Originally posted by mwmillerHow where these guys chosen? The look as the right persons to me!😏
The list of moderators has been posted before, but you must have missed it, so here it is one more time, (complete list) :
Russ
Chrismo
-----------------
mwmiller
Rhymester
vaknso
Flash
T1000
!~TONY~!
UncleAdam
wWarrior
When we remove a post, we do usually contact the person who made the post and explain to them why it was removed. ...[text shortened]... he owners eventually.
So we're probably not as mysterious as you suggest...
regards, Marc
Olav
Originally posted by mwmillerAre all these moderators still active on the forums?
The list of moderators has been posted before, but you must have missed it, so here it is one more time, (complete list) :
Russ
Chrismo
-----------------
mwmiller
Rhymester
vaknso
Flash
T1000
!~TONY~!
UncleAdam
wWarrior
When we remove a post, we do usually contact the person who made the post and explain to them why it was removed. ...[text shortened]... he owners eventually.
So we're probably not as mysterious as you suggest...
regards, Marc
I haven't seen T1000 post in a while, vaknso has left (at least for now), Tony posts less than he used to and wWarrior I don't think I've ever seen post.
Of course this doesn't stop them from receiving moderator 'alerts', but if these guys are not active, maybe some new mods are called for.
Or is UncleAdam doing it all alone? 😉
Originally posted by Vargcurently the ones who are doing it are
Are all these moderators still active on the forums?
I haven't seen T1000 post in a while, vaknso has left (at least for now), Tony posts less than he used to and wWarrior I don't think I've ever seen post.
Of course this doesn't stop them from receiving moderator 'alerts', but if these guys are not active, maybe some new mods are called for.
Or is UncleAdam doing it all alone? 😉
---
mwmiller
Rhymester
Flash
!~TONY~!
UncleAdam
wWarrior
---
vaknso and T1000 are takeing a short brake from RHP but will be back soon
1 edit
Originally posted by David TebbLOL I've been called all sorts of things but never a 'mysterious figure'.
The moderators are mysterious figures, appointed in secrecy, accountable to nobody but the site owners.
-Dave
I don't know where this idea has come from.. we just look at posts that have been alerted and use common sense to decide if it should be removed or accepted. If we are not sure we discuss it with each other. Where's the mystery in that?
Rhymester
A pragmatic suggestion:
When a post is moderated, it should not be moderated out of existence. A lighter-handed approach would be to hide each moderated message, giving the moderator's name and reason for hiding the post (e.g.: Off-Topic, Language, Abuse, etc.). If I, in reading a thread, decide that I want to read a hidden message, I unhide the message by clicking somewhere (ala the in-game message feature), and it is now available to me.
This accomplishes several things:
1) It is a check on moderators' ability to decide on the appropriateness of content in a multicultural environment where everybody has a different idea about what is offensive, etc.
2) I could decide which hidden messages I want to read based on the reason for hiding the post. I am not bothered by naughty words, as much as I am by lack of topical content, so some hidden posts may be useful for me to read while others are not.
3) It becomes less likely that a moderator would hide a post based on disagreement with content (or the poster), since the moderator is publicly accountable for his or her action.
Originally posted by godzillionThat wouldn't work. The point of hiding the post is so no one sees it. By your way it would accomplish nothing. Everybody could still see it.
A pragmatic suggestion:
When a post is moderated, it should not be moderated out of existence. A lighter-handed approach would be to hide each moderated message, giving the moderator's name and reason for hiding the post (e.g.: Off-Topic, Language, Abuse, etc.). If I, in reading a thread, decide that I want to read a hidden message, I unhide the mes ...[text shortened]... with content (or the poster), since the moderator is publicly accountable for his or her action.
Originally posted by CFCI disagree. Perhaps the moderators would like to clarify, but I suspect that the point of hiding a post is to "protect" the non-moderators from reading something which they may find offensive. If I choose not to unveil hidden posts (in the scheme I suggested above), then I don't see them. If I take direct action to view a hidden post, and then it offends me (or bores, or disturbs me), then I can only blame myself and my insatiable curiousity. 🙂 Everyone could still see it, like you said, but only if they explicitly chose to!
The point of hiding the post is so no one sees it. By your way it would accomplish nothing. Everybody could still see it.
The implicit assumption in the current moderation scheme is that users outside the elected group of moderators are not intelligent enough, mature enough, or responsible enough to handle seeing moderated posts in the moderators-only area, as described by UncleAdam. Personally, I believe that each user should be able to decide that for him or herself.
In addition, accusations have arisen in the past of moderators hiding posts of people with opinions differeent from their own. How often (or not) this happens is irrelevant -- it is plausible, and if it should ever happen, I don't believe that I should be forced into an information-poor position (i.e. unable to see a post moderated for questionable reasons, and therefore unable to decide for myself) because of a decision within the info-oligarchy.
I should also note that I have had no problems with the current moderation scheme (and thus with the current moderators). However, I find it dangerous that standards may be considered for what makes a post acceptible. It's like the US supreme court trying to decide on a legal definition of pornography which excludes 'legitamate' nude or erotic art.
If moderators are allowed to make that choice in the general case, I would like to be able to override their decision in specific cases, when it is only I who will be reading the post, and only I am in danger of being offended.
Originally posted by godzillionI agree,but........
I disagree. Perhaps the moderators would like to clarify, but I suspect that the point of hiding a post is to "protect" the non-moderators from reading something which they may find offensive. If I choose not to unveil hidden posts (in the scheme I suggested above), then I don't see them. If I take direct action to view a hidden post, and then it of ...[text shortened]... , when it is only I who will be reading the post, and only I am in danger of being offended.
Life goes on.Today is a new day.
Yesterday's battles have been won or lost:
Today is a new day.
Linda.
Originally posted by RhymesterAndrew.
LOL I've been called all sorts of things but never a 'mysterious figure'.
I don't know where this idea has come from.. we just look at posts that have been alerted and use common sense to decide if it should be removed or accepted. If we are not sure we discuss it with each other. Where's the mystery in that?
Rhymester
You are mysterious figure.
linda.
Originally posted by godzillionI agree with CFC on this point. If a post contains offensive language, hiding it with a flag such as "post hidden - language" would only serve to atttract the attention of the curious young minds that moderation is supposed to protect from such language.
I disagree. Perhaps the moderators would like to clarify, but I suspect that the point of hiding a post is to "protect" the non-moderators from reading something which they may find offensive. If I choose not to unveil hidden posts (in the scheme I suggested above), then I don't see them. If I take direct action to view a hidden post, and then it of ...[text shortened]... , when it is only I who will be reading the post, and only I am in danger of being offended.
Do you think tuco would have given up as quickly if all of those offensive posts were not deleted?
Originally posted by godzillionyes-it would be my fault, but it's still a risk that Chris and Russ probubly won't take as they would still be hosting the offensive content and could thus be sued for it. i think 😛
I disagree. Perhaps the moderators would like to clarify, but I suspect that the point of hiding a post is to "protect" the non-moderators from reading something which they may find offensive. If I choose not to unveil hidden posts (in the scheme I suggested above), then I don't see them. If I take direct action to view a hidden post, and then it of ...[text shortened]... , when it is only I who will be reading the post, and only I am in danger of being offended.