Got some site feedback? Found an issue? Let us know >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Suggestion Box

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

Zapsta

2 5 +

And it would have me on it.

Lol. We'll see :p:

Reply 21

theaman

A radio hack with a link to a Rare FM stream. :biggrin:

Reply 22

Ollie

I like the idea, however:

•

You could argue that is what the Mod team is. A group of members that are there to discuss issues for the rest of the members. I just doubt it's relly necessary.

•

I'm sorry but access to the mod forum will not be allowed on a logistical point of view (access masks are messed up) and also because of the possible risk of leaks.

•

The selection process would never be agreed on. How would you choose who went into the council?

•

I'm not sure the council would ever have the capacity to reach proper conclusions.

As I say, its a nice idea, of structured democracy butI just don't know if its necessary or it would work.

Reply 23

Ziggy Stardust

First and foremost i'd like to get the shitty little problems sorted out.

For example;

1: there is no defined set of rules. Mods can decided what to give out warnings for - it would be better if a set of rules was drawn up regarding swearing/offensive words in messages.

2: certain mods, and I will not be mentioning any for risk of given an unneccessary warning, in my opinion let their power go to their heads and go a little power crazy at times.

3: a lot of posts get deleted that don't really need to; I have noticed this recently.

4: I don't like to see people getting banned, but there is too many arseholes clogging up the forum - they get warning points, create another 10 threads and then received another 2 measely warning points. Maybe create a maximum amount of threads a user can create in a certain time period.

Just a small list, but these problems are all concerning me.

Thanks.

Ps, IMO this post doesn't warrant 10 warning points and an indefinate ban - it's only my opinion.

Reply 24

Vienna

Ollie

I like the idea, however:

[*]You could argue that is what the Mod team is. A group of members that are there to discuss issues for the rest of the members.

I think you'd struggle.

[*]The selection process would never be agreed on. How would you choose who went into the council?

How do we choose mods?

Reply 25

blissy

afireinside©

3: a lot of posts get deleted that don't really need to; I have noticed this recently.

4: I don't like to see people getting banned, but there is too many arseholes clogging up the forum - they get warning points, create another 10 threads and then received another 2 measely warning points. Maybe create a maximum amount of threads a user can create in a certain time period.

Just a small list, but these problems are all concerning me.

Thanks.

Ps, IMO this post doesn't warrant 10 warning points and an indefinate ban - it's only my opinion.

Do you mind if I personally respond to these two.

Point 3 - There were complaints about moderators editing posts, so I have taken to deleting offensive posts instead of editing them.

Point 4 - I personally give 2 points to begin with (a minor general warning) and then proceed to 5 points (severe general warning) if there are repeat offenses of exactly the same thing (usually spam) and it seems that they won't be stopping without a significant warning.

Reply 26

Sam2k

vienna95

How do we choose mods?

We don't.

Reply 27

Vienna

Moncal

We don't.

Exactly, which is consistent with the first comment.

Reply 28

Mad Vlad

Why is there so much "anti-mod" feeling on here :frown:

The system works in a heirarchy - similar to the military. Us regular folk being Privates, Subs being Pvt 1st class :rolleyes:

Sub moderators being... I dunno a Captain, Mods being Major, Super Mods being a General and Admins being the heroes of this Soviet Union. It is after all a dictatorial heirarchy. I have no problem with it. As long as the mods make good decisions and follow the rules - not abusing their privilages - they do their job very well.

Why do we need access to the Mod Forum?

Why do we need a bureaucratic committee involving non-mod members going to the Mod Forum? Surely this would just tie the moderation process in miles of debate and red tape.

Its not necessary. If you don't abuse the forum and follow the rules then you won't have to worry about moderation.

I for one appreciate the work the mods do and I believe that they should carry on doing their job without having to worry about consulting a council and stuff...

Reply 29

Kondar

Ollie

I like the idea, however:

•

You could argue that is what the Mod team is. A group of members that are there to discuss issues for the rest of the members. I just doubt it's relly necessary.

•

I'm sorry but access to the mod forum will not be allowed on a logistical point of view (access masks are messed up) and also because of the possible risk of leaks.

