Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Site Ideas Forum

Site Ideas Forum

  1. 30 Jan '09 01:14
    I've posted this in Site Ideas in the hope of canvassing some honest discussion, until the thread gets hijacked at least.

    1. Should the identity of moderators be known only to the admins, and possibly to other moderators?

    For:
    Individual moderators would have the same posting rights as other users. including post deletions, warnings and forum bans
    Against:
    Unless you're one of the "people in the know" it's a secret police situation. the admins can see everything said on the site and hold the "secret police" accountable

    2. Should users have a non-public "right of appeal" against moderator actions which they deem unjust? This appears to be available in several forums I frequent, and occasionally said appeal is upheld and the post reinstated.

    For:
    May reduce the level of grievance / frustration / helplessness felt by affected users, which always seems to spill over into the public forums anyway.
    Against:
    May need a larger moderation team to deal with a possible increase in workload.
  2. 30 Jan '09 01:16
    all moderators should be unknown and there should be no right of appeal for their actions ( except for miss oleum who should be the one new known moderator and all complaints should be addressed to her but she is to have no power to do anything about it ).
  3. Standard member Crowley
    Not Aleister
    30 Jan '09 11:16
    Originally posted by MissOleum
    1. Should the identity of moderators be known only to the admins, and possibly to other moderators?

    For:
    Individual moderators would have the same posting rights as other users.
    Uhm, is this not the case now?

    Sure, at the moment there is this small minority of people who believes the mods shouldn't have the same rights as the other users, but who cares what they and their crackpot ringleader thinks anyway?
  4. Standard member Crowley
    Not Aleister
    30 Jan '09 11:26 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by MissOleum
    Should users have a non-public "right of appeal" against moderator actions which they deem unjust? This appears to be available in several forums I frequent, and occasionally said appeal is upheld and the post reinstated.
    This is fine, I could get behind this type of idea.

    BUT

    Firstly, who will be this 'arbiter'?

    Secondly, I would want every user to have a very limited amount of appeals - something like recs. Say 2 per month.
    If a the appeal is declined, then 1 appeal 'ticket' is used and if the appeal is upheld, then no 'ticket' is used.
  5. Standard member Daemon Sin
    I'm A Mighty Pirate™
    30 Jan '09 11:37
    Originally posted by Crowley
    Firstly, who will be this 'arbiter'?
    Me!

    I treat EVERYONE here with the same level of condescending disrespect. I'd be ideal for the job!
  6. Standard member Frank Burns
    Great Big Stees
    30 Jan '09 12:16
    I've thought that the mods should be hired employees who are not in any other way affiliated with RHP. They can't be subscribers or members of any nature other than employees. They should be anonymous to the RHP community and devoid of any relationship with the owners of the site or the members of the site. Perhaps this would allow better consistency due to set rules of employment they must adhere to in order to remain on the payroll. A policy of neutrality could be more easily attained with no, or next to no complaints by members who get notified by this staff that they need to get back in line with RHP's membership policies.
  7. Standard member Crowley
    Not Aleister
    30 Jan '09 12:45
    Originally posted by Frank Burns
    I've thought that the mods should be hired employees who are not in any other way affiliated with RHP. They can't be subscribers or members of any nature other than employees. They should be anonymous to the RHP community and devoid of any relationship with the owners of the site or the members of the site. Perhaps this would allow better consistency d ...[text shortened]... get notified by this staff that they need to get back in line with RHP's membership policies.
    Good, will you just message all subscribers and explain to them why we need to bump the subscription fee to $45.

    One doesn't need an economics degree to see the flaw there, eh Frank?
  8. Standard member Frank Burns
    Great Big Stees
    30 Jan '09 12:51 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Crowley
    Good, will you just message all subscribers and explain to them why we need to bump the subscription fee to $45.

    One doesn't need an economics degree to see the flaw there, eh Frank?
    With all the advertising, the already costly price of membership and you want me to believe this site can't already afford paid moderation? Pfffft!? eh?
  9. Standard member Frank Burns
    Great Big Stees
    30 Jan '09 12:54
    Here's the deal crowley. Ms. Oleum started thread called "Civilised Discussion on Moderation". This is not meant to be a mod bashing symposium. She has given us the chance to post our thoughts without attack on opinion. You've already turned that corner haven't you?
  10. Standard member Frank Burns
    Great Big Stees
    30 Jan '09 12:57 / 1 edit
    Here's another thought crowley, maybe you and your economics degree can tell us why the price would have to go to $45/year? Where did you come up with that number? Are you privy to the balance sheets of RHP? You seem to consider yourself an insider so go ahead and crunch the numbers for us.
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    30 Jan '09 13:56
    Originally posted by Frank Burns
    Here's another thought crowley, maybe you and your economics degree can tell us why the price would [b]have to go to $45/year? Where did you come up with that number? Are you privy to the balance sheets of RHP? You seem to consider yourself an insider so go ahead and crunch the numbers for us.[/b]
    Right now there are 8 volunteer mods. Do you suppose that if RHP had to hire 8 people full time to moderate the forums it would have no effect on the profitability of this site? I suspect to pay them even minimum wage would cost more than this site pulls in a year.
  12. Standard member Crowley
    Not Aleister
    30 Jan '09 22:07 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Frank Burns
    Here's another thought crowley, maybe you and your economics degree can tell us why the price would [b]have to go to $45/year? Where did you come up with that number? Are you privy to the balance sheets of RHP? You seem to consider yourself an insider so go ahead and crunch the numbers for us.[/b]
    Go check what average bandwidth costs are for the type of dedicated (probably load balanced) top-end servers Russ uses for hosting and then come back to me with your little biting comments.

    Civilised? I can do it. Can you?


    EDIT: BTW, I pulled that number out of my ass.
  13. Standard member Crowley
    Not Aleister
    30 Jan '09 22:10
    Originally posted by Frank Burns
    Here's the deal crowley. Ms. Oleum started thread called "Civilised Discussion on Moderation". This is not meant to be a mod bashing symposium. She has given us the chance to post our thoughts without attack on opinion. You've already turned that corner haven't you?
    This is the problem with the likes of you.

    I shoot your post down, because I believe it to be unattainable.
    You then see this as some kind of 'attack' because you believe you somehow know of an agenda I have.

    Hate the game, not the player, Frankie.
    If you don't like people disagreeing with you, you probably shouldn't post in public.
  14. 30 Jan '09 23:16
    There are 8 names on the moderator list, this does not necessarily translate into 8 fulltime paid employees. That would assume all moderators are active for an average of 35 hours per week.

    Not everyone on the site posts in forums, there could be potential volunteers out there who choose not to post for one reason or another.
  15. Standard member Daemon Sin
    I'm A Mighty Pirate™
    30 Jan '09 23:18 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Crowley
    Go check what average bandwidth costs are for the type of dedicated (probably load balanced) top-end servers Russ uses for hosting and then come back to me with your little biting comments.

    Civilised? I can do it. Can you?


    EDIT: BTW, I pulled that number out of my ass.
    The site uses Rackspace hosting. Their entry level servers cost about £250 per month. For a site this size, I'd estimate that they're paying in the region of £350 - £400 per month for a mid-level setup .