View previous topic | View next topic

Moderation policy

Page 2 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

GuyBarry
1245627.  Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:17 am Reply with quote

'yorz wrote:

For the fact that I got exasperated by PDR's puerile behaviour once again, and that I referred to his PM'ed announcement [...]


Excuse me - what is a "PM'ed announcement"? A PM is a private message, and if it's been sent to someone privately then it hasn't, by definition, been announced. I certainly had no idea that PDR had made such a declaration.

That is what I dislike about the way this forum appears to operate. The boundaries between public and private don't seem to work in the normal ways. It seems that private messages get send round to a privileged few, and then they suddenly become "public", even though the public has had no chance to read them.

 
GuyBarry
1245628.  Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:20 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:

The owner of these forums is John Lloyd CBE.


Oh well, there you are. Absentee landlord.

 
PDR
1245631.  Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:31 am Reply with quote

That was a genuine LOL, Guy!

PDR

 
GuyBarry
1245632.  Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:49 am Reply with quote

Alfred E Neuman wrote:

You joined and posted for a while in the games threads. Then you didn't post for quite a while, and then came back and tried to get us to race another forum in a game.


No that's not true - it was the same game. And the reason why I came over here in the first place was that I was really enjoying taking part in the Counting game on the Tube Challenge forum, and we thought we'd have a bit of extra fun by racing with this forum - as soon as you caught up with us. And you said "no". But we carried on with the race regardless.

We edged ahead and you edged ahead. It was quite exciting for a while. I remember getting the Tube Challengers to 2000 first, and it was absolutely brilliant. But you got ahead after that. Didn't take any credit - in fact you got really annoyed about it. We nudged ahead once after that, but it didn't last and the Tube Challenge game slowed down to a trickle. Eventually, reluctantly, I jumped ship and came to the QI game.

Now you've just reached 4000 (with my help), and the Tube Challengers are stuck back on 2830. There's no competition any more, and there's no challenge. It's just people looking for stuff on Google or Wikipedia and posting it. I tried to bring in the idea of "chains" here (where you link to the previous post) but it didn't take off. Where's the imagination?

Quote:
You didn't post much for a while after that. Lately you've been back and posting quite a few posts a day, starting in the game threads and most recently moving out into the less light-hearted threads. I don't consider ten posts a day in the games thread to be active. That's just killing time.


Maybe just jumping into the discussion threads to call people on their behaviour is just "killing time"?

Quote:
Like I said above, it's not a conspiracy, it's an oversight, try not to take it personally.


It's an "oversight" to leave the names of most of the moderation team off the forum? Most forums would automatically indicate which people had moderation privileges.

A little while ago I pointed out that the search facility was misrepresenting what members had written. No action has been taken. Now it seems that the forum is misrepresenting the list of moderators. No action has been taken.

Quote:
If It bothers you, why not just ask one of the moderators directly if it can be changed? Your approach of complaining and implying that the moderators have deliberately mislead you is not the best way to get it changed.


I have never been on a forum before where the status of moderators has not been transparent. I was put in charge of a forum once, and I always let it be known. In fact I put the post up for election because I thought it was important that the ordinary members should have a say.

Still, democracy has never been one of the overriding features of the internet.

 
crissdee
1245647.  Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:43 pm Reply with quote

I think what you have to bear in mind here, is that you seem to be the only one who is dissatisfied with how this forum works. The other 25,000 (iirc) of us are perfectly happy to jog along as we are. This is why nothing much changes round here, we like it like this.

 
Strawberry
1245666.  Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:09 pm Reply with quote

:o crissdee: Wow, I didn't know QI had so many people.

 
suze
1245667.  Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:15 pm Reply with quote

26,799, at the moment of writing.

Admittedly, the majority of those have never posted - or alternatively, anything they did post was spam and has been removed - but there are still 6,141 who do have existing posts.

 
Alfred E Neuman
1245669.  Mon Aug 14, 2017 6:08 pm Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
suze wrote:

The owner of these forums is John Lloyd CBE.


Oh well, there you are. Absentee landlord.

Well, he's in the top 10 posters, so hardly an absentee.

GuyBarry wrote:
Alfred E Neuman wrote:

You joined and posted for a while in the games threads. Then you didn't post for quite a while, and then came back and tried to get us to race another forum in a game.


No that's not true - it was the same game.

Yes, it is true.

Whether it was the same game or not is irrelevant. You tried to make us race another forum in a game. You told us what to do then, and didn't like it when we didn't immediately do what you told us to.

GuyBarry wrote:
Quote:
You didn't post much for a while after that. Lately you've been back and posting quite a few posts a day, starting in the game threads and most recently moving out into the less light-hearted threads. I don't consider ten posts a day in the games thread to be active. That's just killing time.


Maybe just jumping into the discussion threads to call people on their behaviour is just "killing time"?

Perhaps it is. I don't have a problem with that. I didn't claim to be more active than you, nor did I try to claim that my posts had more value than yours.

What I said was that you hadn't been active for all of the time that you were registered here, which was true when I said it, and is still true now.

GuyBarry wrote:
Quote:
Like I said above, it's not a conspiracy, it's an oversight, try not to take it personally.


It's an "oversight" to leave the names of most of the moderation team off the forum? Most forums would automatically indicate which people had moderation privileges.

Yes, it's an oversight.

It's as obvious as a dogs balls that this forum doesn't automatically indicate the moderators, and no-one bothered to update it. That's an oversight. You seem to be claiming that it was done deliberately, and with the intention of causing confusion. Objectively, which do you think is more likely?

