With regards to the new self-moderating system

I have no issue with Russ' new implementation of the self-moderating forum but I have an even easier solution...

Why not make a forum tailored especially for all the candy-hearted crybabies out there who can't handle liberal thought and edgy humour and feel that they are offended everytime the wind changes? Then you could implement a more stringent moderation system of, say, n=3 that will hide the post. Then all the Jesus lovers and the sheltered pussyfoots will have their own place to discuss the pentecost, pro-life rallies, knock-knock jokes and other such sugar-coated topics.

Sound good?

Originally posted by darvlay
I have no issue with Russ' new implementation of the self-moderating forum but I have an even easier solution...

Why not make a forum tailored especially for all the candy-hearted crybabies out there who can't handle liberal thought and edgy humour and feel that they are offended everytime the wind changes? Then you could implement a more stringent mod ...[text shortened]... entecost, pro-life rallies, knock-knock jokes and other such sugar-coated topics.

Sound good?

Damn, I gave you a rec then realised that you said discuss the pentecost and not the pantyhose

Originally posted by darvlay
I have no issue with Russ' new implementation of the self-moderating forum but I have an even easier solution...

Why not make a forum tailored especially for all the candy-hearted crybabies out there who can't handle liberal thought and edgy humour and feel that they are offended everytime the wind changes? Then you could implement a more stringent mod ...[text shortened]... entecost, pro-life rallies, knock-knock jokes and other such sugar-coated topics.

Sound good?

Ha!! LOL...excellent.

I like the idea Ravello and no1 have been pimping lately. Have a situation where a rec cancels out an alert...when one gets a majority (n) it is left up or erased.

I hope I represented the idea properly.

TheSkipper

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Ha!! LOL...excellent.

I like the idea Ravello and no1 have been pimping lately. Have a situation where a rec cancels out an alert...when one gets a majority (n) it is left up or erased.

I hope I represented the idea properly.

TheSkipper

Well, you can't say "pimping" so I guess that's a Freudian slip!

I'm not really "pumping" the idea, I merely said that it would be better than the system just implemented. And my understanding is that it wouldn't take a mere majority, but a substantial majority of alerts over recs to remove the post. I am still concerned about a relatively small number of alerters having a veto over Forum content and banning posts that the great majority of users of the Forums would have no problem with.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Well, you can't say "pimping" so I guess that's a Freudian slip!

I'm not really "pumping" the idea, I merely said that it would be better than the system just implemented. And my understanding is that it would ...[text shortened]... great majority of users of the Forums would have no problem with.

Thats quite valid. Just guesing but Russ has probably structured it on a "points " system, that is each post starts with n points which are removed for each alert. When there are no points left then "ping" - post gone. If there was an "un-alert feature then viewers could add points to the post which would be a more balanced method of determining if the post is suitable.

skeeter

Edit: typo

Two good points were made in the announcements forum:

1) Do Recommendations cancel out Alerts? Let's say n = 4 (for example). Remember Shav's 'Shaving' post? It got 13 recs (or so) which is unusually high. Would it still be hidden after 4, or would it be hidden after 17?

2) Is there an appeal process? Will people be automatically notified if their post is removed, so that they can reflect upon it and/or ask the mod for the reasoning? (And, by the way, who are the mods now?)

Nemesio

I think a lot will depend on how many votes one can cast.

"n" has to be greater than 20 to stop any clan gang wrong doings.

But if a rec cancelles out an alert....the whole thing could go on for a very long time........It would end up like some mad farce with half the people on the site reccing and the other half alerting.....

It is clear that "n" is not going to be made public: Why? Because a large number of people would immediately complain 'cos they can think of a better number. n-2 for example.
There are also some assumptions on our part:
1) n is constant. Maybe not: perhaps n is larger in the debates forum.
2) n has a single threshold. Maybe not: the system may not be as fully automated as described. Just like the multiple-user tracking, I would not expect Russ to reveal all his tricks. Again, it would more than likely lead to toys / prams.
3) n is static: more likely (n - alerts) may trend back to n over time.
4) all user alerts are equal. Maybe not: constant whiners may have their alert level reduced. Sane alerters may be given higher weight over time.

It boils down to this: the forums are moderated. We now have input to that moderation process. That ups our level of responsibilty as RHP members: can we cope?

Originally posted by Toe
It boils down to this: the forums are moderated. We now have input to that moderation process. That ups our level of responsibilty as RHP members: can we cope?

You know what? I have a horrible suspicion the answer is no, but I hope I'm wrong.

Originally posted by darvlay
I have no issue with Russ' new implementation of the self-moderating forum but I have an even easier solution...

Why not make a forum tailored especially for all the candy-hearted crybabies out there who can't handle liberal thought an ...[text shortened]... ock-knock jokes and other such sugar-coated topics.

