[Muzman]

Probably should have emailed this, but I wanna know if anyone else agrees.

Can we not have threads closed without some sort of explanation or, if you think that would only incite more argument, a note from the mod in the thread itself?

I feel that's a good practice myself. But that's mainly because lurking, guillotine weilding conversation cops creep me out.
Thoughts?

[LeChuck]

Im glad they are starting to close threads it makes me happy. It means there are some active admins out there doing their job.

[Pat]

Heh. In general I agree, but I think it's quite obvious why those threads were closed. No explaination necessary.

-Pat

[social drone]

i dont think threads should be closed at all. the mods can do what they want. i just think letting things live and die on their own gives the forum some substance.

a lot of people dont understand the relationsips between art and: nudity, normal human sexuality, and sexual deviance. ive noticed people tend to label everything pornographic. but the stupid shit is, is that there are no limitations to anything related to art; or even for what constitutes art. there is no fucking rule that says this is art and this isnt. just because a nude is a nude and a gangbang is a gangbang doesnt mean shit. if someone thinks a coffee stained playboy centerfold is a fucking master piece of fucking art. guess what, to that guy its art...and you cant disagree, well at least rationally.

this all goes for everything else: for the moderator a post might be spam a flame or a pointless rant worthy in his/her mind of being closed; but to someone else it could hold or inspire a response in their mind worthy of being expressed.

its my opinion that moderators should be limited to monitoring a forum; so that members of the forum are able to interact without interference.

plus, placing restrictions and cutting things down to the lowest common denominator in a forum entitled "Random Musings" is asinine.

[Awetopsy]

be that as it may social drone, I believe the owner of the message board has requested that we refrain from posting anything that shows sexual nudity in any way and flame wars, etc. I think its in our best interest, as artists and people who want this board to continue, to respect that rule on his board.

I for one am glad the moderators are closing threads that violate the given rules.

[ October 16, 2001: Message edited by: Awetopsy ]

[aquamire]

There has to be a line drawn.. whether its art or not, it upsets people, and if the majority of the people think a certain post is over the line, then it should be closed. Notice that most of those threads have been created by young, highly immature people with no point other than to draw attention to themselves and cause a ruckus. It may be art, but its not healthy for the forum. We've had enough of this already. If a line isnt drawn, then its anarchy and it gets worse. This is Dhab's board, he made the rules, either follow them or get lost.

[Impaler]

Closing threads sans-explanation is about one step to the left of fanatic totalitarianism.

Hey. Muzman. Me. You. If this forum gets too fanatic, let's overthrow.

Unless Dhabih reads the thread where we actually elected moderators, and decides to elect Red Leader or I or Chapel (the ones that were nominated and openly supported)..

[LeChuck]

I dont remember reading anything about this board being owned and operated by the users. This message board belongs to Dhabih. And I think he should run it however he sees fit.

This is the way I see it. Dhadih makes the rules. The admins enforce the rules. You play by the rules or get the hell out. (but thats just me)

Wait a minute... What I just wrote sounds familliar... lets see... OH YEAH. Thats how any other well managed message board works.

[ October 16, 2001: Message edited by: LeChuck ]

[Lukiaz]

If it turns ugly....close it.

Regardless of whether others could or would benifit from the varous presented arguments, it simply adds bad vibes to the forum.

People start to leave and more who enjoy and feed from this volitile mix, come.
It degenerates into an enviroment that I and others don't want to be in.

Its about looking at pictures and offering advice. Anything else is secondary and anything secondary that doesn't benifit the forum as a whole is not needed.

Lets keep it simple, fun and enjoyable for the masses.

Peace.

PS If people feel the need to argue let them swap email addresses or ICQ one another. Perhaps when they finish they can then discuss the benefits of...
why winning a verbal arguement over the net with a stranger is helps build character and makes you feel better about yourself.

[Muzman]

I think only Impaler gets my meaning here.

Of course mods can close threads, that's about the only thing they can do. But I want them to say something when they do it.
Those with some authority are not divorced from the populace. Not everyone enjoys the mood that there are silent sentinels trolling around. It's a pretty rudimentry idea that people will quite hapilly follow some simple rules so long as they know what they are and have some avenue for complaint. Not everyone's definition of a flame war is the same you know (and as I've said before numerous times I think most around here are whinny wusses who squeal "make the bad man stop!" at the slightest bit of gentle razzing, and such people are just as bad as the smack talking idiots, but I digress). Silent and secretive moderation does not a happy community atmosphere make. In other words; Impersonal mods = bad.

Now, I'm going to anticipate that a few will take this the wrong way and leap to the mods' defense crowing about them being necessarily powerful and not having to do a damn thing I say (like something out of Monty Python's The Life of Brian or some other film about zealotry) and going on about whose board it is and blah blah. So I'll put it even more simply; Hey mods, if you're listening, can you say something when you close a thread? Anything will do. That'd be great. Thanks.

[Impaler]

My Proposal:

We have a newly appended Moderator's Forum, which is also currently closed off to the public.

Moderators must post a list of all their actions (thread closings, thread movings, post editing, post deleting) performed each day, with a small (one sentence) explanation, in a thread that is closed to public posting, but open to public viewing.

1) It should act as a sort of safe-guard against phantom moderation, which is inherently dangerous and poses a greater threat to the board than the itaconic threads it strives to control.

