Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    The point being raised is that Expression's moderation has come under alot of critisim in the past so maybe we should come to expect "mistakes" like the ones we saw the other day.
    Expression is one of the stricter mods, and so will come in for more criticism, but 90% of the modding he does is unchallenged and for the good of the forum.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    Expression is one of the stricter mods, and so will come in for more criticism, but 90% of the modding he does is unchallenged and for the good of the forum.
    according to your thread, "Who cares what they think"..

    "Exactly! Thy can moan all they like; nothing will or needs to be changed."

    why the sudden diplomatic tone?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    or who cares what they think? "Exactly! Thy can moan all they like; nothing will or needs to be changed."
    It's true.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    It's true.
    that noone cares what non-subscribers think. our concerns precisely.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    Expression is one of the stricter mods, and so will come in for more criticism, but 90% of the modding he does is unchallenged and for the good of the forum.
    Then perhaps it would be better to get someone who manages to have something closer to 100% of his moderating unchallenged. So far weve been shown 2 polls from last year questioning his competence, add that to what weve seen in the last week and you really do have to consider his suitability for the role.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    that noone cares what non-subscribers think. our concerns precisely.
    No, what they think, they being the very loud few who have a problem with the way this forum is run.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Then perhaps it would be better to get someone who manages to have something closer to 100% of his moderating unchallenged. So far weve been shown 2 polls from last year questioning his competence, add that to what weve seen in the last week and you really do have to consider his suitability for the role.
    But by being a strict mod some of his modding will be challenged, that's the nature of the beast - also remember that one of those polls was created only a short time (days) into his time as a mod, so questions were bound to be raised by those who didn't like him much.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    No, what they think, they being the very loud few who have a problem with the way this forum is run.
    Did you look at the public poll from yesterday?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    No, what they think, they being the very loud few who have a problem with the way this forum is run.
    all 30+ of us? who all happen to be non-subscribers, who all happen to the ones who be effected the most..? i really do apologise...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    But by being a strict mod some of his modding will be challenged, that's the nature of the beast - also remember that one of those polls was created only a short time (days) into his time as a mod, so questions were bound to be raised by those who didn't like him much.
    A strict mod would be fine for the university/academic forums where its fairly obvious what constitues unsuitable material, for the D&D forum however there is inevitably greater ambiguity as to what can be classed as offensive and what remains legitimate debate. At the end of the day he seems to have a problem with a lot of what is said on the D&D forum ,whereas those who actually use it regularly do not.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    Did you look at the public poll from yesterday?
    Yes, but it's hardly conclusive - out of near to 20,000 members and those who felt strongly about this did vote - even I voted yes as I agreed with the content to an extent, but the practicalities of this forum prevent perfect, professional moderation.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    all 30+ of us? who all happen to be non-subscribers, who all happen to the ones who be effected the most..? i really do apologise...
    30+ out of over 15,000 non-subscribers?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    Did you look at the public poll from yesterday?
    id also hasten to add, a thread and poll that was shut down after mere hours, the only objection coming from, surprise surprise, the subscribers caught guilty of breaking the very rules they promote.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    A strict mod would be fine for the university/academic forums where its fairly obvious what constitues unsuitable material, for the D&D forum however there is inevitably greater ambiguity as to what can be classed as offensive and what remains legitimate debate. At the end of the day he seems to have a problem with a lot of what is said on the D&D forum ,whereas those who actually use it regularly do not.
    But as he said he merely meant to delete the contested thread temporarily and then delete the offensive posts before reinstating the threads.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    30+ out of over 15,000 non-subscribers?
    you may appreciate that this was roughly 75% of the votes cast after a matter of hours. i think only the vienna poll was more conclusive no?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    id also hasten to add, a thread and poll that was shut down after mere hours, the only objection coming from, surprise surprise, the subscribers caught guilty of breaking the very rules they promote.
    Are you arguing against subscribers or mods?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    you may appreciate that this was roughly 75% of the votes cast after a matter of hours. i think only the vienna poll was more conclusive no?
    But again only those who used the debate forum voted, which is hardly representative of the whole forum.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    Yes, but it's hardly conclusive - out of near to 20,000 members and those who felt strongly about this did vote - even I voted yes as I agreed with the content to an extent, but the practicalities of this forum prevent perfect, professional moderation.
    If its too much for them to handle, again we have to ask, why do we not appoint additional moderators to help them? Perfection doesnt seem that unattainable. To achieve it simply delete only spam/blatantly offensive material and ban blatant racists (something they seem quite happy NOT to do on this forum) or spammers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    Are you arguing against subscribers or mods?
    both are aware of the actions of each, both will come in for critcism when they try and deny the evidence laid before them, and ignore all request for open debate on moderating procedure respectively.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    If its too much for them to handle, again we have to ask, why do we not appoint additional moderators to help them? Perfection doesnt seem that unattainable. To achieve it simply delete only spam/blatantly offensive material and ban blatant racists (something they seem quite happy NOT to do on this forum) or spammers.
    That is a proposal that has not been rejected, but obviously that would involve d and he does not always have time to think about and appoint new mods.

    Why ban racists? They hold a view point, do they not?
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.