Forum Management Change
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-01-2013, 03:53 PM
RE: Forum Management Change
(01-01-2013 03:48 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You put the Ban Hammer in the hands of a single individual willing to assume the responsibility that comes with it. There is no "our" in this picture. Don't give it to a dick.

That would mean that some poor fucker would not only have the pressure of having make the decision alone, they would then have to deal with half the forum calling them every name under the sun every time a decision was made.

I preferred Stark's way of doing things.He held the banhammer but he went by the rules, in the case of any grey area he consulted the FT for their input before making his decision.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2013, 04:00 PM
RE: Forum Management Change
(01-01-2013 03:39 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(31-12-2012 06:51 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  In said example, shit hit the fan. Much like this FZU thing. I'm saying, in that example if moderators could use common sense the whole situation could have been avoided, simply with a PM perhaps a threat of a ban, perhaps a temporary ban (can you guys even do temporary bans or is it just perma?) etc.. and that whooooooole thing may have been prevented from truly hitting the fan, and perhaps Girly would still like me.

Ahhhh ... I still like you MuffinHead. Never stopped liking you. Girly don't let little things like you being a racist fuckturd get in the way of friendship. That would be petty. Hug

(Seriously, I do like you, but don't tell ManlyGirl 'cause she might get jealous.)

(31-12-2012 06:55 AM)Hughsie Wrote:  I'm not sat here wanting FZU to be banned but feeling powerless to do so because of the rules. I don't think he should be banned. I value our approach to free-speech. I don't just rigidly follow it.

MuffinTop's point is that rules restrain the forum's Ban Hammer from acting expediently and efficiently, surgically even. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only rules the forum should have are Stark's original ones, no spam, no porn, no nudity. Add a caveat that "You can be banned arbitrarily and capriciously at the discretion of the Ban Hammer. The Ban Hammer decides if you get warnings first." and all is covered. Just don't give the Ban Hammer to a dick. Stark held the Ban Hammer and wasn't a dick. Evil sewer-dwelling clown held the Ban Hammer and wasn't a dick. Hellbound Preacher currently holds the Ban Hammer and isn't a dick. Buddy Christ had access to the Ban Hammer, and well, kinda was a dick, but only once and only after he thought it necessary. The Ban Hammer does takes its toll on the wielder of it but I disagree with those who would propose more rules and regulation and that this forum is somehow now too big to be run by a Philosopher Queen/King holding the Ban Hammer. Less rules and regulation means more flexibility for the Ban Hammer. Think that was MuffDiver's point.


I have no problem with that approach.


We will, however, have to get cracking on the breeding and education program to ensure the supply of Philosopher Monarchs. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2013, 04:04 PM
RE: Forum Management Change
(01-01-2013 03:53 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(01-01-2013 03:48 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You put the Ban Hammer in the hands of a single individual willing to assume the responsibility that comes with it. There is no "our" in this picture. Don't give it to a dick.

That would mean that some poor fucker would not only have the pressure of having make the decision alone, they would then have to deal with half the forum calling them every name under the sun every time a decision was made.

I preferred Stark's way of doing things.He held the banhammer but he went by the rules, in the case of any grey area he consulted the FT for their input before making his decision.


I think the two approaches are virtually the same. The Girly/Stark model is efficient.


What if the Philosopher King/Queen were anonymous?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2013, 04:07 PM
RE: Forum Management Change
(01-01-2013 04:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  I think the two approaches are virtually the same. The Girly/Stark model is efficient.


What if the Philosopher King/Queen were anonymous?

Then when people were unhappy they'd just direct their vitriol at the forum team for allowing the decision to stand.

But anyway, this is probably best visited first in the FTM section after other discussions have finished, one way or another. I didn't mean to get into it here.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2013, 04:11 PM
RE: Forum Management Change
(01-01-2013 04:07 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(01-01-2013 04:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  I think the two approaches are virtually the same. The Girly/Stark model is efficient.


What if the Philosopher King/Queen were anonymous?

Then when people were unhappy they'd just direct their vitriol at the forum team for allowing the decision to stand.

But anyway, this is probably best visited first in the FTM section after other discussions have finished, one way or another. I didn't mean to get into it here.


