Announcement

**Paul Hanson** · June 15, 2000, 16:55

You can only have 4 moderators per forum.

**MarkG** · June 15, 2000, 17:15

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>- More moderators (10?) in the OT
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>I personally do not want to resort to more moderators. If it would be possible, I would like to have none. More moderators is the last resort
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>- Moderator acts should happen invisible
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>I have actually considered this, and I think we had made a small discussion on it with Ming and Dan.
So far our policy is to explain in public why a decision has been made and to close a thread in most cases than delete it.

If we go the other way things might not be better. banning someone and contacting him by mail without announcement would of course not start a whole debate immediately. but it would only take a few minutes before the banned communicate with someone else, who would start a thread about it, post a message from the banned, etc etc
Do you think we should deleted such threads immediately?

The same for deleted threads. A new one will pop up saying "did you delete that thread?"

do you also think that no discussion on decisions should be allowed?

yes, the "user read!" thread by Ming has become a "magnet" for idiotic stuff for some people, but taking it away are we taking away the problem only to bring it back from the window?

**Cthol** · June 15, 2000, 17:23

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by MarkG on 06-15-2000 05:15 PM</font>

The same for deleted threads. A new one will pop up saying "did you delete that thread?"

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>actually ming already delete's threads without anyword to anyone. that's why there have been a few "did you delete that thread?"

**Robert** · June 15, 2000, 17:28

The first days / weeks it would be terrible, people will name you communists and all that (but that's what 's happening already anyway)

and it needs strict discipline.
- delete a thread
- complain about a deletion = vacation
- delete complains immediately
(therefor you need much moderators)

Making moderator acts invisible will stop the 'moderator acts discussions' we have all the time. On the OT it's a big topic, and when a topic is big, new people will do what the topic is about.

If nobody can see spam activities, it 's no fun anymore to perform them ! It's like with annoying little boys, if you pay attention to them and tell them everytime how annoying they are, they keep on annoying you, but when you ignore them, they'll stop.

CyberShy

**MarkG** · June 15, 2000, 17:30

Cthol, as I said, there are plenty of cases that threads are deleted instead of being closed...
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited June 15, 2000).]</font>

**Robert** · June 16, 2000, 10:41

Pherhaps it's all like our minister Netelenbos. In the Netherlands we have major problems with the traffic, there's too much of it, and the roads are full.

She comes with all kinda solutions that are all like "if we let the people pay more to drive car, less people will drive" but it has already been proven that people don't leave their car if they have to pay more.

The real reason that we have to pay more and more for driving car is because the minister earns more money. Good solutions that might result in less money for the minister are just not accepted for strange reasons.

I feel a little the same here. Descisions are token that won't take the problem away. And if there's a good solution launched, it's ignored, or just setted aside with some inferior counter arguments.

Pherhaps the 1 new topic per day per person descision has just been token to reduce the data traffic on the server. If that's the reason, then that's ok. But then don't say "We try to stop the spammers" but just plain say "We want to genererate less data traffic, and are not able to stop the spam problem."

Anyway, another good suggestion has just died, while every strange descision comes through. If civilization ever stops enjoying us I suggest MarkG to become a politican. I'm sure he'll be good at it !

CyberShy

**Ming** · June 16, 2000, 11:02

CyberShy...
"another good suggestion has just died"???

First, 10 moderators won't stop the spam.
They maybe able to delete it faster than we do now, but it won't stop it.
Plus, many moderator decision are based on interpretation of the rules. The current rules (as stated many times) are just guidelines. There is no way a rule can be written to cover every situation. And, as new situations arise...
Now, some people claim the rules are arbitrary and can vary. Well, with multiple people enforcing them, this will happen. Sure, we talk about things, and how to handle them, but the person on the spot has to make a quick decision. And sometimes, MarkG, DanQ, MLeonard and I will disagree on how something was handled...
Adding moderators would only make this situation worse.
I personally wouldn't mind seeing one more moderator added just so there is more coverage... but 8 more... Nahhhh, it would only make matters worse and the rules being enforced in many different fashions.

Second, "Moderator acts should happen invisible" As MarkG pointed out, there are legitimate problems with that too. Yet, we do do somethings invisible already. If I see a totally worthless spam thread, I will just delete it with no discussion on the topic. If a person does their traditional "what happened to my thread" thread, I will usually delete that too... If they are persistant, I will explain it, and then delete the thread after I'm sure they have seen it.

Then you "speculate" that the reason for the new rule on the number of threads is server related... HUH? Where does that come from.
Let me state for the record... THE RULE WAS MEANT TO CUT DOWN ON SPAM!

And last, you say that all the strange decisions pass, while your "great" suggestion is allowed to die. Well, that is just a matter of opinion. MarkG and DanQ have listened to everybodies complaints and whines about the new rule, and have changed it. You might not like the new 1 every 8 hour rule (or the 3 threads per day if they can work it out), but it will indeed cut down the number of stupid/spam threads, and limit some peoples opportunities to really trash the site.

You are welcome to your opinions, but so are we

------------------
Ming
CivII & Off-Topic Forum Moderator
Ming@Apolyton.net

**ghen** · June 17, 2000, 08:04

Organized attacks should be handled silently though, since the person who is attacking knows they will be banned for a while, the only reason they must be doing it is for the attention they get with a closed thread about them. When something of this nature occurs, just delete all the evidence.

**Mad Lord Snapcase** · June 17, 2000, 10:01

CyberShy, you're nuts. Hasn't moderator falliability entered into your thoughts at all? Imagine a football game where the players would get red-carded if they whined at the refree... Do you see the problem with that?

Announcement

Spam Problems ? Easy solutions inside !

Spam Problems ? Easy solutions inside !

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment