chrismoyles.net
- Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:03 pm
#483782
Right, as it seems to be turning into a 'big deal', let's set a few things straight.
There is more than one moderator. There are more than two moderators. Take a look:
Moderation mostly (95% of the time) consists of banning spammers and cleaning threads up where spammers have posted. If we don't do this then the place will rapidly turn to shit.
Virtually all other moderation is merging threads to make things read a little better. This is so you don't have to open thread after thread asking the same thing.
The moderator logs tell me that almost never are actual posts deleted or modified.
I've always been keen on minimal intervention, mostly because this place has always been pretty self-moderating. Someone posts something which is disagreeable, people jump on them and (not so) politely explain that they are a moron. Someone keeps doing it and eventually I get so tired of people complaining that I ban them (see chrisjames saga).
The forum rules were dreamt up one lunchtime nearly ten years ago. They aren't supposed to be all-encompassing, and in the most part they are ignored. In the absence of any other rules, they are there - but they shouldn't be considered as rules which can't be adapted or added to - this is your place as much as mine, probably more so as many of you spend more time here than I do.
Moderation is thankless. Nobody appreciates the majority of the work that is done as the whole purpose is that nobody ever sees it. One the rare occasions that a moderator gets something wrong, it is not a hanging offence. Think about the 100s of other edits they have done for your benefit that you have never even seen.
I'm not standing up for any particular individual by saying all this, merely standing up for the moderators as a team. If you have personal gripes or wish to engage in frank discussions then go for it (with moderators or otherwise) ... but don't use the fact someone has the permission to moderate as a grounds to attack them.
There is more than one moderator. There are more than two moderators. Take a look:
Moderation mostly (95% of the time) consists of banning spammers and cleaning threads up where spammers have posted. If we don't do this then the place will rapidly turn to shit.
Virtually all other moderation is merging threads to make things read a little better. This is so you don't have to open thread after thread asking the same thing.
The moderator logs tell me that almost never are actual posts deleted or modified.
I've always been keen on minimal intervention, mostly because this place has always been pretty self-moderating. Someone posts something which is disagreeable, people jump on them and (not so) politely explain that they are a moron. Someone keeps doing it and eventually I get so tired of people complaining that I ban them (see chrisjames saga).
The forum rules were dreamt up one lunchtime nearly ten years ago. They aren't supposed to be all-encompassing, and in the most part they are ignored. In the absence of any other rules, they are there - but they shouldn't be considered as rules which can't be adapted or added to - this is your place as much as mine, probably more so as many of you spend more time here than I do.
Moderation is thankless. Nobody appreciates the majority of the work that is done as the whole purpose is that nobody ever sees it. One the rare occasions that a moderator gets something wrong, it is not a hanging offence. Think about the 100s of other edits they have done for your benefit that you have never even seen.
I'm not standing up for any particular individual by saying all this, merely standing up for the moderators as a team. If you have personal gripes or wish to engage in frank discussions then go for it (with moderators or otherwise) ... but don't use the fact someone has the permission to moderate as a grounds to attack them.
