A new moderation system.

Originally posted by dfm65
i don't get it: someone finding certain usernames is subjected to your vitriol, but banning under-13s is fine, and hiding posts because a number of people find them offensive enough to alert them is fine? do you actually have a coherent position at all?

this is not to disagree with Russ's latest change - i'm fine with it. in fact it is consistent with my ...[text shortened]... ken in other threads. but it doesn't seem consistent with yours, unless i am missing something?

Despite the fact that you have entirely overused the word "vitriol" now, I'll take a moment to answer with relevancy to the subject at hand.

What I find detestible is how *you*, acting singularly as one, take it upon yourself to personally message the administrators over every little fart (i.e. "ToiletBoy", no pun intended) you find walking the fine line between what you personally define as decency and not.

I think the new system will help prevent the necessity of people like you raising a big stink over something minor, and will ensure that a post is reasonably offensive before it is lifted, as opposed to you and a moderator with a itchy trigger finger doing the task a'la vigilante.

-f

Originally posted by TheSkipper
If you are attempting to prove my point with your juvenile behavior; I appreciate the effort. 😉

TheSkipper

Thank you very much -

now let's all sing our anthem

"The King is in the all together . . . . ."

** Passes TheSkipper a baked kipper and FNM a porkpie,***
I just love family BBQs

Originally posted by claretnblue
why? Because the King is in the all together, the all together!

No.
Because you are giving me a head-ache.

FNM 😉

Part of this update includes tools to check for abuse.

-Russ

Originally posted by Faith No More
No.
Because you are giving me a head-ache.

FNM 😉

sex is out of the question then? Oh well we are stuck with chess again

I have started a new thread under site ideas that provides some suggestions to the self-moderating system...

Originally posted by Faith No More
Your avatar says Semi-Retired.
Are you sure you don't mean Semi-Retarded?

FNM

How dare you!!!
retract that now - I am fully retarded

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Excellent points no1. I agree the number should be high, but making the number public can lead to problems as well. ie Even if the number were 100, if everyone knew that it is not out of the question that something could be 'worked out' with PM's and clan alerts etc. This would end up skewing the number system so badly that the only way to remove a pos ...[text shortened]... ante to that extent is to "get even" with another poster or something like that.

TheSkipper

You can play "cat and mouse" but people here are pretty smart; I'll venture within a few weeks we'll all have a good idea of what n is. I see no reason not to just say what it is up front and then have people give their opinions. I still say that without some feature for weighing positive responses to posts we are left with the possibility of a small number of sensitive, aggressive alerters determining appropriate Forum content for the entire community even though their version of what's offensive is out of touch with the community's. Perhaps someone else would care to comment on that.

Originally posted by claretnblue
How dare you!!!
retract that now - I am fully retarded

lol.
Will you ever be able to forgive me?

Originally posted by LivingLegend
Mr. Blue didn't say it really nice, but he is right, what stops Benett sending a message to Rob with:

"Hi Rob, Ivanhoe posted something silly again, let us alert it!"

Nothing personal here with the names of course. 😏

O.

Presumably, If Rwingett and I conspired in that way, we would be targetting a poster for no good reason. Russ has said this would earn us a forum ban. Anyway, I haven't been alerting Ivanhoe's posts, and I don't intend to start now. The general issue, that of user groups targetting a poster for personal or political reasons, seems to be dealt with by Russ in his original post. Such strategic alertings are grounds for punishment.

Out of curiosity, if one's post is removed, and one feels as though one's post wasn't at all offensive, to whom should one direct one's appeal? There is an appeals process, isn't there?

Edit: Ah yes, I've just read that there are tools to check for abuse. Presumably these tools aren't automatic. Presumably they have to be initiated by a poster who feels he or she has been singled out for personal or political reasons. Now, how should such a poster go about initiating the tools you speak of? Should he or she contact you or the moderators directly via PM?

Originally posted by Faith No More
lol.
Will you ever be able to forgive me?

sure I forgive easy - you can't help being a twat
no offence we can still be mates
🙂

<releases breath>

Took long enough... 🙂

MÅ¥HÅRM <- jovians have great lung capacity...

Originally posted by bbarr
Presumably, If Rwingett and I conspired in that way, we would be targetting a poster for no good reason. Russ has said this would earn us a forum ban. Anyway, I haven't been alerting Ivanhoe's posts, and I don't intend to start now. Th ...[text shortened]... Should he or she contact you or the moderators directly via PM?

From Russ' first post, I get the impression there will be NO appeal process. To wit:

If your post is hidden, then you have no individual moderator to blame – the forum is self-regulating, and if sufficient number of subscribing members’ believes your post is inappropriate, then that is that.

"That is that"
Am I wrong?

Perhaps the best thing to do (now that I've seen the explosion of comments on this, I'm begining to agree with the idea of keeping "n" secret) would be to randomly change "n" :-)

that would also eliminate people getting together to execute Sean's idea in secret (ie. agreeing in groups to alert a post in alphabetical order by username and whoever gives the last alert, that's N)