OG proposal #1 (June 09) - Cull worthless members?

Should we go ahead and remove useless members?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 10 38.5%

  • No.

    Votes: 9 34.6%

  • Abstain.

    Votes: 7 26.9%
  • Total voters
    26
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well i guess i should just quit now and save you all the trouble.
I think most people feel they are worth something. Even if it's a post every now and then (hint, hint) for me SF gives me a reason to think critically. It's challenged me to look up facts, events, ideas, concepts that I previously had no knowledge of. This world is full of know it all people. i encounter them every day. Coming here is a place to learn about things, be curious, give input and gain knowledge in courteous (hopefully) way.
But if it comes down to passing some kind of IQ test to be a member, well....IMO would be a bad idea.
 
I don't think anyone would designate you as worthless incaseyouwerewonderingjoe :p
 
S.A.M. said:
I don't think anyone would designate you as worthless incaseyouwerewonderingjoe :p
Click to expand...

Well, thanks. but the whole concept of culling gives me the creeps.
I even hate the ignore button. i think it's rude to put some one on ignore.:bawl:
 
justwonderingjoe said:
Well, thanks. but the whole concept of culling gives me the creeps.
I even hate the ignore button. i think it's rude to put some one on ignore.:bawl:
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I just think that some people who feel the need to be protected from voluntarily clicking on a link or choosing to read what anyone has written should be directed towards it. I personally find it an excellent remedy for persistent stalkers, although its rare for me to actually press the ignore button.
 
Good Faith

Let us consider, please, the concept of good faith.

There are members who might annoy you or me, but who are posting their sincere thoughts and feelings.

Then there are those who post completely inane bullshit, often being contrary for the sake of doing so.

Add to those the members who many people might feel are useless, but are actually making their point in what proves to be an obscure manner. Of these, there are only a few. As to the others ... well, suffice to say there are more.

In consideration of a culling, good faith is my standard. Some people are simply priggish in their address of this community, and we would be better off without them.

The problem with eliminating those is that they will be back, anyway.
 
James R said:
In this thread, you are free to speak your mind about other members, so please feel free to list any you think do not belong here...

2. This is NOT a thread for free insulting of other members who you don't like. No name-calling. No calls for bans not backed by any argument. No personal sniping. Or I will close the thread and assume that members are not mature enough to discuss the issue.
Click to expand...
Talk about hog-tied.
That's right up there with the Geneva convention - we're allowed to kill and maim with bullets and bombs, but not with gas because that's just cruel.

Lucysnow said:
We still have to decide what is meant by useless. How would you describe a member who isn't contributing anything? How do we determine this because there are loads of people i think are useless members but so what, they may be deemed of value to others.
Click to expand...
That is the gist of the problem.
Along with who makes the final decisions. In the end, you have few choices - nominate a set of final decision makers based on what the moderation and site control group decide they want the site to be; or leave it to the democratic vote, in which case you're rarely going to get rid of anyone at all due to Lucy's notes above. Not to mention starting a popularity contest.

In the first instance, you run the risk of robbing the site of what little character remains to it.

In the second, you're not going to achieve anything except perhaps to cull a very few about whom no one cares.

...in a month or two some other git or wanker will join to make us want to hang ourselves.
Click to expand...
That's not very lucid thinking, Lucy. A more rational person would be wanting to hang them.
Lucid Lucy? I'm going to have to file that.

I hereby nominate myself for a good hard banning due to my complete lack of empathy and intolerance.
Second?

Some people are asses due to utter boredom and lack of inspiration.
 
I feel it's probably appropriate to say, after reading Tiassa's, James and Stryders posts I'm inclined to think nothing needs changing. I don't think members should be culled, it would just be a matter of opinion. Mods already ban inappropriate members and delete inappropriate comments, as for demoting mods, I think that should be for the mods to decide, otherwise it'll just turn into anarchy.

My beef wasn't really about the way things are done in general, just that I felt members' genuine concerns were being mocked, but it all cool.
 
James R said:
But then, when I suggest we clean out the supposed "dead wood", I only hear the reasons for why we shouldn't do it.

Can you see why the moderators/admins might get a little annoyed at the apparent inconsistency in what members say they want? What do you suggest I, as an administrator, do regarding this issue?
Click to expand...
Make a decision. I've never been a fan of democracies anyway.
There are occasions when someone has to stand up and be Machiavellian.

And be prepared for the consequences.
 
I'll clarify that I meant members who rarely participate in any relevant conversations that are of an intelligent level, those who consistantly spam the forums with their personal problems/issues while rarely entering more than one line of text and those people who take everything personally and hold everyone else accountable for their bad behaviours. We should look at people who also derail a lot of threads and do a lot of goading and chiding of other members on a regular basis. Not constructive criticism, but those who rankle lots of other people and add nothing else to the forum but friction for otherwise intelligent posters/posts. And those who are particularly problematic for the moderators. Mods shouldn't have to constantly sweep up after particular posters or have to deal with so many founded complaints about certain posters.
 
Tiassa said:
Let us consider, please, the concept of good faith.

There are members who might annoy you or me, but who are posting their sincere thoughts and feelings.

Then there are those who post completely inane bullshit, often being contrary for the sake of doing so.

Add to those the members who many people might feel are useless, but are actually making their point in what proves to be an obscure manner. Of these, there are only a few. As to the others ... well, suffice to say there are more.

In consideration of a culling, good faith is my standard. Some people are simply priggish in their address of this community, and we would be better off without them.

The problem with eliminating those is that they will be back, anyway.
Click to expand...

Well-said. I was just going to just say this was the stupidest goddamn idea ever. What you're going to end up with in this thread is a bunch of middle school whinings. Look, there are a few people I wish would fuck off and go post their stupidity elsewhere.

We KNOW who the problem people are. Why the hell are you asking forum members to do what admins and mods should have the spines to do? It's a new and interesting way to shirk responsibility.

I'm going to say it once more (and God knows I've said it enough) that we can ban Roman for posting abortion pictures, but Scott3x sends me a PM about fingering a minor and is generally a pain in the ass. James, I sent you a PM about it, and yes, I'm absolutely pissed off that I sent you my password to prove that I'm not bullshitting and your reaction is little more than a shrug. You want to be some sort of a leader, big boy? Well, then do it.
 
Jesus, that's fucked up tak. Perhaps that's what happens when you can only be a mod if you're male.
 
One more thing: I understand, I guess, your lack of response until Roman's banning. If we are going to protect people from things that might offend them, fingering young children offends me a lot more than dead babies. Roman failed to learn from his mistakes, and so has Scott. Fair's fair. Just because one puts on a transparent mask of "niceness" does not mean arbitrarily enforcing rules is a good idea.
 
EmmZ said:
Jesus, that's fucked up tak. Perhaps that's what happens when you can only be a mod if you're male.
Click to expand...

I think we have some good male mods. While Fraggle and Hercules and I don't always agree, I can usually see their logic, and Tiassa is the bee's knees. We also have Bells, but she's been absent lately.

I'm certainly not always the most pleasant, agreeable, useful, or clean-mouthed person here, but at least you know where I stand.
 
Perhaps off topic but, you did make a mock rape thread tak, perhaps mocking any sexual violence should be questioned. I am seriously concerned about how much rape is joked about around here.
 
takandjive said:
I've since deleted it since the admin couldn't be bothered to do much about it. This was over a month ago, Plaz.
Click to expand...
Maybe James wasn't online or he hasn't read it.
You should always send complaints, PMs, threats, etc. in multi form, using CC or sending separate copy to each mod/admin concerned.
Some of us will read it and review the issue immediately.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top