulling in the same direction for the benefit of everyone involved.  Some of the behaviour borders on bullying and harassment, surely this should be stopped?

[Les]

Totally Agree CK

Les

[Malc.]

With respect George your comments demonstrate that this forum is indeed, in need of additional moderators that will 'moderate'. We all respect your decision not to undertake this task and appreciate your efforts as to deleting spam and offensive material.

The forum needs additional moderators that will edit/close/delete topics with an unbiased opinion. I would suggest at least 3 in all so that you can all action, support and discuss matters in private, as they become apparent.

The problem this forum has had over the recent years is that it has been left to one person, which is alot for any individual to handle, especially when Stew isn't always around.

But it's been this way ever since i've been here. 

[Les]

But it's been this way ever since i've been here. 

And not about to change anytime soon I fear
OK so back to the bickering then

Les

[Micky Tikka]

Would a Poll help
To help the admin listen  More mods or not 

[George]

With respect George your comments demonstrate that this forum is indeed, in need of additional moderators that will 'moderate'. We all respect your decision not to undertake this task and appreciate your efforts as to deleting spam and offensive material.

The forum needs additional moderators that will edit/close/delete topics with an unbiased opinion. I would suggest at least 3 in all so that you can all action, support and discuss matters in private, as they become apparent.

The problem this forum has had over the recent years is that it has been left to one person, which is alot for any individual to handle, especially when Stew isn't always around.

But it's been this way ever since i've been here. 

I'm not saying I'm incapable of more aggressive or 'stricter' moderating. I just see it as non-desirable, whether I do it, or anyone else does. As Phil says, everyone needs more self-control, respect, or whatever.  Everyone will have different ideas on what should be moderated. To bring in some kind of sheriff and his deputies to clean up the forum would be a disaster.

Neither is it too much for me to handle because I'm not checking every single word - what a thankless task that would be.

[uclown2002]

Of the half dozen or so forums I visit, this is the only one without effective moderation.

I can't think of many who support George's view that it is not needed.  The recent spate of inappropriate (IMO) and unnecessary posts surely prove that we do need effective moderation, as the community isn't capable of policing itself.

Has Admin Stew ever commented on the matter?  He seemed to become a little more active a few weeks back but can't say I've heard much from him since.