GuyBarry wrote:
A little while ago I pointed out that the search facility was misrepresenting what members had written. No action has been taken. Now it seems that the forum is misrepresenting the list of moderators. No action has been taken.

You were told why the search function could not be changed, but you chose to reject or ignore that answer, and again seem to be claiming that the forum admins are deliberately misleading. The search is quaint, but it finds the posts you need, and displaying a full and comprehensive list of moderators is just not important to the vast majority of us.

GuyBarry wrote:
Quote:
If It bothers you, why not just ask one of the moderators directly if it can be changed? Your approach of complaining and implying that the moderators have deliberately mislead you is not the best way to get it changed.


I have never been on a forum before where the status of moderators has not been transparent. I was put in charge of a forum once, and I always let it be known. In fact I put the post up for election because I thought it was important that the ordinary members should have a say.

You quoted my question, but didn't answer it. You also quoted my suggestion on a different way of approaching your problem, and you ignore that too, but instead talk about how you do things. There's a strong implication that if we don't do it the same way, then we are in the wrong. There are other opinions, don't continually ignore them. Yes, you're a bright and intelligent person, but so are we. As frustrated as you get from us not doing what you tell us to, we get from being told what to do.

GuyBarry wrote:
Still, democracy has never been one of the overriding features of the internet.

Do you honestly think voting on it is going to make a difference? The search function is a technical limitation. It is unlikely to change. As for displaying the moderators, no-one has ever cared before, and the lack of others clamouring for it to be fixed tells me that most people don't care. I know I don't.

 
Jenny
1245715.  Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:09 pm Reply with quote

I don't think it's ever been a state secret that a few of the longest-term posters around here are given access to the delete button, for the sake of spam control. All these people have been part of this forum almost from the beginning, and have demonstrated over many years that they can be trusted not to abuse the things that the QIModerator link gives them access to. I am very grateful to them for their work, which at the times when we have been under overwhelming attack from spammers have been completely invaluable, and which also enable this forum to be largely clear of spam (unlike many such forums) because it gets dealt with far more promptly than most precisely because those of us who deal with it live in different time zones.

Posters who haven't frequented the discussion parts of this forum, erm, frequently, may well not have been aware of it, but it isn't intended to mislead, and it is used in a very limited way. The more moderatorial part of moderating these forums is generally left to me, but again because of occasions when we have been exposed to legal liability, and for occasions when the enjoyment of the forums is being spoiled for many, it helps to have others on board and for all of us to be aware of what's happening.

This part of QI enterprises is in no way a profit-making venture, and its main utility to QI is the hidden area of the forums where the research team do their work - and even those are gradually made available after a few years, as a scroll towards the bottom will tell you.

 
gruff5
1245742.  Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:49 am Reply with quote

Jenny wrote:
.... Mostly I prefer not to have rigid rules or to moderate very visibly, because I like to think that members of this forum are adults and can sort things out between themselves. I prefer not to be nanny. I tend to hope that when issues are pointed out, reasonable people will act reasonably. I have very rarely had to ban anybody from this forum simply for being obnoxious. In my experience, people who are occasionally acting obnoxiously still have valuable things to contribute and it's better to simply warn and discuss it with them.

Good mod policy!

 
GuyBarry
1245932.  Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:53 pm Reply with quote

Jenny wrote:
I don't think it's ever been a state secret that a few of the longest-term posters around here are given access to the delete button, for the sake of spam control.


You see, this is what I object to. "I don't think it's ever been a state secret..."

It has certainly never been revealed to me, in all the time I've been here. It might have been revealed to the select few, whoever they are.

I thoroughly dislike being treated as a second-class citizen in this fashion. I appreciate that there has to be information that's shared confidentially amongst the moderation team; that's the case on every forum I've taken part in. But I think that the ordinary members have a right to know who serves on that team. I get the impression that there are some privileged members of this forum who get to know who's on the team, and others who don't. That can't possibly be right.

 
crissdee
1245934.  Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:03 pm Reply with quote

No, you are misunderstanding Jenny's post. What she said was "I don't think it has ever been a state secret" i.e. it has never been hidden. A glance through the spam reporting thread will soon tell you (if you care, which most of us don't) which posters have such access. Also, in this thread it has been stated quite clearly who they are. What more is neccessary?

 
crissdee
1245935.  Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:09 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:


The owner of these forums is John Lloyd CBE.

Flash runs the TV show these days, but as suggested he rarely involves himself with the public forums.

Jenny is the primary moderator.

A handful of other people do have the power to delete posts, primarily in order to get rid of spam.

Those people are dr.bob, me, swot, and 'yorz. A couple of other people have / have had the keys to the moderation tools but are no longer involved here.


There you go, now you know.

 
barbados
1245956.  Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:01 pm Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
But I think that the ordinary members have a right to know who serves on that team. I get the impression that there are some privileged members of this forum who get to know who's on the team, and others who don't. That can't possibly be right.


You're quite wrong there actually, the identy of the moderators really shouldn't be public knowledge. In them being widely known it actually puts them in a very difficult position.

But, here we are generally grown up - people that aren't soon find out that we treat people pretty much as they treat us. As one of those referred to by Jenny (has it really been 16 years?) you get to know who does what because you interact with people, not because of some fancy announcement.

 
tetsabb
1245969.  Thu Aug 17, 2017 9:03 pm Reply with quote

barbados wrote:

But, here we are generally grown up


How very dare you!

 

Page 2 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group