Im fine with it now.
I did however enjoy getting a new infraction now and again.
I did however enjoy getting a new infraction now and again.
Are you happy with how SF is being moderated
- Thread starter Varda
- Start date
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
yes,it did =(
Yea, I feel like now if I call someone a a dickhead it goes unpunished. I love punishment, and I really crave the attention. =p
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Yup. it alot harder to bitch about being treated unfairly by the mods too....that was my favorite part.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
They should just ignore that stuff and delete the thread right away..
Edit: Maybe give off another warning for starting such a thread too
I think comment would be necessary in the case of a "no" answer. How can we know how to improve if 43.33% of the members (currently, according to the poll) aren't happy with the job we're doing, but we're not told why?
Indeed. We need considerably more permabans around here. Put me in charge and I'll start cleaning the place up a bit.
What actions do you two think should be worthy of a permaban that currently aren't punished with a permaban? Also, how much more do you consider to be "considerably more"?
What is the "old" system? What did you like about it?
Enmos said:
What do you mean by "going into discussion"?
As a member, I'm fairly in favor of having a forum-wide referendum. However, we must keep in mind that SciForums is not a democracy, it is a discussion forum that is someone's property. Someone owns SciForums, and they have quite a few rights to determine their property's fate. Call it a benevolent dictatorship, to put it bluntly.
Maybe we could enact an S&M policy and allow you the pleasure of punishment. I'd love to hand out painful infractions like there's no tomorrow. And you'd love those infractions, wouldn't you?
...
That was a joke, by the way...
...
... So, y'know, you should laugh.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
The system like it was before it was abolished. With the infractions and bans and all that.
Justice.
Some members in particular never seem to accept their 'punishment' for doing something against the rules of this forum.
Everyone knows what these rules are and if you break them you must bear the consequences. This is how things work in real life as well.
But moderators, when confronted with yet another 'whining thread', often feel they should defend their decision somehow. This is perceived as a weakness by those that do the whining and they may get the idea that whining works if they keep at it long enough.
That is why I say that if someone does something against the rules they should get punished accordingly and accept it.
Any whining should be met with additional punishments. And 'whining threads' should not be responded to, but instead should be immediately removed.
Members still get warned and banned, only mods have less restrictions and are more flexible in applying them. And members don't see that as publicly as before.
On one side mods don't have to wait for N refractions to ban some one, on the other side, if the infractions of rules are insignificant, then, even if they are many, a person maybe should not have a ban.
On one side mods don't have to wait for N refractions to ban some one, on the other side, if the infractions of rules are insignificant, then, even if they are many, a person maybe should not have a ban.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Well, I'm not complaining.. it works for me either way.
Just saying that at one point the amount of whining threads was somewhat shocking. And moderators were in there justifying their actions.
Which system before it was abolished? I've been here on and off since June 2004, and we've probably had lots of systems in that time. Please be more specific.
Enmos said:
I agree.
Enmos said:
Good idea. I support this. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, the person being punished knows why they're being punished. Plus, they can always PM a moderator instead of causing public drama. Therefore, I see no reason we should allow whining threads.
I kinda like the leniency. But I see a lot of hate posts and discrimination, and I think this is letting things get way out of hand. Stuff like 'I hate homosexuals, they should all die' or 'I hope you die of ass cancer'. That's just ridiculous, and definitely deserves a permanent ban.
I just got here myself, but I've never seen this kind of hate tolerated anywhere else.
So yeah, aside from that I think the mods are great!
I just got here myself, but I've never seen this kind of hate tolerated anywhere else.
So yeah, aside from that I think the mods are great!
I think that's a good thing.
What happened before is that "the blobs" started appearing (infractions)
Soon the thread was about the infractions and not the thread subject.
It totally derailed some good threads.
Sometimes people's attitude stinks, or, more often, they post something offensive while drunk, and they deserve to be kicked off for a few days. No big deal. Cool off.
Last edited:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I don't know.. the last one. I guess it was abolished a month or so ago ?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I would suggest making moderation even less personal.
We have got beyond the point where Sally, who is a poster,
gives Jim, another poster, a red blob, but I think that is not enough.
Make the identity of the moderator responsible for a decision hidden to the members.
The current system invites personality clashes.
If a moderator makes a decision it should be according to written guidelines,
not personal whims. That makes it fair.
It also makes the site policy consistent across the board.
On any decision, a member should be able to make an appeal.
If a particular moderator is getting too many appeals on their decisions,
then the site manager should be keeping them in line. They clearly don't understand the site policy.
A moderator should not make banning decisions in which they are submitting threads as a member.
We have got beyond the point where Sally, who is a poster,
gives Jim, another poster, a red blob, but I think that is not enough.
Make the identity of the moderator responsible for a decision hidden to the members.
The current system invites personality clashes.
If a moderator makes a decision it should be according to written guidelines,
not personal whims. That makes it fair.
It also makes the site policy consistent across the board.
On any decision, a member should be able to make an appeal.
If a particular moderator is getting too many appeals on their decisions,
then the site manager should be keeping them in line. They clearly don't understand the site policy.
A moderator should not make banning decisions in which they are submitting threads as a member.
Last edited: