matt said:

That's a whole other thread!!

sosgemini said:

Could we delete other people's threads?

doctormcmeekle said:

That's an appalling title, McMeekle. It doesn't even make sense.

TheFrog said:

Title suggestions:

Moderator Adviser/Adviser to Moderators

Moderator Aide (I know this is usually meant as a less senior title than just a plain ol' mod, but I think the message would get across to the orgers better)

Assistant to the Moderators, but only because it gets funny AssMod

ian said:

ian said:

subhuman09 said:

sosgemini said:

Ok, time this thread got back on topic, discussing actual moderation issues.

I agree with you, it would also lessen your work load I hope, but on the other hand you might get orgnotes by people who're wondering where this ir that thread went, jumping the gun assuming a moderator deleted the thread. This might be solved by a link being placed at the location of the original thread, headline saying "Thread deleted by creator" or something like that, and then when you click on it it could say that the original creator of the thread requested it deleted or some such. I don't know if this would be possible, but I think it would be a good thing because sometimes when you create a thread with a certain purpose or aim and it gets jacked to a place where you don't want it to go, or people post offensive bullcrap on it that's not report-to-a-mod-bullcrap but of a lesser degree that you don't want on a thread created by you. Then this feature would be very handy, and I can't really see how the other posters on the thread should have a say in it.

The thing I don't like about having thread authors delete threads is that it removes posts by other people, which they may have put a lot of time into. Seems a bit unfair.

Perhaps the solution is to allow thread creators the ability to lock their own threads, as opposed to deleting them.

I think there's definitely some value to letting thread creators take more responsibility for the flow of their threads. At least if they lock a thread, no one's posts are being removed.

That's my suggestion anyway. One thing it would solve is when some posts a thread but then notices that it is a duplicate or redundant thread, they can lock it themselves and it is one less thing for the mods to deal with.
[Edited 11/7/04 13:28pm]

ian said:

Having thought about this further, I don't think it's a good idea and neither is mine/sosgemini's I feel, because orgers are such petty people and like other humans victims of mood swings or outbursts of temper. Some people would prolly lock their threads as soon as somebody said anything against them, or if they were feeling really pissy they'd make a post and then lock it, to keep their statement there but to allow no others to reply. Sad to say but it would probably happen. Maybe you could get the option of locking 3 threads a month, or 5 or whatever, so you needed to be a bit more careful about it?

Yes, let's stay on topic and not insult eachother... k?

Teacher and Ian, you're not allowed to talk to eachother on this thread anymore!

Teacher said:

I take your point but I don't see why it is a bad thing.

People locking a thread in a tantrum is probably still okay - stops threads getting too tedious and being reduced to flame wars. Tedious threads, locked quicker? Sounds like a good thing to me.

June7 said:

Look mum, we're talking on-topic now!

doctormcmeekle said:

Care has to been taken that the moderation does not shift from moderating a forum to moderating a user. I realise the distinction can be difficult to make at times, but I think this is one of the root causes for disgruntled orgers.

About the locking (idd a better idea than deleting) of ones own thread: I ment it as a feature linked to user-level. It's obvious newbies, loose canons etc should be allowed this site-privilege.

Finally, a new thought: Is it an idea to have mods temporarily lock heated threads (say 15 mins) to force everyone keeping their cool. If the thread reopens and flaming starts afresh, permanent lock. So the temporal-lock is a final chance warning. This perhaps avoids having to deactivate users.


addspacesfool!edit
[Edited 11/8/04 3:45am]

AlfofMelmak said:

A VERY good point Alf I as a user encounter pretty much the same feelings as I think the moderators do, that when I see a member post something and I've previously felt that an earlier post by the user was bad, nasty or all around stupid, I have a hard time appreciating what they say later. It HAS to be the same for mods, since they're only human too

I wonder if it's humanly possible to ignore the person behind the posts, an extreme example would be somebody behaving like a butthole while in the GD offending people and breaking rules left and right, but in the music forums being a nice person adding a lot to the discussions as far as insight and content - Would ANY of us, whether regular user or moderator, really be able to look beyond the user and keep the bullshit and good stuff apart? I couldn't, so I stay away from people I have a tendency to dislike, at least 99% of the time.

Humanly possible edit.
[Edited 11/8/04 14:07pm]

Uh oh!!!

What the flying fuck?

Several of my posts were removed, and they broke no site rules - I flamed no one. Plus, there were already several mods in this thread and none of them took exception to my comments. So what's the deal? Left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing? One mod bows to popular pressure when the rest disregard it?

Come on mods... at least talk to each other. How hard is it to fire off an Orgnote?

I had no message indicating that my posts were a problem. No message asking me to tone it down or edit my posts myself. No message letting me know that my messages were being deleted, or why. What is going on here?

IanK
[Edited 11/10/04 2:51am]

Never mind.
[Edited 11/10/04 2:13am]

Ok, where was I... oh yes, I was going to explain my extremely pessimistic outlook on Orgers' behaviour. I like to think of it as useful when chalking up pros and cons, what I suggest might happen if this or that was changed on the site isn't necessarily what I THINK or BELIEVE would happen, but what COULD happen with some people. The glass is half-empty to me sorta

That being said, I think the idea of being able to lock one's threads is awesome, and hopefully it would lessen the burden of the mods. I hope this would be especially useful to sosgemini, who's up to his elbows in the p&r issues most of the time.

ian said:

ummm...i objected to it...within this thread.....and unfortunatly june7 appears to be the only active orger right now who has access to moderate this forum....thus the delay in responce...

But not too honest please folks, or we'll nuke your posts!

ian said:

dude, ian..you went after teacher on a personal level..what does teacher have to do with "site moderation"..


or did other posts get deleted in addition?

sosgemini said:

Well fair enough.

It's a bit shit though.

sosgemini said:

Excuse me, but I did no such thing.

And yes, other posts were removed. Not edited, not snipped, just removed. If someone had asked me to tone it down, or to edit my posts, I'd have happily done so. Full posts removed arbitrarily. No explanation, no accountability. There were plenty of mods reading and responding to this thread, and none of them expressed any concern over my comments.
[Edited 11/10/04 8:58am]

Some totally harmless posts of mine were removed as well. Shall I fly off the handle and accuse the mod in question of being an overemotional trigger-happy nazi terrorist bastard?

Ahhh, whatever. Carry on.