2) It poses a check system for moderators, who should, as community leaders, have a greater sense of responsibility than the proverbial plebeians they serve. In theory, making mods explain themselves should protect against any waves of fanaticism or potentially destructive police action.

3) This would also open up a previously closed section of a public forum. This forum is in a sense a government of its own. Most governments (Democratic ones, anyways) require themselves to disclose all information (so long as they aren't threatening to security) to the public, as a service of information. Secrecy in authoritarian rule leads to one-sided control. "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolute." By requiring mods to give up some of their power by disclosing information and rationalization thereof, we keep the power-mongering to a bare minimum.

Sub-Section: The moderator forum should have public viewing only. Let the public duke it out in random musings or over email. Allowing public posting in that forum would create a manner of problems, and would dissolve any real authority it could have.

Sub-Section 2: This does not create a justification for phantom moderation. There should still be a brief explanation posted at the end of every closed thread, et al.

Sub-Section 3: The list need not be updated daily, but can instead be a compilation of the week's transgressions. It should be updated at the least once a week, however.

[Awetopsy]

wouldnt it be safe to assume that if a mod closes a thread, they are probably doing it because the thread violates one of the already given rules? It then wouldnt be hard to figure out which rule the given thread is violating just by browsing though it.

Why should the Mod say something? Perhaps the moderator prefers not to be identified so that he doesnt get a bunch of personal attacks by the parties involved in the controversial thread.

[Freddio]

I see where you are coming from Muzman, In my opinion any thread which is blatantly offensive or unethical, It should be closed and be obvious why it was closed.

I also feel threads which tred finely on the line, should be left open and if for some reason it should be closed a detailed explaination should be given to justify why.

I myself in my moderating will give a small commentry to any thread I alter

Good to hear some feedback on the moderating..

Impaler: Your proposal, are you serious? heh

[Muzman]

Heya Freddio. Good to hear from ya.
I'm not really going to get up in arms every time some mod doesn't say something at the closing of a thread. It's just something I think would help.

Now on to other things;

quote:

---

Originally posted by Awetopsy:
wouldnt it be safe to assume that if a mod closes a thread, they are probably doing it because the thread violates one of the already given rules? It then wouldnt be hard to figure out which rule the given thread is violating just by browsing though it.

---

As I said, these rules aren't exactly clear or well defined. Some vague reference to not posting offensive things and not having flame wars doesn't tell us much. Codifying these things could end up looking like the contract law section of the Library of Congress. Which is why I don't really want them codified. But taking that course makes moderator feedback all the more important. I can think of numerous threads that people call "flame wars" that are not even in the ball park by my standards, they are closer to a slap fight with wet newspaper. (sometimes I doubt people read what is being said and any thread that is longer than 15 replies in which people disagree with each other is automatically a "flame war", but I digress again). So how do you respect the rules when no one is quite sure what they are? Well, as everyone is saying, you watch the mods. But how do you relate to the mods if they act in silence? Mind reading perhaps? Sure, sometimes it's fairly obvious why they do things. But not always.

quote:

---

Why should the Mod say something? Perhaps the moderator prefers not to be identified so that he doesnt get a bunch of personal attacks by the parties involved in the controversial thread.

---

What's the first explanation that everyone comes up with for why people act like jackasses on the net? The protection of anonymity.
The mods are chosen from being sensible, responsible members of the community to act for the community. If you think being above the crowd just makes you a target then you shouldn't have the job, frankly. Being an invisible bureaucrat doesn't suit this environment at all.
I know not everything is for public consumption. Many things are sorted out behind the scenes, some threads are closed at the request of the person who opened it etc. But public feedback is still useful, at the very least it helps stop any agreived folks starting new threads to publicly complain (won't necessarily work all the time, but it helps). Or for a more general example, the recent stoush between cybertoker and Lechuck. The perfect closer to that would be something teacher-ly like "Take it outside you two" or words to that effect.
Lengthy though all this is, it's not a big deal. I do think it's important enough to bring up though, even if the size of this thread is kinda out of proportion to the issue.

[Jabberwocky]

Not having threads closed? Wasn't that the whole reason everyione was getting mad before the forum closed and reopened not to long ago?

Weren't people mad at the fact that the admins weren't moderating? Weren't people mad that threads were allowed to be put on and not closed?

I can understand giving a reason... just as the last post or something the Admin can put something like too much flaming or something like that... Anyway I'm glad that we have admins doing something now

[social drone]

self censorship whores...wheres my bat

[Sumaleth]

I'm going to have to close this thread for.. ahh.. bad grammar.

(joking )

Row.

PS. I always try to post a reason before I close a thread.

PPS. For those thinking the forum would be better without thread closing - we tried that for nearly 2 years but with this many members it was pure mayhem, and not a very nice place. So the current approach is far more direct.

[Steven Stahlberg]

Ok, so we have two active moderators? Freddio and Sumaleth? Thanks, guys, keep up the good work.

In any case, if I have to choose between "phantom moderating" and total chaos followed by shutdown, I choose the phantom every time. (At least when they're Freddio and Sumaleth.)

It's been said before, it can stand repeating:
This isn't *supposed* to be an exercise in democracy and the Bill of Rights, we're here to *learn* shit. How can a school be democratic?