Wanted: Moderators for Atari 8-bit Forums

[Gunstar]

1 hour ago, Fred_M said:

 

And for me this is showing the problem of asking publicly who would be interested in becoming a moderator. As most of the "applicants" are already well known in the 8-bit forums I expect that for every candidate some members will have some reservations about. Personally I see a name in here of whom I have reservations about.

 

I think it would be best if someone is chosen privatly and is not very active in the 8-bit forum. In my view a moderator would follow the forum-rules and does not have to be very knowledgeable about Atari 8-bits. The forum rules are about decency, not about knowledge.

I think the point of having those interested in the 8-bit as a moderator is so it doesn't become a boring chore for someone who isn't interested.

[Mathy]

Hello guys

 

I'm a moderator on a non-Atari, non-computer forum/site, have been so for over a decade and will be moderator on part of a forum you guys might know.  I've learned a couple of things over the years: Some things are absolutely not according to the rules and some are absolutely according to the rules.  But there's a lot of grey inbetween the absolute white and the absolute black.  What makes the job uneasy at times, is that different words can mean different things to different people.  And while the person typing something might be making a joke, a person reading it might take it seriously.  (I'm NOT talking about being sensitive or not)  Written words, sentences do not show emotions.  That can be a big problem.  And while many here are native English speakers, many are not.  And it's not always easy to determine who's native and who isn't.  And even if you are a native English speaker, American English is different from Australian English which is different from the Queen's English.  And you may even have experienced the following: You talk with somebody in real live and while (at least) one of you is using the wrong words, you both know what the other person is intending to say.  The changes of that happening via written words are slim to none.

 

As a moderator, you have to have patience and a thick skin.  It's not a job for everybody.  And you have to be willing and able to communicate to your fellow moderators and the people you are taking action against.  Often the latter will not agree and will start a discussion (via PM) with you.  If you can't do, stand, handle that, don't try it.  Otherwise, it's a nice hobby for those who can.

 

Sincerely

 

Mathy

 

[VinsCool]

I agree with you.

Personally I am already a moderator on a different forum so I don't really have the time to be more active in this community, but I am pretty sure someone will fit the role nicely and hopefully help keeping the place nice to every visitor

[rensoup]

Perhaps a dumb idea, or not easy to implement, but could the thread starter automatically have some form of moderation power over the thread ? perhaps just silencing trolls for certain amount of time (like a week) ?

 

As a thread starter, you tend to have an interest in keeping clean. Perhaps some would abuse it and automatically silence others though but I think it would still be better than the current situation.

 

I personally don't mind flame wars if it's the thread topic. You're always able to ignore it if you don't want to get involved.

[Faicuai]

7 minutes ago, rensoup said:

Perhaps a dumb idea, or not easy to implement, but could the thread starter automatically have some form of moderation power over the thread ?

Bam! Bingo!

 

Self-moderation in action... as long as a central / global moderation protocol is followed by thread owner, that should work perfectly.

 

Once such protocol is met, the ban would have no appeal. In this way, there is no need for enlarging the current moderators pool. Instead, it will shrink.

 

Talk about operational efficiency and autonomy, there!!

[emkay]

11 minutes ago, rensoup said:

Perhaps a dumb idea, or not easy to implement, but could the thread starter automatically have some form of moderation power over the thread ? perhaps just silencing trolls for certain amount of time (like a week) ?

 

As a thread starter, you tend to have an interest in keeping clean. Perhaps some would abuse it and automatically silence others though but I think it would still be better than the current situation.

 

I personally don't mind flame wars if it's the thread topic. You're always able to ignore it if you don't want to get involved.

This is actually THE idea.

[xxl]

5 hours ago, Mathy said:

Or XXL

Would you like to see me as a janitor cleaning up trolls excrement and keeping order?

 

bizarre preferences ...

[+Sauron]

I nominate myself to NOT be a moderator in here, kthxbai.

[adamchevy]

I nominate myself to NOT be a moderator in here, kthxbai.

I’m not qualified for sure. I’m only 40 and have no memory of this place.

[youxia]

26 minutes ago, rensoup said:

Perhaps some would abuse it and automatically silence others though but I think it would still be better than the current situation.

Sorry mate, but I think it'd be terrible. Power corrupts, and I bet even reasonable people would feel tempted to use this more than necessary, and as for the unreasonable lot...well, heh. I'd much rather have the "official" mods moderating. Imperfect as it is, it's probably still the best method.

 

Self-moderation is a great concept, but it needs to be applied by posters to themselves. I'm quite an argumentative person myself, but, believe it or not, I used to be much worse - occasionally getting into pages-long, pointless, tedious exchanges. But, as we all know, there can be no "winners" in an internet argument. So, these days I try to limit myself to 1-2 replies, and then just quit the subject while still at Level 2.

 

 

[zbyti]

ignore list should be sufficient then you don't need read troll's fantasies.

 

it's fascinating me...

 

if @rensoup wrote to someone (more then once) "bye bye" and this person come back then what should we say? This person should start his own project to show he knows better.

[rensoup]

28 minutes ago, youxia said:

Sorry mate, but I think it'd be terrible. Power corrupts, and I bet even reasonable people would feel tempted to use this more than necessary, and as for the unreasonable lot...well, heh. I'd much rather have the "official" mods moderating. Imperfect as it is, it's probably still the best method.

Sure, but what's the worst that could happen? you silence everybody in your thread and it dies on its own ( unless you want to be the sole poster ?)

 

As the thread starter, you could have a "shut up" button next to each poster. So you couldn't silence people before they posted something. 

Once used, the "shut up" button wouldn't be available again for that poster, giving him the chance to spam again once the "shut up" period expires and making the "shut up" button available again.

 

Seems like a lot of work perhaps...

 

 

[flashjazzcat]

The forum needs a Facebook calibre block feature. The 'ignore' function is bit one-sided.

[Mathy]

Hello rensoup, guys

 

1 hour ago, rensoup said:

Perhaps a dumb idea, or not easy to implement, but could the thread starter automatically have some form of moderation power over the thread ?

 

As I already mentioned, I've been a moderator elsewhere for over a decade.  Please don't let topic starters moderate their own threads.  Three reasons:

 

a) Someone might ask a valid question, get's an answer and is then of the opinion that the thread can be deleted.  Information lost!

b) Someone starts a thread.  Somehow it turns into a fight, dispute, whatever.  A moderator cuts in.  The topic starter doesn't like that and changes what (s)he wrote.  Evidence gone.  Thread/responses might become illogical.  The good guys might all of a sudden seem the bad guys and vice versa.

c) As a moderator, if I get into discussion that's going sour, I NEVER EVER moderate.  I ask one of my colleagues to look at the thread and ask them to form an opinion.  He or she (although I haven't met a non-male moderator yet) is not part of the discussion and can therefore form a non biased opinion.  In a dispute, all sides should have the same rank/rights.  Moderators are like referees, they should be impartial.  A topic starter can never be completely impartial in a dispute (s)he's part of.

 

Sincerely

 

Mathy

 

[Albert]

20 minutes ago, flashjazzcat said:

The forum needs a Facebook calibre block feature. The 'ignore' function is bit one-sided.

Yes, that's certainly one thing Fadebook got right. If Invision doesn't add that functionality to the forum, that's absolutely one thing I will investigate doing myself (and then selling it to other forum admins!)

 

  ..Al

[Faicuai]

47 minutes ago, Mathy said:

As I already mentioned, I've been a moderator elsewhere for over a decade.

Well, since we have eventually landed on this thread, we can safely say that such conventional model has not really worked, either. 

 

It is definitely a good time to consider innovative thinking, here. As long as a fully-disclosed central moderation protocol is followed by thread-owner, I fail to see any reason for self-moderation not to work.

