Idiotic forum members with humongous signatures...

I think anything a moderator says that has nothing to do with moderation is equal to anyone else.

If you think I say something that is completely bonkers and call me out on it.. that's life.

The commentary on the actual moderating is frustrating because the user base only sees one side of things. There are the reported posts, there are the moderator discussions, there are the PM's that get sent.

There are a lot of people that say "Foobar did X and got banned. Barfoo did it too, why didn't he get banned as well?" Those arguments are often based on the things you see only on the boards. There is also a natural propensity in human beings to side with their friends.

People also take any kind of moderation against them in a very deep and personal way. I sometimes will send someone a warning. I will use it simply to let them know that they are heading down a path that will lead to an infraction. I even tell them that it is just a warning and it has no impact on their ability to use the site. The response is usually anger.

People who have moderated at other boards, like MOZWA for example, can tell you that it's much different when you see the whole thing.

Moderation is not perfect. It is not a science. Often times moderation decisions are reversed. My personal goal as a moderator is to keep the forums going in a positive direction, expecially out-side of the Off Topic section.

I have said this before but the moderation here is very lax. I have been on boards where I have had posts deleted because the moderators felt that my content was not valuable enough. I have been on boards where you can't post for a week. You can't add an avatar or a sig file until you've reached 100 posts. Lot's of sites have rules against images in a sig file; none allowed, no animated gifs, nothing bigger than a thumbnail.. et cetera.

Now flame away!!! :D

Thanks for the perspective from the other side, but I think that the biggest problem with the way bans and "timeouts" are handed out here is that the mods' explanations are so poor. Users don't have a list of potentially bannable offenses (unless they're blessed with a HIM-like common sense), warnings aren't always given before infractions (I didn't get one), and, most ridicilously of all, the actual infraction notice is sent via PM--but when a user is banned, they can't read their f***ing private messages (nor are the messages emailed, if you have that option checked)! Seriously, how difficult can it be for the moderators to be more up-front about the hows and whys of banninations?
 

bored

Lust a prima vista
Thanks for the perspective from the other side, but I think that the biggest problem with the way bans and "timeouts" are handed out here is that the mods' explanations are so poor. Users don't have a list of potentially bannable offenses (unless they're blessed with a HIM-like common sense), warnings aren't always given before infractions (I didn't get one), and, most ridicilously of all, the actual infraction notice is sent via PM--but when a user is banned, they can't read their f***ing private messages (nor are the messages emailed, if you have that option checked)! Seriously, how difficult can it be for the moderators to be more up-front about the hows and whys of banninations?

I agree that users should be given an explanation as to why they were banned. I think many users get frustrated that they don't know why someone else was banned. This is a matter that you can get info on if you are friends with the banned person by speaking with them directly.

Sometimes people get warnings because you can see them teetering and things are about to get nasty. Sometimes they don't because it is already too late as the line has been crossed. The fact that moderators are on at different times and things escalate between users at different speeds makes it impossible to have the consistency that you are looking for. I do agree that 1 simple path to moderation would be ideal but it just isn't possible.

I will have to set up a test account and ban it and see what you are seeing and then make suggestions as to what can be done to properly communicate with the users.

Thanks for the feedback,
-Jimmy
 

nugz

SUPAHSTAR!
I know I mentioned this to someone, but I don't think I've posted it on the forum. i dont think? i dunno, im losing my mind lately.

anyway, I had a thought. instead of when a person is only temporarily banned, what if instead of saying banned under their name it says "suspended" or "time-out" whatever. and then if you click on their profile you'll see something like "so and so's ban will be lifted on such and such a date."

i think that would clear up alot of confusion when you see one of your forum friends with the title BANNED under their name. it comes across very sinister and final. haha. then if you could see when they would be unbanned, somewhere on their profile, it would eliminate the "omg, what happened to so and so" threads. asking what happened. cuz then the mods get frustrated at your nosiness, and sometimes that ends up causing trouble too.

I have no idea if this is even possible. but just a suggestion.
 

HIM

New Member
I think anything a moderator says that has nothing to do with moderation is equal to anyone else.

If you think I say something that is completely bonkers and call me out on it.. that's life.

The commentary on the actual moderating is frustrating because the user base only sees one side of things. There are the reported posts, there are the moderator discussions, there are the PM's that get sent.

There are a lot of people that say "Foobar did X and got banned. Barfoo did it too, why didn't he get banned as well?" Those arguments are often based on the things you see only on the boards. There is also a natural propensity in human beings to side with their friends.

People also take any kind of moderation against them in a very deep and personal way. I sometimes will send someone a warning. I will use it simply to let them know that they are heading down a path that will lead to an infraction. I even tell them that it is just a warning and it has no impact on their ability to use the site. The response is usually anger.

People who have moderated at other boards, like MOZWA for example, can tell you that it's much different when you see the whole thing.

Moderation is not perfect. It is not a science. Often times moderation decisions are reversed. My personal goal as a moderator is to keep the forums going in a positive direction, expecially out-side of the Off Topic section.

I have said this before but the moderation here is very lax. I have been on boards where I have had posts deleted because the moderators felt that my content was not valuable enough. I have been on boards where you can't post for a week. You can't add an avatar or a sig file until you've reached 100 posts. Lot's of sites have rules against images in a sig file; none allowed, no animated gifs, nothing bigger than a thumbnail.. et cetera.

Now flame away!!! :D


"There is also a natural propensity in human beings to side with their friends."

I can clearly see that.

I think anything a moderator says that has nothing to do with moderation is equal to anyone else.

If you think I say something that is completely bonkers and call me out on it.. that's life.

The commentary on the actual moderating is frustrating because the user base only sees one side of things. There are the reported posts, there are the moderator discussions, there are the PM's that get sent.

There are a lot of people that say "Foobar did X and got banned. Barfoo did it too, why didn't he get banned as well?" Those arguments are often based on the things you see only on the boards. There is also a natural propensity in human beings to side with their friends.

People also take any kind of moderation against them in a very deep and personal way. I sometimes will send someone a warning. I will use it simply to let them know that they are heading down a path that will lead to an infraction. I even tell them that it is just a warning and it has no impact on their ability to use the site. The response is usually anger.

People who have moderated at other boards, like MOZWA for example, can tell you that it's much different when you see the whole thing.

Moderation is not perfect. It is not a science. Often times moderation decisions are reversed. My personal goal as a moderator is to keep the forums going in a positive direction, expecially out-side of the Off Topic section.

I have said this before but the moderation here is very lax. I have been on boards where I have had posts deleted because the moderators felt that my content was not valuable enough. I have been on boards where you can't post for a week. You can't add an avatar or a sig file until you've reached 100 posts. Lot's of sites have rules against images in a sig file; none allowed, no animated gifs, nothing bigger than a thumbnail.. et cetera.

Now flame away!!! :D

"People also take any kind of moderation against them in a very deep and personal way."

I can clearly see that.
 

Oh my god. it's Robby!

spontaneously luminescent
a lot of us are gonna be changing our sigs after the election
i am just confused as to what the size limit is now :confused: & whether
funny-2.jpg
if i used the above hidden item as a sig would i get in trouble?
i think its funny*, but not enough to get in trouble over :eek:
not that i know if i even would :cool:


*=ok, i read it again, its too offensive maybe because it uses 1 word too many times...
 
a lot of us are gonna be changing our sigs after the election
i am just confused as to what the size limit is now :confused: & whether
funny-2.jpg
if i used the above hidden item as a sig would i get in trouble?
i think its funny*, but not enough to get in trouble over :eek:
not that i know if i even would :cool:


*=ok, i read it again, its too offensive maybe because it uses 1 word too many times...

OMFG I wish I'd found that first!
 
D

Dave

Guest
I am still not sure why anyone would want to post the same picture or quote or whatever each time they post. If someone posted once a day I guess I could see it, but posting it repeatedly in the same thread is just asking for negative attention.

Conclusion: signatures are useless. flashing signatures are annoying. funny signatures are not funny.

but I don't care. I turned them off a long time ago. :)
 

Oh my god. it's Robby!

spontaneously luminescent
I am still not sure why anyone would want to post the same picture or quote or whatever each time they post. If someone posted once a day I guess I could see it, but posting it repeatedly in the same thread is just asking for negative attention.

Conclusion: signatures are useless. flashing signatures are annoying. funny signatures are not funny.

but I don't care. I turned them off a long time ago. :)

i like mine, chica sent me it once long ago :tears:
 

cornelius blaze

Boychild mustn't tremble!
OMFG I wish I'd found that first!

So, what is the reason behind your 'humorous' signature Nrith? Why is it hidden? Are you trying to play with the big boys again and get an infraction or a ban, by being controversial with the image (again) and this time saying its your Halloween costume!
 
Last edited:
Tags
nrith tries to be cool the more u sig-nore me
Top Bottom