- Joined
- Aug 31, 2009
- Messages
- 2,157
- Points
- 0
how about setting a certain number of mods needed to lets say ban someone. So a group of mods can only make changes rather than any single one mod. They have to be in agreement.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I voted no on this one. Why? Simple, I have seen what happens when too many people have too much power. They abuse it, plain and simple.
When I ran SpectraForum, I left most of the day to day stuff to several Moderators. This worked for a while, it got rid of spam, and moved posts as they thought necessary. It did a good job of keeping the forum in order, however, after a while, I noticed that it became an issue where they had to try and find posts to deal with, and whenever something got moved, it was hard to find next time. There is rarely a problem with people doing stuff that deserved banning, or problems which required immediate results.
Now, I see this forum which is largely self moderated. When someone steps out of line, they get called on it, a public poll is taken, and then action is taken by one person to resolve the issue. Do you really want a couple people running around deciding who to ban and what posts to remove? I don't think that would be in anyone's best interest.
A good example of how I think a forum should be run is Photonlexicon, it is entirely self moderated with the Admin stepping in rarely to deal with very serious problems. There is no need for moderators.
If you say you think there should be a moderator here, tell me, who do you think it should be? If your first thought is that you should be a moderator, there is a problem.
if we had mods back i wouldnt let them ban... prob just lock threads, move them, and SOFT delete threads/posts
[edit] i might let them ban ppl, but if something went wrong even once would revoke this]
banning would likely be decision of community in polls
if we had mods back i wouldnt let them ban... prob just lock threads, move them, and SOFT delete threads/posts
[edit] i might let them ban ppl, but if something went wrong even once would revoke this]
banning would likely be decision of community in polls
if we had mods back i wouldnt let them ban... prob just lock threads, move them, and SOFT delete threads/posts
[edit] i might let them ban ppl, but if something went wrong even once would revoke this]
banning would likely be decision of community in polls
c0ld, I agree with your terms, but instead of allowing the mod to permaban/IPban, you could just allow him to perform a 3-day ban on the member. If a permaban is needed, the mod will just contact you.
Doin't worry jerry i got you covered... :wave:Well that's a good sign Jay...
(Opps... another 1 liner)
Jerry
I still can't understand all the legal issue. Why do we need to make contracts? Are mods supposed to earn money?
Just adding a line on the legal terms of the forum saying something like:
Yours,
Albert