Moderation show-and-tell, anyone?
- Thread starter Liar
- Start date
sr71plt
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Posts
- 51,872
Yep, unfortunately it was the language of someone's gotta take care of my every customized need because I can't take responsibility for myself (and maybe because I grew up with everyone doing everything for me).
Sorry, but that's the language I hear you talking.
sr71plt
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Posts
- 51,872
How more limited than at any other site where such a mechanism is given? Making it more functional will be at the expense of other functions and of posters who are willing to take responsibility for themselves--as evidence by the quoting of posters on ignore. The quoting feature is there to ensure that remarks are indexed to who/what they are responding too. When folks respond to the "don't quote the troll" whines, they then get lost in confusion over who/what they are responding to--and then their posting is what is being inconvenienced.
True, the ignore button doesn't do every individual thing each poster wanted to use it would like. But what they really seem to need is a babysitter--or to find another site more to their liking.
Last edited:
Recidiva
Harastal
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2005
- Posts
- 89,726
I compare this to a swimming hole without a lifeguard. Yes, there are risks, but you basically sign on saying you feel responsible enough that you can swim without someone watching over you, telling you not to splash or run, cannonball someone else. That if you drown, nobody else is responsible. That's the trade. You trade supervision for personal responsibility.
What I do not understand is why go to a free-for-all swimming hole if what you really want is to hear a lifeguard's whistle?
This site is specified for those who don't want to be monitored. I don't think there's any lack of places to go or create or be a part of, where monitoring and censorship are the rules.
This site is an exception to that rule, and I don't see why it's really dynamic (though possibly dangerous or unpleasant) lack of censorship should be altered.
I'd love to see the ignore function made more effective for individual users. Just not a more effective "it's out of your hands and you won't get to see or say that" policy expansion.
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Last edited by a moderator:
sr71plt
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Posts
- 51,872
It really is time to close this down (again--and I mean because this same thing comes up periodically). Nothing's going to happen that the site administrators don't want to happen. Those who want a moderator should stop yapping here and go directly to who can make it happen. Go straight to Laurel in PMs--and do point to these two threads when you do. (
)
)
Liar
now with 17% more class
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Posts
- 43,715
Not at all. Nobody have said that.
(Although, some variants of this kind of software have sorted out the problem that you can't place a moderator for one sub-forum on ignore in the rest of the forums. But that's a marginal vBulletin flaw that rarely cause much trouble.)
On the other hand, a lot of people have said "Don't want to see the filth that some people post? Put them on ignore!" as if that solves everything. And when it is pointed out that that doesn't quite do the trick, I think an answer like yours is pretty juvenile.
Liar
now with 17% more class
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Posts
- 43,715
As the threadstarter, I agree. It didn't do what it was meant to do anyway. (I shoulda known) So now we have the same discussion branched into two threads. This one is redundant.
Katyusha
Kitten at Heart
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Posts
- 4,782
Maybe the best solution would be an ignore feature that gives us options. A long time ago I used to post on a forum that allowed you to ignore posters, ignore subjects that contained certain words (ie "political"), ignore entire subject lines (if you wanted to filter an entire thread for instance), and ignore keywords (words in posts that, if they appeared, would cause the entire post to be filtered). Maybe something like this would be an alternative?
As far as moderation goes, I have no opinion one way or the other. I've posted on moderated forums and I've posted on unmoderated forums, and each type has its good points and its drawbacks, so I see both sides of the argument and I understand why people on both sides feel as passionately as they do. What I posted above might be a good compromise, at least in the interim.
sr71plt
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Posts
- 51,872
Since my answer is that the bottom line is to take the responsibility for yourself to be an adult, I don't see how it could be juvenile.
But then, this whole discussion is a circular one--and spiral as well, as it is brought up on a set schedule, apparently.
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
Safe_Bet
No she's not back I'm Amy
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Posts
- 8,663
What I find TERRIFICALLY funny is that the exact same people that decry the "evils" of moderation and call it "censorship" are the exact same ones who are now loudly insisting that this thread be closed because they don't want to hear any more about moderating the site. 
So, to "them" I suggest that you put the thread on ignore if it works so damn well!
So, to "them" I suggest that you put the thread on ignore if it works so damn well!
sr71plt
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Posts
- 51,872
I haven't decried the evils of moderation--and most others haven't either. I rejected the liklihood that the site owners will ever insitute any closer scrutiny than they already have.
Funny that you are in favor of a moderator, though, safe_bet. Under a moderator following what Stella wants to see, you've be one of the first ones to have her sorry ass tossed out of here with your outrageous posting behavior.
Funny that you are in favor of a moderator, though, safe_bet. Under a moderator following what Stella wants to see, you've be one of the first ones to have her sorry ass tossed out of here with your outrageous posting behavior.
slyc_willie
Captain Crash
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2006
- Posts
- 17,732
I pretty much felt it was a no-contest from the beginning. I just wanted to explain my reasons why.
So I suppose now, considering the results of that "other" thread, this issue will either die the death it was meant to have several pages ago . . . or go into overdrive.
I'm cookin' up some popcorn in preparation for the latter.
slyc_willie
Captain Crash
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2006
- Posts
- 17,732
I've got beer, too.
But you'd prefer Shiraz, I know.
But you'd prefer Shiraz, I know.
Edward Teach
Mellow
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
- Posts
- 3,157
Definitions from Dictionary.com
–verb (used with object)
8. to reduce the excessiveness of; make less violent, severe, intense, or rigorous: to moderate the sharpness of one's words.
9. to preside over or at (a public forum, meeting, discussion, etc.).
–verb (used without object) 10. to become less violent, severe, intense, or rigorous.
11. to act as moderator; preside.
By definition a Moderator is a censor.
And I will state again, "Trolls come and go, but Moderators are forever."
–verb (used with object)
8. to reduce the excessiveness of; make less violent, severe, intense, or rigorous: to moderate the sharpness of one's words.
9. to preside over or at (a public forum, meeting, discussion, etc.).
–verb (used without object) 10. to become less violent, severe, intense, or rigorous.
11. to act as moderator; preside.
By definition a Moderator is a censor.
And I will state again, "Trolls come and go, but Moderators are forever."
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
What I find TERRIFICALLY funny is that the exact same people that decry the "evils" of moderation and call it "censorship" are the exact same ones who are now loudly insisting that this thread be closed because they don't want to hear any more about moderating the site.
So, to "them" I suggest that you put the thread on ignore if it works so damn well!
I don't think anyone is INSISTING that this thread be closed. I am suggesting it, because I believe it has run its course. I could unsubscribe to the thread, but I tend to return when there is a new post, just on the off chance that somebody has something new and interesting to say.
We do have a very low level of moderation now, by Laurel, mostly of SPAM and some other stuff. As far as I'm concerned, that's enough, and we don't need a moderator who would just be a censor.
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
It seems to me that I'm witnessing a Grade A example of hypocrisy.
Tell me why I'm wrong.
Most folk 'round heah seem to be in favor of freedom of speech yet simultaneously seek to deny it for others. Can you imagine the hissy fit the ACLU would throw over an issue such as this?
If Nazis are permitted to march through Skokie then it seems to me that the AH ought to be able to tolerate damn near anything. Don't lose sight of the fact that this is, after all, an INTERNET CHAT ROOM. IT IS NOT REAL LIFE. If you come here to get your jollies, you've got problems.
Liar
now with 17% more class
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Posts
- 43,715
I don't want this thread to be closed. I want it to be forgotten, not-bumped and sink into oblivion as the appendix it is, beacuse there's another thread for debating the evils and goods of moderating. That was not why I started this one. I wanted to see what people wanted to moderate. So far I have seen very few examples. 99% of the thread is off topic.What I find TERRIFICALLY funny is that the exact same people that decry the "evils" of moderation and call it "censorship" are the exact same ones who are now loudly insisting that this thread be closed because they don't want to hear any more about moderating the site.
So, to "them" I suggest that you put the thread on ignore if it works so damn well!
Only way to put this thread on ignore is to put the thread starter (me) on ignore. I wonder what happens if I do that?
Safe_Bet
No she's not back I'm Amy
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Posts
- 8,663
Nice! Trying to evoke Godwin's law, Trysail?
Sorry, but this thread STILL isn't going away until everyone is done talking about the subject.
Recidiva
Harastal
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2005
- Posts
- 89,726
I don't want this thread to be closed. I want it to be forgotten, not-bumped and sink into oblivion as the appendix it is, beacuse there's another thread for debating the evils and goods of moderating. That was not why I started this one. I wanted to see what people wanted to moderate. So far I have seen very few examples. 99% of the thread is off topic.
Only way to put this thread on ignore is to put the thread starter (me) on ignore. I wonder what happens if I do that?
You're not the first person to ask that question about a thread they started
Liar
now with 17% more class
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Posts
- 43,715
Better not try. It might be like dividing by zero.You're not the first person to ask that question about a thread they started
http://halshop.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/phpw9jvl0pm.jpg
Everything in moderation.
I bailed out on the moderation debate. It's not relevant. Take it or leave it, this (Lit) is what there is.
I've forgotten the question...
No... it is not possible (to moderate fairly) without a concise membership charter, which I presume the majority would be against on the ground 'they wouldn't want to join any club that would have them as a member'.
Ignore, not the IGGY button... just ignore.
Ignorance is bliss, or so the assholes would have us believe.
I bailed out on the moderation debate. It's not relevant. Take it or leave it, this (Lit) is what there is.
I've forgotten the question...
No... it is not possible (to moderate fairly) without a concise membership charter, which I presume the majority would be against on the ground 'they wouldn't want to join any club that would have them as a member'.
Ignore, not the IGGY button... just ignore.
Ignorance is bliss, or so the assholes would have us believe.
Similar threads