•

The selection process would never be agreed on. How would you choose who went into the council?

•

I'm not sure the council would ever have the capacity to reach proper conclusions.

As I say, its a nice idea, of structured democracy butI just don't know if its necessary or it would work.

I don't understand why this is all kept hidden. Maybe you could release the thread afterwards and keep it locked.

Reply 30

Ollie

vienna95

I think you'd struggle.

How do we choose mods?

Who ever chooses them, the members will always argue. I think D+D were offered the chance to suggest their own moderator. That didn't really get anywhere.

The moderators are this so called council. If you have a problem, tell a mod and they will lobby for you (which they do).

mad vlad

Why is there so much "anti-mod" feeling on here The system works in a heirarchy - similar to the military. Us regular folk being Privates, Subs being Pvt 1st class Sub moderators being... I dunno a Captain, Mods being Major, Super Mods being a General and Admins being the heroes of this Soviet Union. It is after all a dictatorial heirarchy. I have no problem with it. As long as the mods make good decisions and follow the rules - not abusing their privilages - they do their job very well.

Why do we need access to the Mod Forum?

Why do we need a bureaucratic committee involving non-mod members going to the Mod Forum? Surely this would just tie the moderation process in miles of debate and red tape.

Its not necessary. If you don't abuse the forum and follow the rules then you won't have to worry about moderation.

I for one appreciate the work the mods do and I believe that they should carry on doing their job without having to worry about consulting a council and stuff...

Thank you, people seem to think this commercial site should be run like a communist state. We give the members input.

kondar

I don't understand why this is all kept hidden. Maybe you could release the thread afterwards and keep it locked

Threads in the mod forum?

Listen guys. Under no circumstances is the mod forum being opened up. No.

Reply 31

material breach

(I think this thread is more likely to open wounds than achieve suggestions)

I think that the mods are doing a good job, all the posts I have reported have been dealt with in a very pleasing manner and I for one would like to thank Pig for the hack.

I think that members abusing the rep system is not good however it something that is obviously quite hard to police.

Reply 32

Ollie

Speciez99

(I think this thread is more likely to open wounds than achieve suggestions)

I did suggest just PM's but the members didn't like that idea. Never mind eh.

Reply 33

Zarathustra

Suggestion:
I don't think subs should be able to see who reps them.

(Yes, I do plan to sub soon).

ZarathustraX

Reply 34

Tyler Durden

Zarathustra

Suggestion:
I don't think subs should be able to see who reps them.

(Yes, I do plan to sub soon).

ZarathustraX

And why not? :confused:

It's a good reason to sub IMO.

Reply 35

Vienna

Ollie

Who ever chooses them, the members will always argue. I think D+D were offered the chance to suggest their own moderator. That didn't really get anywhere.

Please, dont joke.

The moderators are this so called council. If you have a problem, tell a mod and they will lobby for you (which they do).

Lobby for me to who?

Reply 36

Sam2k

vienna95

Please, dont joke.

I believe that that was a serious statement.

Reply 37

vienna95

I would appreciate some clarification on abuse of the reputation system.

Interesting, so would I. Ollie...?

Reply 38

Zapsta

Ollie

I like the idea, however:

•

You could argue that is what the Mod team is. A group of members that are there to discuss issues for the rest of the members. I just doubt it's relly necessary.

No, they prioritise smooth operation of the site, be that through locking/deleting thread or handing out warnings. Non-mods don't have that clouding their judgement of what would be best for the members.

Ollie

•

I'm sorry but access to the mod forum will not be allowed on a logistical point of view (access masks are messed up) and also because of the possible risk of leaks.

Because mods can't leak info?

Ollie

•

The selection process would never be agreed on. How would you choose who went into the council?

I think that's something to be discussed after we've decided on the council's proposed existence, rather than to influence the decision on whether it exists or not.

Ollie

•

I'm not sure the council would ever have the capacity to reach proper conclusions.

Based on what? Are you suggesting that non-mod members are less able to reach 'proper' conclusions than moderators are? Part of the problem is that, in many members' eyes, the mods haven't been able to make correct decisions. The council would aid, not hinder.