Poll: Interest in a hard moderated forum area?

[freelance]

I think you are misunderstanding what MsDoodahs is talking about. Truly, I do.

Probably, because it just sounds like more work for you guys.

It may well serve a good purpose for those threads which need good insulation from negative injections.

Randy

While I don't mind a little negativity, the forums do seem to have turned into a cesspool of negativity.

It's just sad that we can't treat each other with a modicum of respect without moderator interference. And, further it's sad that few people contribute more than, "STFU, GTFO, OMFG and FU." It's lost its shock value, if it ever had any, so what's the point (in most cases), except to display a total lack of command for the English language and a dearth of creativity?

 

[mtmedlin]

I don't see a problem with a hard moderated sub-forum other than it may be a time waster. If there's that many people that can't handle naughty words though then sure make a PG-13 forum for the kiddies Sorry I just find it silly

I have gotten to the point that I just ignore the threads about banning swearing. Josh hasn't done it up till now and I have a real good feeling that he won't in the future. Of course there is something to say about just posting that picture with the words "This Shit again". It makes a solid double statement. In all honesty, if we all use the language in moderation, I dont think that many will give us to much of a problem.

 

[tommy7154]

I have gotten to the point that I just ignore the threads about banning swearing. Josh hasn't done it up till now and I have a real good feeling that he won't in the future. Of course there is something to say about just posting that picture with the words "This Shit again". It makes a solid double statement. In all honesty, if we all use the language in moderation, I dont think that many will give us to much of a problem.

Yah I agree basically. It should be used in moderation. I don't think either swearing or people complaining about swearing is a problem though. I'm not against any group of people or anything. We're all just people being people and expressing opinions and ideas...one way or another

 

[MsDoodahs]

I wouldnt go there, since I feel this forum is already too heavily modded.

That's the point. Only those who are bothered by foul language would go there.

Since those who prefer to use more ... "colorful" ... language would not even WANT to go into that forum, I wouldn't think it would be a big deal.

And, it would keep those who aren't as ... "colorful" ... in their use of the language happy, too.

 

[MsDoodahs]

Probably, because it just sounds like more work for you guys.



While I don't mind a little negativity, the forums do seem to have turned into a cesspool of negativity.

It's just sad that we can't treat each other with a modicum of respect without moderator interference. And, further it's sad that few people contribute more than, "STFU, GTFO, OMFG and FU." It's lost its shock value, if it ever had any, so what's the point (in most cases), except to display a total lack of command for the English language and a dearth of creativity?

"modicum of respect"

and

"dearth of creativity."

OMFG!

 

[yongrel]

I'm not particularly fussed about this. I think I would prefer slightly stricter moderation on the forum as a whole, as opposed to a single alcove of intense regulation.

 

[Shink]

Why don't you guys do a test run. Put a hard moderated forum up on a separate host or use this one and give us the non moderated one to see which one flourishes.

I'm willing to bet the one with no mods or banning gets the most action.


Or you could just sticky instructions that show how to use the ignore list. Maybe that will appease the whiners who call everyone trolls and ask for bannings

Quoted for taking my answer. This crap comes up every couple of months, and gets about the same response every time. Whatever, though, feel free to make a little cove for the 'I'm offended' types, just like you made one for 'crazy conspiracy theorists' like me.

 

[thoughtbombing]

No. Wimps.

 

[Banana]

Personally,

I would much rather see more moderation in regards to duplicate threads, moving the irrelevant threads somewhere, nonstop bumping and requiring that there be original content with the link.

It gets a bit tiring to skim through the new post listing seeing 3 sets of multiple threads for same topic, a thread demanding that I pull my head out of my posterior area and acknowledge the truth while another thread demands that I blame the truthers for destroying the campaign, and clicking on a thread only to end up read a long list of "bump" "bump" "bump" "bump".

