Discussion for new forum policies

@djensen:

Kurt, you’re describing an ideal that’s never going to happen. We’re people and there is always going to be differing opinions and difficulty to be unbiased. If you operate one way and nobody complains because nobody is bothered and then one day it stops working in a particular situation, what do you expect?

Anyway, now I really need to get back to work.

I agree that it’s impossible for someone to be 100% unbiased. But some people are more biased than others. :) Which is why it’s important to have list moderators who are either a) considerably less biased than average, or b) able to put their biases aside when making a judgment. Ideally both.

I’d also add that list moderation policies should be as simple, clear, and unambiguous as possible. This reduces the need for judgment calls, making moderator bias less relevant.

Thank you for your time, comments, and patience D.

I’ll do my part in figuring it out with IL.

Thank you for your time, comments, and patience D.

I’ll do my part in figuring it out with IL.

Oh wow a positive development! Good Joel.

You refer to users of the site being “children”. A disposition and comment trail I often see you post; And I have to admit that it’s disappointing behaviour and commentary to be seen coming from site moderation, another “Policy” which should be discussed, in this ON TOPIC thread.

I would have to agree.

I think even the worst culprits ought not to be called names by moderators even though they probably deserve a vigorous b**ch slap.  I would posit that moderators ought to be or at least act holier than thou.

Fortunately this is not a democracy.  If it were, the site would die out in chaos.

Why?  I’ve spent my life in sales, a no is merely an objection to overcome, therefore, where others see a NO, I see a solution.

So, back to WHY?  In fact, let X represent WHY.

Establish policies to negate X.  Next……

Perhaps the voters should be ‘land owners’, ie, up-to-date PATRONs.  In other words, put your money where your mouth is if you feel so strongly about XYZ then pay up MoFo and vote on it.

The more vigiliant the moderator (defined as closest to omnipresent on the forum) the more chance of crossing someone and earning the distinction of overly zealous.

Of course 100% true, so the solution to this is to determine the percentage of moderators rulings that causes complaints.  I’m not saying keep a running total of course, who has time for that!

Djensen should envision these forums as HE wants them to be, not what his moderators want them to be, not what his public want them to be, but as HE wants them to be.

Nobody is suggesting they have the power to require David to do anything, but I suspect he appreciates feedback particularly when the problem is stated clearly and potential viable solutions offered.  The worst thing a customer can do is complain and not provide a path to problem resolution.

Moderators do a valuable job and I appreciate their presences.  That being said, nobody ought to rest on their laurels and feel they are doing the best job they can do so therefore no self-reflection is required since there is no room for improving on perfection.  Anyone who is ranked #1 in the world works very hard every day to improve on being the best.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

You refer to users of the site being “children”. A disposition and comment trail I often see you post; And I have to admit that it’s disappointing behaviour and commentary to be seen coming from site moderation, another “Policy” which should be discussed, in this ON TOPIC thread.

I would have to agree.

I think even the worst culprits ought not to be called names by moderators even though they probably deserve a vigorous b**ch slap.  I would posit that moderators ought to be or at least act holier than thou.

Fortunately this is not a democracy.  If it were, the site would die out in chaos.

Why?  I’ve spent my life in sales, a no is merely an objection to overcome, therefore, where others see a NO, I see a solution.

So, back to WHY?  In fact, let X represent WHY.

Establish policies to negate X.  Next……

Perhaps the voters should be ‘land owners’, ie, up-to-date PATRONs.  In other words, put your money where your mouth is if you feel so strongly about XYZ then pay up MoFo and vote on it.

Of course 100% true, so the solution to this is to determine the percentage of moderators rulings that causes complaints.   I’m not saying keep a running total of course, who has time for that!

Nobody is suggesting they have the power to require David to do anything, but I suspect he appreciates feedback particularly when the problem is stated clearly and potential viable solutions offered.  The worst thing a customer can do is complain and not provide a path to problem resolution.

Moderators do a valuable job and I appreciate their presences.   That being said, nobody ought to rest on their laurels and feel they are doing the best job they can do so therefore no self-reflection is required since there is no room for improving on perfection.  Anyone who is ranked #1 in the world works very hard every day to improve on being the best.

Good post! :) I like what you had to say about the need for self-reflection; as well as with just about everything else you had to say.

The one point where you and I may differ is about whether, or to what degree, this site should become a democracy. My own thoughts on this subject have not crystallized, and I’m certainly open to listening to concrete proposals. My chief concern about making this site a democracy has been eloquently articulated by economist David Friedman.

@DavidFriedman:

Imagine buying cars the way we buy governments. Ten thousand people would get together and agree to vote, each for the car he preferred. Whichever car won, each of the ten thousand would have to buy it. It would not pay any of us to make any serious effort to find out which car is best; whatever I decide, my car is being picked for me by the other members of the group. Under such institutions, the quality of cars would quickly decline.

Well-run institutions are normally the result of deep, serious thought. If there is only one power-holder–djensen in this case–it’s in his interest to give list moderation policies deep, serious thought before making any changes. My concern is that in a democracy, large numbers of people might vote without having given that same level of serious thought to the issues on which they’re voting. Those votes are still data, and I feel those data should be captured. I just don’t know if the voters should be the ones to make the final call.

My concern is that in a democracy, large numbers of people might vote without having given that same level of serious thought to the issues on which they’re voting. Those votes are still data, and I feel those data should be captured. I just don’t know if the voters should be the ones to make the final call.

Kurt, you have a valid point with this.  In the worst case, new accounts could be created just to SPAM a vote.  Being a PATRON would by and large prevent this, or at the least be lucrative for David.

A method to ensure that the user casting the vote is somewhat qualified then?  Also a system to ensure the voting is not fraudulent or limiting it at the least.

If requiring one to become a PATRON is too onerous then perhaps a certain number of posts combined with a time spam between first and last post to ensure you don’t get 100 posts by rolling dice 100 times in an afternoon.  Maybe a weighted voting system but this adds a layer of complexity.