First, I don't consider my simply telling someone, "I think that's off-topic" to be "member moderation". Similarly, I wouldn't consider it to be out of line and unacceptable to point out, directly to that member, that he or she is, in my opinion, violating any other rule, such as the rule against personal insults. As far as I'm concerned, it also isn't "member moderation" if I engage in a twelve hour debate with someone about whether a post was off-topic or not. I guess what I'm really saying is that there is no such thing as "member moderation".
“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard
"Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry
But there could be is the question but I can also see many pitfalls in it.
Don't forget how the forum advertises itself. Member run.
Welcome to The Political Forums. We are a member-run board covering the latest in politics, news, and many other subjects. Register and let your voice be heard! Registration is free and takes only a few seconds. The Political Forums. Welcome to the The Political Forums.
Let's go Brandon !!!
Chris (01-20-2022)
Here's an example of such a warning/TB "for repeated in-thread moderation."
Thus my calling it member moderation.
Now that I see it again, I see it says "repeated." Implying, I suppose, excessive.
(Please don't search for it because I'm not questioning specific moderation.)
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
I understand...but I don't think you can really call it any kind of "moderation" if you don't have the power to do anything about what you see as a rules violation. I think "moderation" implies the ability to make others conform/play nice or face the consequences, which doesn't fit the situation we're discussing.
Have you actually seen a Moderator Warn or TB a member for "moderating", using that word? I just reviewed the forum Rules and I didn't see anything about non-Mods "moderating". I was going to say the closest thing in the Rules would be the part about (paraphrasing) discouraging others from posting, but I'm not finding anything like that in the current rules, although I know I've seen Mods cite it as something members shouldn't be doing. Does anyone remember there ever being a formal rule like that?
“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard
"Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry
See previous post above for example, partial example, not going to provide link.
So then let's say what I'm seeking is a clarification of the boundary between non-in-thread moderating and in-thread moderating. And that seems to be repeatedly doing it, to the point of distraction I suppose.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard
"Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry
Within that lies the differences in opinion about who or what should recieve a warning. We have had people go stark raving froth at the mouthmad for receiving a mere warning and run to the hole calling the mod a moron and everything else..How could you possibly allow individual members to do that and have chaos reign
I think chris is confusing what he would do as opposed to what others would do...it just doesnt work that way...didnt work here and didnt work where I am now.
Chris should know that moderation mostly reacts to reports and their merit..mods cant read every post in ever thread every day.
LETS GO BRANDON
F Joe Biden