I hope the staff here consider recruiting more moderators to handle the above. If enough of moderators drilled into everyone's head that this is a ultimately a forum to talk about Ron Paul's Presidential candidancy, helping other Ron Paul Republicans and sharing strategies, several problem will go away on their accord.

To clarify, I suspect most of the problem we see are based on the frustration due to lack of moderation, not necessarily lack of restraint (thought I would like to say that everyone should have the freedom to be responsible for themselves). Have been a veteran of other forums, I can tell you that the suggestions I outlined will make a *drastic* difference in overall tone and demeanor of forum without having to ban anyone or regulate their posts (which is counter-productive anyway).

 

[Shink]

Personally,

I would much rather see more moderation in regards to duplicate threads, moving the irrelevant threads somewhere, nonstop bumping and requiring that there be original content with the link.

It gets a bit tiring to skim through the new post listing seeing 3 sets of multiple threads for same topic, a thread demanding that I pull my head out of my posterior area and acknowledge the truth while another thread demands that I blame the truthers for destroying the campaign, and clicking on a thread only to end up read a long list of "bump" "bump" "bump" "bump".

I hope the staff here consider recruiting more moderators to handle the above. If enough of moderators drilled into everyone's head that this is a ultimately a forum to talk about Ron Paul's Presidential candidancy, helping other Ron Paul Republicans and sharing strategies, several problem will go away on their accord.

To clarify, I suspect most of the problem we see are based on the frustration due to lack of moderation, not necessarily lack of restraint (thought I would like to say that everyone should have the freedom to be responsible for themselves). Have been a veteran of other forums, I can tell you that the suggestions I outlined will make a *drastic* difference in overall tone and demeanor of forum without having to ban anyone or regulate their posts (which is counter-productive anyway).

I agree with you except on the bumping issue. It's pretty common practice. Often, people are wasting their posts in threads about 'let's speculate on X' or 'I'm bitching about Z.' Some people have to self-bump threads nobody's paying attention to because most of those threads are calling for ACTION. This place was much more action oriented back in the summer.

 

[nbhadja]

na

 

[Banana]

Well, instead of just "bump", it helps to put in some comment, maybe add an article or a link. Something to make the thread interesting to read. One thread that started out great had a page worth of "bump", which I thought was ridiculous.

I understand that this is more action-oriented, but one page of bump post doesn't really scream "action" to me, if you know what I mean...

 

[98Tokay]

Well, instead of just "bump", it helps to put in some comment, maybe add an article or a link. Something to make the thread interesting to read. One thread that started out great had a page worth of "bump", which I thought was ridiculous.

I understand that this is more action-oriented, but one page of bump post doesn't really scream "action" to me, if you know what I mean...

bump

 

[tommy7154]

Well, instead of just "bump", it helps to put in some comment, maybe add an article or a link. Something to make the thread interesting to read. One thread that started out great had a page worth of "bump", which I thought was ridiculous.

I understand that this is more action-oriented, but one page of bump post doesn't really scream "action" to me, if you know what I mean...

ACTION!!!!!!!!!!! Better?

I won't bother with the rick roll...

 

[anewvoice]

Doesn't the forum have an optional word replacement filter? I have to say that censorship is likely not the best solution.

 

[undergroundrr]

I'd love to see an alternate "new posts" link that doesn't return results from Hot Topics, Off Topic, Vent and Bad Media. Is that possible?

 

[constituent]

I'd love to see an alternate "new posts" link that doesn't return results from Hot Topics, Off Topic, Vent and Bad Media. Is that possible?

it's in your user preferences.... i think.

click "User CP" up near the top banner, it's somewhere in there.

 

[Captain America]

it would be like web/ronpaulforums 2.0

isnt that the sort of think we are fighting against?

 

[Banana]

I'd love to see an alternate "new posts" link that doesn't return results from Hot Topics, Off Topic, Vent and Bad Media. Is that possible?

Maybe make that a default for new users?

 

[freelance]

"modicum of respect"

and

"dearth of creativity."

OMFG!

They taught English when I was in school.