Sound good?

Funny that, I was just considering the same idea, but in reverse.


Rather than create a brand new touchy-feely softy forum (which is what "general" should be), far better would be to create a "flame" forum.

There n can be much higher, threads which have degenerated into pure personal bickering (without using profanity, etc.) can be moved into it or people can be asked to take their personal disagreement out of a thread and finish it in that forum.

Perhaps call it "flames and the dark-side", then you can put the slightly more edgy humour there as well (e.g. shav's ball shaving post).

NOT that I'm suggesting this become an over 18 forum, but that the topics which dont sit well with certain members or in certain forums will then have somewhere to go. The same rules of moderation would apply, but with a higher n the "pack-attack" threat wont be so easy to implement.

MÅ¥HÅRM

Originally posted by Toe
It is clear that "n" is not going to be made public: Why? Because a large number of people would immediately complain 'cos they can think of a better number. n-2 for example.
There are also some assumptions on our part:
1) n is constant. Maybe not: perhaps n is larger in the debates forum.
2) n has a single threshold. Maybe not: the system may not be as ...[text shortened]... put to that moderation process. That ups our level of responsibilty as RHP members: can we cope?

I guess I'll never understand posts like this. A decision has been made that directly effects all of us, but apparently you think it's better that we don't know the most important feature of the decision! And why? Because people might have the temerity to suggest that the feature has a flaw. I believe that this is only because it is Forum related: if a change was made in the Clan system, for example, the changes and the details of it would be openly discussed and the features would be revealed. Why is it different for Forum related matters?

I'd prefer not to make any assumptions or engage in idle speculation like you have in your post. I'd like simply to know, has the choice of n has a serious effect on the workings of the system implemented. I see no reason why it can't be rationally discussed. And I see little reason for "the playing the cards close to the vest" strategy of the site admins; obviously they had reasons for choosing the n they did; I'd just like to know them and be able to comment if I so choose. It's called "customer feedback" and most businesses prefer to get as much as possible; why this site should be an exception, I don't know.

Originally posted by Mayharm
Funny that, I was just considering the same idea, but in reverse.


Rather than create a brand new touchy-feely softy forum (which is what "general" should be), far better would be to create a "flame" forum.

There [b]n can be much higher, threads which have degenerated into pure personal bickering (without using profanity, etc.) can be m ...[text shortened]... ith a higher n the "pack-attack" threat wont be so easy to implement.

MÅ¥HÅRM[/b]

I like your idea, but I'd modify it a bit. Have a system where if a post receives more than n alerts, it is automatically moved to the Flames forum (with no automodding out of Flames). Moderators could still remove posts completely, but would in general be fairly tolerant of what goes on in Flames. Similarly, posters who earn a forum suspension could instead be temporarily banished to Flames, where they can 'let off steam' without messing up the other forums.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I guess I'll never understand posts like this. A decision has been made that directly effects all of us, but apparently you think it's better that we don't know the most important feature of the decision! And why? Because people might have the temerity to suggest that the feature has a flaw. I believe that this is only because it is Forum rela ...[text shortened]... sinesses prefer to get as much as possible; why this site should be an exception, I don't know.

No business reveals everything to its customers...

I actually DO get your point, but the sad fact is the people that have created a need for a new moderation system are likely to be the same people who would NOT be able to have a rational discussion about it. The only reason they would want to know n is so they can push the boundaries of the system for their own entertainment and the annoyance of their 'enemies'.

Please note I am not saying you are one of those people. I have a great deal of respect for your views because I have consistently found your posts to be well thought out and an interesting read. I just don't always agree with them. 😉

Originally posted by darvlay
I have no issue with Russ' new implementation of the self-moderating forum but I have an even easier solution...

Why not make a forum tailored especially for all the candy-hearted crybabies out there who can't handle liberal thought and edgy humour and feel that they are offended everytime the wind changes? Then you could implement a more stringent mod ...[text shortened]... entecost, pro-life rallies, knock-knock jokes and other such sugar-coated topics.

Sound good?

do these 'candy-hearted crybabies' and 'sheltered pussyfoots' include the 14-year-old children who still have access to the site?

Originally posted by darvlay
I have no issue with Russ' new implementation of the self-moderating forum but I have an even easier solution...

Why not make a forum tailored especially for all the candy-hearted crybabies out there who can't handle liberal thought and edgy humour and feel that they are offended everytime the wind changes? Then you could implement a more stringent mod ...[text shortened]... entecost, pro-life rallies, knock-knock jokes and other such sugar-coated topics.

Sound good?

Do we get to know if any of our posts generate an alert? Sure, we will know if it is withdrawn - but how about posts that some do not like or find on the limit of acceptability?

I would rather get some feedback so I could moderate my posts - perhaps a yellow card as well as a red card?