 

In fact, automating such moderation protocol (so thread-owners invoke it as a private forum-tool or tracker) may end up being x1000 times easier to implement than other more complex alternatives. It is just about a count-limited PM-warnings (non-repliable), citing offending-quotes along broken-rules from a pre-set drop-down list of strictly-enforced rules, and an auto-thread-ban on the third occurrence. This will take place privately, to avoid the ensuing public drama.

 

At the end of the day, there is nothing better that individually owning our actions and being fully accountable for them. And, most importantly, that should apply to every single one of us.

 

Talk about a great "deterrence" or equalizer-effect, as well. Peace-through-strength. ??

[rensoup]

2 hours ago, Mathy said:

a) Someone might ask a valid question, get's an answer and is then of the opinion that the thread can be deleted.  Information lost!

b) Someone starts a thread.  Somehow it turns into a fight, dispute, whatever.  A moderator cuts in.  The topic starter doesn't like that and changes what (s)he wrote.  Evidence gone.  Thread/responses might become illogical.  The good guys might all of a sudden seem the bad guys and vice versa.

 

Like I said only some form of moderation would be available to the thread starter, basically preventing people to post for some time, not being able to delete stuff.

 

It was just an idea, but I just want to make sure I explained it clearly.

[Scooter83]

Spoiler

 

I enjoy the Atari 8 bit slot and have been collecting it for 20 plus years.   I check pages here but if you want my help let me know.   

[massiverobot]

Don't make me write "The Quick Reference Guide to The Lost Art of Polite Discourse"

 

cause i can.

 

I think current mods should recruit new ones.

[emkay]

6 hours ago, zbyti said:

ignore list should be sufficient then you don't need read troll's fantasies.

 

it's fascinating me...

 

if @rensoup wrote to someone (more then once) "bye bye" and this person come back then what should we say? This person should start his own project to show he knows better.

Ignore List is a dumb thing anyways. People who keep their eyes closed , thinking "I don't see you, you don't see me ....(comment saved) 

Thinking of my "Nothing Special" thread, a lot of weird things wouldn't have been in there, if people just followed the thread. Kicking the posts where people just insult others, and to kick the Troll out of a thread, helps to keep the thread in line.

And, well , if such person does his own thread to show it better, the person HAD to do it actually better. 

 

In both cases it will be a huge part on a better progress to develop new things.

 

[zbyti]

I don't know I used to try to be funny once in Altirra thread but got kicked out of it (temporally) in minutes without a word of warning

Edited August 15, 2021 by zbyti

[Mclaneinc]

 

Having moderated a PSX newsgroup during the days of modchips I can say that being a mod isn't fun, and it's not a power trip. I got so much abuse from copied game sellers, people wanting cracks for CD software and people who just wanted to abuse the devs we had in the forum. Here is like a calm day..

 

Moderators need, time, patience, a sense of fair play and to be 100% neutral.... The last one is the one that many fail with..

[bfollowell]

1 hour ago, Mclaneinc said:

Moderators need, time, patience, a sense of fair play and to be 100% neutral.... The last one is the one that many fail with..

 

Yeah, I feel that last one would be a constant struggle for most people. No matter how hard we try, it's almost impossible to be 100% impartial and objective all the time. That's one reason it would be good to have other moderators you can fall back to in those instances where you need to take a step back and take off your moderator cap.

 

[E474]

Hi,

 

    Could mods/topic starters not just change posts so that "controversial" posts are just initially contracted? 

[Mclaneinc]

Giving topic starters the ability to censor posts just isn't good, there's many a time when the topic starter has started a semi troll thread.

 

Also, a mod editing posts to make them ok is just time-consuming and wrong for far too many reasons, removing content ie the whole post is the only way, it sends a clear message that the removed content isn't wanted and posters beware of trying to add it to the thread again.

 

Like others who have modded forums / newsgroups, it's not the plain sailing it seems..