And so it goes on......

[RobD]

I wonder where he got some of his info...... It appears DH's tentacles reach everywhere.

http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/Moderation-things-including-moderation-ftopict15715.html

Edit: I haven't got time to answer this tonight, but tomorrow, I will, with vigour. This shit is going to stop, and I'm through playing nice now.

 

[steve_sa]

Guess people talk among themselves. Cannot be stopped, as these people know each other for a long time (online).

I have no problem with this sort of discussion. Users need to understand the moderation process. Some are thinking banning is a knee-jerk reaction by a single mod, etc. When people don't know about something, they start speculating and creating conspiracy theories.

 

[Jake_Barnes]

I find it interesting that he could say "he doesn't know and isn't taking sides", but then say's things like this:

It has come to my painful realization that the forumz lack a, hmm ... democratic? system of governance. It really seems to amount more to a feudal system with no mechanism in place for the downtrodden serfs to express opinions or be a part of decisions, especially in terms of moderation, which are all handled in secret behind the curtain. For that matter, it would seem as though the forumz even lack the basic right to be tried by a jury of peers.

I was never of the opinion that secret discussions performed by persons appointed to power without an election was a proper medium for distributing the power to lock threads, ban users, block IP addresses (which is a horrible practice in itself), and so forth. But now that I have reason to question the altruism of the holders of said power, I raise my voice.

This is so uninformed, and sad. Again, its innuendo and the worst form of lies ... but you can't get into an open argument about it.

There is a "not so secret" PM thing going on, directed by dhlucke and qoop, and some people buy into it - without debate or question. But I, for one, do not plan on engaging every conspiracy post out there.

I assume, at some point, this might stop - but then again, Fredi might stop some of these driving forces himself.

 

[steve_sa]

This is so uninformed, and sad

Ok, we have never informed them of the moderation process. We were going to write the faq, but really did not get around to doing it.

I guess we need a "Moderation FAQ". Anyone volunteering?

Then that thread could simply be replied to (if needed) by a link to the moderation FAQ.

 

[Jake_Barnes]

Fredi replied in that thread - nice answer.

 

[steve_sa]

Yap, Fredi's answer is right on. One minor thing I would emphasize more is that all serious banning gets aired out and discussed (I should say rather extensively). Also that usually there are one or more warnings, before temporary or permanent banning gets triggered.

 

[Jake_Barnes]

Yap, Fredi's answer is right on. One minor thing I would emphasize more is that all serious banning gets aired out and discussed (I should say rather extensively). Also that usually there are one or more warnings, before temporary or permanent banning gets triggered.

Two things: Fredi does/decides all permanent bans ... and I have been criticised for PM'ing too much before bans (by you too). Now, I issue one warning for serious offenses then I will ban. This is what Fredi told me to do ... and you suggested this also.

 

[Jake_Barnes]

This is so uninformed, and sad

Ok, we have never informed them of the moderation process. We were going to write the faq, but really did not get around to doing it.

I guess we need a "Moderation FAQ". Anyone volunteering?

Then that thread could simply be replied to (if needed) by a link to the moderation FAQ.

We have those: TOS

This message forum, and other user contributed/comment areas ("Forums") are provided as a service to members of our community. By using or participating on the Forums, you agree to this User Agreement including but not limited to the Rules of Conduct and the Terms of Service stated below. For purposes of this agreement, "User" refers to any individual posting on or otherwise using the Forums and TGP refers to any or all of TG Publishing, LLC and their authorized representatives.

TGP reserves the right to change the Rules of Conduct, Terms of Service and all other parts of this User Agreement at its sole discretion and without notice.

As a standard operating procedure, TGP does not enter into correspondence, discussions or other communication, either public or private, about TGP Board policies, individual moderators, enforcement or application of the User Agreement, bans or other sanctions, etc.

And so it goes ...

By writing a "hard" set of moderator rules, we essentially handcuff ourselves to some definitive "set" instead of the "in the best judgement of the selected Moderators standard" ... no Mod can permanently ban.

And every Moderator decision is reviewable by Fredi.

As far a amending FAQ's, I'll leave that up to "paid staff".

 

[RCPilot]

We don't need any FAQ.... We need support... Plain & simple.....

Half of what's gone on has been some fault of yours.... Ned invited to the focus group.... Mod section not secure.... Spamer running amok with 28 posts... It goes on....

I'd like to know what side of the fence you come down on, really??????

 

[steve_sa]

I'd like to know what side of the fence you come down on, really??????

Good question, like the rest of us, on the side of the forumz being the best it can be, whatever it takes.

There is quite a bit of custom development (maybe more than a week of work) just to support the mod processes, including:
a) our unique temporary ban process,
b) folders for keeping the old pm's (really for mods),
c) message flags
d) abuse reporting process, there was none

-- please ask Jake about these activities as he was extensively involved with this.

Spammers: They are going to be around. We have IP banning. We will soon have a section where you can move the offending messages to for reference. As far as the idea of limiting posts, etc. they are circulating, but we need something that works, but does not stop good posters. We need to first learn the spamming patterns. I believe we had one spammer running amok. Are there more to learn from?

Ned invited to the group: I appreciated his comments. He had helped greatly in the debugging and during beta testing (maybe more than anyone). He was brought in to contribute, and then he was taken right out for being bad. I believe it was discussed in the mod section before/after.

Mod discussion security: Yes, there was a breach for about 5 days after dh was gone from moderation. RSS breach only showed titles, and people could not see the discussions. I should have caught this earlier, but oh well, live and learn.

Ned was not banned because of the Focus Group. It was a later discussion, which was really a HUGE chain of events. The final straw was the 'goddamn' thing. It was going to happen. No need to hang it on me (partially, remotely, be reference, or otherwise).

RC, a bad day?