? and suggestion regarding various threads
- Thread starter Dakota
- Start date
greg334
Veteran Expediter
I've got a serious suggestion.
I have watched a bunch of things happen late on another site (new members coming in and trashing established member - some of it was nasty stuff) and it was decided that some parts of the forum are closed to new members for posting until they reach a certain post count in very specific sections of the forums. This didn't close them off to reading those closed forums (except two) but it forced them not to become a useless member. This was used on a few sites which were bombarded with the idiotic need of starting threads to stir the pot.
So here is the suggestion in the nut shell.
Having new members only be able to post in the first three sections and the business section, the recruiting section. The carrier section can be a place after being vetted they are allowed to access.
After say ten or what ever number of posts, the other sections are open up to them.
I have watched a bunch of things happen late on another site (new members coming in and trashing established member - some of it was nasty stuff) and it was decided that some parts of the forum are closed to new members for posting until they reach a certain post count in very specific sections of the forums. This didn't close them off to reading those closed forums (except two) but it forced them not to become a useless member. This was used on a few sites which were bombarded with the idiotic need of starting threads to stir the pot.
So here is the suggestion in the nut shell.
Having new members only be able to post in the first three sections and the business section, the recruiting section. The carrier section can be a place after being vetted they are allowed to access.
After say ten or what ever number of posts, the other sections are open up to them.
Dakota
Veteran Expediter
I think that is a good idea, at the very least it would keep people from starting up a new name just to flame another member.
Dakota
Veteran Expediter
Dakota,
Thanks for the question, and sorry for the late reply. Been tied up with some family issues this weekend.
I do try to give the Moderators guidelines, but as RLENT pointed out, some are hesitant to jump in, trying to give folks the leeway to be semi-adult, and work it out.
Others do jump in quick, and then get accused of censorship.
I used to remove controversial threads entirely.. but then, people demanded to know why they were removed, and why I was picking on (Insert random member name here) LOL.
Honestly, it's a toss-up. You'd think after having this job for 5 years I'd have it all figured out... but nope. LOL. Unfortunately... I do have to take credit for creating the Soapbox, which is where most of the hate and discontent come from. MANY people have suggested in be removed, including current and former moderators.
As a former Moderator, Cheri indeed knows the headaches I go thru trying to walk that middle line. That line is the reason I don't often join in certain conversations. I do indeed have STRONG opinions on subjects, but if I enforce the rules from those standpoints.. certain folks (such as Turtle LOL) would never get to speak! It's hard to separate my personal feelings from my responsibilities here.
I do TRY to enforce the rules without bias. I'm not perfect, neither are any of our mods... well, maybe one or two are.
All I have asked for the Soapbox is that people TRY to debate the issues, not the person.. however, that is again, a fine line. Myself, when religious issues are debated, it's hard for me to separate when people insult beliefs that I hold dear, even tho they're not directly insulting ME. Some would be surprised to find out how conservative my beliefs are after meeting me LOL.
Anyway, I'm rambling...
Point is.... we TRY to be fair, and allow discussion... especially in the Soapbox. We give more leeway THERE ONLY.. because it was created for such a purpose. I leave some threads, so people can see WHY they were locked. But.. then certain people can't drop it... and the hammer drops.
Sheesssshhhhh..... didn't start out to write a book.. but hopefully.. things will calm down a bit!
Thanks for your patience folks. PLEASE.... can we try to back it down a notch or two... I'm running low on Advil.
Dale
I thought the book writing was for Greg and Turtle only, everyone else has to follow the Twitter rules 144 characters or whatever it is I don't twit
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Greg,
I think it's a good idea ..... although I would suggest that the required number of posts before being allowed into the Soapbox be set higher - 100 posts at a minimum .....
That, and a little tighter moderation in the forums that could be accessed by someone sporting multiple identities, might put a little damper on those who appear to be inclined to schizophrenia at the drop of a hat .......
I was thinking about the multiple screen name thing the other day and had an idea myself: assign each moderator a generic screen name (Moderator A, Moderator B. etc.) in addition to their normal identity and have them use that generic screen name when speaking publicly as a moderator.
This would do several things:
1. First and foremost, it would divorce the public comments of the moderator, as a private individual, from the any implication that their views or positions are sanctioned or endorsed by Expediters Online/On Time Media. Anything said in the voice of the actual identity of the Moderator (Dreamer, LDB, Layout, etc.) would clearly be their own personal opinion, and not the official position of EO/OTM.
2. Since the true identity of the moderator would be unknown, it might allow those being moderated to not connect the act of any moderation they experience with any particular, specific individual.
3. It would provide unlimited entertainment value for the EO masses, who could speculate endlessly, via PM, as to who the real identities of the various generic moderators actually are .....
("That's a joke... I say, that's a joke, son." - Foghorn J. Leghorn)
Doggie Daddy
Veteran Expediter
That might work,as long as moderator A,B,or C didn't post much more than "this thread is locked". Anything more than a few words,and it would be real easy to figure out who is who.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
The masked moderation thing has been done too, I never thought of bringing that up. For one site, it has eliminated the bickering and the backstabbing that went on. All the admins have one generic name they use but it is linked to separate user accounts and the mods are Moderator X - where X is A through H. Not one of the moderators or admins accounts can post comments more than 144 letters or numbers in a single post.