I was just thinkin' out loud. This is not the place to do that. Blink

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2013, 04:13 PM (This post was last modified: 01-01-2013 04:17 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Forum Management Change
(01-01-2013 03:53 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(01-01-2013 03:48 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You put the Ban Hammer in the hands of a single individual willing to assume the responsibility that comes with it. There is no "our" in this picture. Don't give it to a dick.

That would mean that some poor fucker would not only have the pressure of having make the decision alone, they would then have to deal with half the forum calling them every name under the sun every time a decision was made.

That's exactly what it would mean.

(01-01-2013 03:53 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  I preferred Stark's way of doing things.He held the banhammer but he went by the rules, in the case of any grey area he consulted the FT for their input before making his decision.

What rules you talking about, Willis? Weren't no rules when I first got here other than no spam, no porn, no nudity. Stark's Prime Directives. Stark wields the Ban Hammer well, but it takes a toll on him, it takes a toll on every one who wields it. You young fucks felt the need to introduce new rules. I disagreed with them then and I disagree with them now.

(01-01-2013 04:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-01-2013 04:07 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  Then when people were unhappy they'd just direct their vitriol at the forum team for allowing the decision to stand.

But anyway, this is probably best visited first in the FTM section after other discussions have finished, one way or another. I didn't mean to get into it here.

I was just thinkin' out loud. This is not the place to do that. Blink

Why not? Transparency in Government and all that shit.

I am us and we is me. ... bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2013, 04:35 PM
RE: Forum Management Change
(01-01-2013 04:13 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(01-01-2013 04:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  I was just thinkin' out loud. This is not the place to do that? Blink

Why not? Transparency in Government and all that shit.



My bad - I left out the question mark. Fixt.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2013, 04:40 PM
RE: Forum Management Change
(01-01-2013 04:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  My bad - I left out the question mark. Fixt.

I don't think this is the time or place to discuss it, therefore I'm not gonna. Anyone else is free to.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2013, 01:18 AM
 
RE: Forum Management Change
The way I see it, give people status. Regular un-paying (not subscribing, not donating) members can be banned by any moderator--no questions asked. Members with paid status can only be banned by the forum owner/admin.

I don't know, I watch the entire Tudors series once a year, and I just like Henry VIII style.

But there's a problem, isn't there? TTA has no owner, isn't that right? The owner, Seth, doesn't participate in the forum any longer, right?

I just spent an hour on my own forum. I can see my input here is going to become less and less. I'm actually seeing my presence here as more and more inappropriate.

Yes, that's the word: inappropriate. Hmmm. Consider

I think I better just steal some of your smilies and be on my way. Sad

If anyone hears from Stark Raving, send him my way. But who knows, perhaps I liked him and he never liked me. Who knows.
Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2013, 06:04 AM
RE: Forum Management Change
(02-01-2013 01:18 AM)Egor Wrote:  The way I see it, give people status. Regular un-paying (not subscribing, not donating) members can be banned by any moderator--no questions asked. Members with paid status can only be banned by the forum owner/admin.

I don't know, I watch the entire Tudors series once a year, and I just like Henry VIII style.

But there's a problem, isn't there? TTA has no owner, isn't that right? The owner, Seth, doesn't participate in the forum any longer, right?

I just spent an hour on my own forum. I can see my input here is going to become less and less. I'm actually seeing my presence here as more and more inappropriate.

Yes, that's the word: inappropriate. Hmmm. Consider

I think I better just steal some of your smilies and be on my way. Sad

If anyone hears from Stark Raving, send him my way. But who knows, perhaps I liked him and he never liked me. Who knows.
Would hate to see ya' go based on a speculation of what others might/might not do....that's just plain silly. It's a different story if it's simply to focus on your own endeavors.

And quit wiggin' out about Stark. He's a good guy, I'm sure he doesn't think poorly of you. He's given this place his all since day one, he needs time to decompress right now. His inbox I'm sure was flooded when he left & he'll reply to people if/when he has the mental energy to do so. Just chill & let him get his bearings back.

Drinking Beverage Grab a cuppa' joe; sit-n-read my blog for a spell: www.vaweber.wordpress.com
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: