View previous topic | View next topic

Moderation policy

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

GuyBarry
1246119.  Sat Aug 19, 2017 2:57 pm Reply with quote

barbados wrote:

You're quite wrong there actually, the identy of the moderators really shouldn't be public knowledge.


Well I'm sorry, I completely disagree with you there. The identity of the moderators should be public knowledge, as it is on every other forum I take part in. What makes the QI forum any different?

If I send a private message to a moderator, then I would expect the contents of that message to be shared with other people who are known to be moderators. I would not expect it to be shared with people who aren't on the moderators' list. Otherwise it's not effectively a private message at all.

Quote:
In them being widely known it actually puts them in a very difficult position.


Doesn't seem to cause problems anywhere else. What's so special about this forum?

Quote:
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.


It'd be great if that happened at work, wouldn't it? "You get to know who your manager is because of how you interact with people in the office, not because anyone tells you."

OK, well maybe it's all supposed to work by osmosis on the QI forum. But I might remind you that this is the internet, where people don't generally see each other face-to-face. And it's a lot harder to pick up these subtle cues of who's in authority, and who isn't.

At least it is for me, but maybe you're all geniuses at picking up that sort of thing. I'm not and I'd appreciate some guidance.

(And yes, crissdee - I did read your rather insulting post. You're missing my point. There should be general guidance.)

 
crissdee
1246124.  Sat Aug 19, 2017 4:59 pm Reply with quote

I'm sorry if you found my post insulting, I did not intend it to be. As has been pointed out by a number of people, this forum runs the way it does because the vast majority of us either like it like this or don't care either way. As I approach my decade on these boards, I cannot recall anyone else being motivated to complain about any issue concerning the running/moderation. This might suggest something to you.

 
GuyBarry
1246248.  Mon Aug 21, 2017 10:53 am Reply with quote

crissdee wrote:
I'm sorry if you found my post insulting, I did not intend it to be. As has been pointed out by a number of people, this forum runs the way it does because the vast majority of us either like it like this or don't care either way. As I approach my decade on these boards, I cannot recall anyone else being motivated to complain about any issue concerning the running/moderation. This might suggest something to you.


Yes, it suggests that most of the members are quite happy to acquiesce in the sloppy running of the forum. Which is a bit of a shame in my view, because I think it could be a really good forum if run properly.

Never mind. I've been on worse run forums before. I'm a bit disappointed by the cavalier attitude expressed in this thread though.

 
tetsabb
1246257.  Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:28 pm Reply with quote

It is a very good forum.
And I would probably have been a roundhead.

 
'yorz
1246263.  Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:52 pm Reply with quote

No surprise there... ;-p

 
Bondee
1246277.  Mon Aug 21, 2017 2:22 pm Reply with quote

Are your farmers playing up, Guy?

 
crissdee
1246282.  Mon Aug 21, 2017 3:08 pm Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
crissdee wrote:
This might suggest something to you.


Yes, it suggests that most of the members are quite happy to acquiesce in the sloppy running of the forum.


This could be because, for the most part, we are. I should imagine that for most of us, this forum is something we drop into when we have a spare minute and an opinion, not the centre of our lives. It is run the way it is run, and we muddle through with a laugh and a (metaphorical) song.

 
GuyBarry
1246317.  Tue Aug 22, 2017 5:40 am Reply with quote

OK, well fair enough I suppose. Personally I wouldn't see any harm in putting some of the information in post 1245280 into a sticky thread somewhere, so that newer members have a clearer idea of how things are managed here. Before this thread I wasn't aware that "QI Moderator" was an account that could be accessed by several different members, for instance. It helps to explain quite a lot.

While I'm on the subject of making things clear to new members, is there any chance of a update to the "How to Use the QI Forums" post (post 33152)? It refers to "I Series Talk" when we're now up to P, and it invites people to take part in "Qing Qong", which no longer exists. (I remember spending some time looking around for it when I first joined and giving up in exasperation.)

 
monzac
1246318.  Tue Aug 22, 2017 6:20 am Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
... is there any chance of a update to the "How to Use the QI Forums" post (post 33152)? It refers to "I Series Talk" when we're now up to P, and it invites people to take part in "Qing Qong", which no longer exists. (I remember spending some time looking around for it when I first joined and giving up in exasperation.)


Well this is old.qi.com...

 
Alfred E Neuman
1246330.  Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:37 am Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
crissdee wrote:
I'm sorry if you found my post insulting, I did not intend it to be. As has been pointed out by a number of people, this forum runs the way it does because the vast majority of us either like it like this or don't care either way. As I approach my decade on these boards, I cannot recall anyone else being motivated to complain about any issue concerning the running/moderation. This might suggest something to you.


Yes, it suggests that most of the members are quite happy to acquiesce in the sloppy running of the forum. Which is a bit of a shame in my view, because I think it could be a really good forum if run properly.

Never mind. I've been on worse run forums before. I'm a bit disappointed by the cavalier attitude expressed in this thread though.


Perhaps we don't agree with you that it's sloppy. I know I certainly don't.

But then I also know that you don't particularly care what anyone else thinks especially they don't agree with you.

 
Jenny
1246335.  Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:44 am Reply with quote

I have edited post 33152 in line with some of GuyBarry's suggestions, which I thought were reasonable.

Folks, will you please go and check it out and make sure I haven't said anything wildly inflammatory?

 
GuyBarry
1246344.  Tue Aug 22, 2017 11:11 am Reply with quote

Jenny wrote:
I have edited post 33152 in line with some of GuyBarry's suggestions, which I thought were reasonable.


Yes, Jenny, that's precisely the sort of thing I was looking for. Thanks for taking the trouble to edit the post.

 
'yorz
1246348.  Tue Aug 22, 2017 11:23 am Reply with quote

Looks OK to me.

 
monzac
1246366.  Tue Aug 22, 2017 3:08 pm Reply with quote

Looks good, Jenny.

 
suze
1246373.  Tue Aug 22, 2017 3:54 pm Reply with quote

Great work, Jenny.

Could I suggest a paragraph to be added to the "The Forums" section, in between the para on Quite Interestrings and the para on Series Talk.

This para is to concern the Sooper Seekrit Stuff forum, which was created for reasons outlined by dr.bob in post 765243. It was my idea, and when I suggested it to dr.bob he said words to the effect of "I can make it if you'll look after it", since spam was rampant at that time and we were keen not to give Jenny even more work.

The para reads something like this:


Sooper Seekrit Stuff is configured to be invisible to the Google crawler, for which reason it does not appear if you are not logged in. It is used mainly in December each year in connection with a quiz competition, and for this forum only the main moderator is suze.

 

Page 3 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