It has eliminated the possibilities of any issues on a personal level as you said and here at EO it's easy to setup and maintain.
But the drawback is that there may be an issue with an overzealous moderator who has a compulsion of 'doing the right thing' by deleting and/or editing posts he/she doesn't like.
It has eliminated the possibilities of any issues on a personal level as you said and here at EO it's easy to setup and maintain.
But the drawback is that there may be an issue with an overzealous moderator who has a compulsion of 'doing the right thing' by deleting and/or editing posts he/she doesn't like.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
DD,
Yup - totally valid point - and you are entirely correct
IMHO, really good moderation, for the most part, should be exactly as you say - short, to the point, tightly controlled (by the moderator speaking), and dispassionate - without any rancor, tirade, or any disparaging commentary.
Sort of a "Just the facts Ma'am ..." kinda deal ....
It would actually take a little work on the part of the moderator - in terms of how they speak - to maintain their anonymity.
Might actually be a good exercise for some .....
greg334
Veteran Expediter
What? We have mods that are give those types of commentary?
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
As long as such actions can be tracked back to separate (if unknown) identities for each moderator, I would think that it wouldn't necessarily be an issue - people would know that Moderator X was so inclined (and could complain about it) - provided that some effort was made to ensure that any moderator actions were entirely transparent .... and we don't have stuff just disappearing, being deleted or locked with any explanation whatsoever by those who are doing it.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Well .... yeah ......
We might even have ..... ahem ..... a few regular members who are similarly inclined as well ...
(not I myself resemble those comments in any way ... )
Last edited:
Some good ideas there, but [you knew there'd be a 'but', yes?] seems to me the main problem is that 90% of the moderating is done by 10% of the moderators.
The rest of the mods are largely MIA - capable as they are, it doesn't work if they don't [for whatever reason] actually do anything like 'moderating'.
Two mods aren't enough to handle the personalities here, ok?
] seems to me the main problem is that 90% of the moderating is done by 10% of the moderators.The rest of the mods are largely MIA - capable as they are, it doesn't work if they don't [for whatever reason] actually do anything like 'moderating'.
Two mods aren't enough to handle the personalities here, ok?
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
Adopting a policy of having to sign up in person would completely eliminate all alternative identities...It might be logistically difficult but drastic times call for drastic measures..
Or, better yet, the thin skinned could just go away...
Or, better yet, the thin skinned could just go away...
Last edited:
dieseldiva
Veteran Expediter
Some good ideas there, but [you knew there'd be a 'but', yes?
The rest of the mods are largely MIA - capable as they are, it doesn't work if they don't [for whatever reason] actually do anything like 'moderating'.
Two mods aren't enough to handle the personalities here, ok?
I agree (s-p-o-o-k-y)
. Sometimes people volunteer, for a variety of reasons, without really knowing what they're getting into. Some are far too timid to step up and make a decision or say anything for fear of the crap that may follow. I think maybe this happens when they're chosen because they're a good fit to be in the "clique" and not because they honestly would make a good moderator.Whatever the reasons for the lack of participation, I think it's a good thing to shake things up every once in a while, get some fresh faces in there, give other members a chance to volunteer. I'm not suggesting that Lawrence goes through his list and "eliminates" anyone for lack of participation but the suggestion should be made that if you no longer desire to help you should consider stepping down. It just keeps the team "fresh".
If you combine that with the suggestion of the mods being anonymous, you might just get a winning team.
I see you edited since I was first going to respond. (Got a phone call) I wasn't sure what the definition of "in person" was. Yes, making someone show up in Florence is a bit much, but I'm hugely on board with actually knowing who people are. Folks that don't give their name and hometown in their profile have no credibilty. None.
One of the biggest problems here is the people that are too thin skinned to handle someone disagreeing with them. The simple act of having a different opinion becomes "personal". That's dumb. I have no idea why people like that are in a forum in the first place.
Kudos to Dreamer for being able to just lock a thread without having to have a "last word" comment. That whole last word thing is just a little to "drama queen" for a moderator.
dieseldiva
Veteran Expediter
The problem with this is security. In this day and age, it isn't always wise to make your location known. There are cyber stalkers on every board, including this one, that take things so personal, they will go outside of the community here and do things to try and hurt people in the name of revenge.
The admins are privy to the information of location of posts, multiple posts from different users from the same place, etc. Personally, I think that is enough, I have no need to know where you or anyone else lives and I see no need for anyone to know that much about me. If I want them to know, I'll tell them privately.
Doggie Daddy
Veteran Expediter
How true this statement is,I do have my home town listed, and wish I had not provided such info when I first registered on EO.
A present and a former member of EO that I have not exactly gotten along with, have more than a couple of times let me know what kind of info that can be found out about you with a little digging on the internet.
On the other hand,I think I showed both that this is a two way street and found out quite a bit of info on them.
You really have no idea what kinds of people that you are dealing with here on EO, so the more you can remain anonymous on here the better.