Poll: Interest in a hard moderated forum area?

[JimInNY]

Well.. That is part of the reason for booting the recalcitrant naysayers as their goal s to piss people off and pissed off people tend to cuss more than those discussing how to organise an event for the campaigns benefit. So to discuss the profanity without discussing the why's and where to fores of how it comes about and not dealing with causes of its origin only deals with half the problem, which is the words themselves, and not why the problem is occurring with frequency.

HTH
Randy

My nomination for post of the month on RPF!

 

[Revolution9]

The purpose of this forum to to elect Ron Paul, right? Naysayers are working against that goal. Who needs them? We already have the entire global establishment to fight. We don't need to be having to fight the shills on the forum as well.

I'm tellin ya, give me the key to the ban button! hehehe

You are correct. I don't want the ban button personally. The current mods are doing a good job considering the scope. Sometimes I need to get very abrasive and I do not think a mod should be doing such. I guess that is why I get calls to inject firepower into certain threads from them.

best Regards
randy

 

[Revolution9]

A training-wheels forum? What a useless exercise for the moderators?

Goode point here in that the mods will the have their hands full moderating that forum. It s their call though. If they want the extra duty it is up t them and as well up to the posters who post there. It may well serve a good purpose for those threads which need good insulation from negative injections.

Best Regards
Randy

 

[MsDoodahs]

i guess its your forum after all.

It's not my forum. It's Josh's forum. We dont' have hard moderation because Josh doesn't want it.

I'm looking at options, since this concern isn't going away.

 

[LibertyEagle]

You are correct. I don't want the ban button personally. The current mods are doing a good job considering the scope. Sometimes I need to get very abrasive and I do not think a mod should be doing such. I guess that is why I get calls to inject firepower into certain threads from them.

best Regards
randy

 

[LibertyEagle]

A training-wheels forum? What a useless exercise for the moderators?

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

 

[kaleidoscope eyes]

No, probably not, there's so much else here, I'm sure people wouldn't just ignore it, and end up seeing all the "offensive" materials anyway. Might as well make an entirely new Forum altogether maybe squeakycleanrpforums.com? ;P

I'm not one for peppering normal conversations with profanity just because, but it can be used to make strong points on occasion. Since I've been here, I actually think it's gotten a bit more under control. imho.

 

[Revolution9]

It's not my forum. It's Josh's forum. We dont' have hard moderation because Josh doesn't want it.

I'm looking at options, since this concern isn't going away.

You guys are doing a good job. Sometimes there is misfires but for the most part it has been done well and you cannot second guess and be correct every time. The mods and flaggers tend to respond to patterns instead of simply a one post ban hammer.

Best Regards
Randy

 

[ShowMeLiberty]

No, probably not, there's so much else here, I'm sure people wouldn't just ignore it, and end up seeing all the "offensive" materials anyway. Might as well make an entirely new Forum altogether maybe squeakycleanrpforums.com? ;P

I'm not one for peppering normal conversations with profanity just because, but it can be used to make strong points on occasion. Since I've been here, I actually think it's gotten a bit more under control. imho.

+1

Same for me. I tend to use the "New Posts" button, and probably will continue to use it, so I end up reading threads from any and all sub-forums. Whatever bubbles to the top.

I guess if I was a person who was easily offended by certain words, I would confine myself to the G-Rated area. I'd have to be very easily offended to do that though, because I would be missing out on a lot, I'm sure.

Not that it matters, but my sensibilities are more often offended by misspellings, misuse of words, and bad grammar. But I forgive the offenders because we're all here for a greater cause.

 

[MsDoodahs]

Not that it matters, but my sensibilities are more often offended by misspellings, misuse of words, and bad grammar. But I forgive the offenders because we're all here for a greater cause.

lol, good to know I'm not the only one.

 

[Douglass Bartley]

The Doodah plan is good, except that it should be recast to create an isolated profanity area, where the cretins can talk to each other with the only words they know. The rest of the forum should be profanity free. The best way of moderating that would be to bar the doors to the Know-Nothings.

 

[icon124]

Do you guys someone is honestly gonna go find another candidate because of some stuff we post on a forum? Be serious, if I knew I wanted to vote for Ron Paul I wouldn't go look at other candidates because I saw the f-bomb dropped here.

 

[MsDoodahs]

Do you guys someone is honestly gonna go find another candidate because of some stuff we post on a forum? Be serious, if I knew I wanted to vote for Ron Paul I wouldn't go look at other candidates because I saw the f-bomb dropped here.

Yes, I honestly believe some have come here and decided against Ron because of what they read here. We were advised of this happening by one of our members. (AnnaK, I think? It was a long time ago.) She had materials returned to her and was told "no thank you" because the people she had spoken with came to this forum and decided against RP as a result of what they read here.

The difference is that those people did not KNOW they wanted to vote for Ron - they were assessing him, and because this place is full of Ron supporters, our behavior here turned them off to our candidate.

May not be what you want to hear, but that has happened.

 

[1836]

HTH
Randy

You first.

 

[fedup100]

When the mods give us a hard moderated negative troll forum, the foul language will self deport like the trolls.

 

[FreeTraveler]

Do you guys someone is honestly gonna go find another candidate because of some stuff we post on a forum? Be serious, if I knew I wanted to vote for Ron Paul I wouldn't go look at other candidates because I saw the f-bomb dropped here.

So because you're intelligent enough to look past the profanity, we don't need the votes of those who are not?

 

[tommy7154]

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

 

[tommy7154]

The Doodah plan is good, except that it should be recast to create an isolated profanity area, where the cretins can talk to each other with the only words they know. The rest of the forum should be profanity free. The best way of moderating that would be to bar the doors to the Know-Nothings.

See now I'm offended again because I swear all the time and because of that you've insulted my intelligence and called me a cretin. Should I make a new topic every couple of days on this subject because my fragile mind is suffering or should I maybe just shut the fuck up and deal with it, realizing that someone is always going to be offended by something or other and I'm not going to get too far if I'm constantly worrying about such petty things?

 

[mtmedlin]

I am against regulating foul language entirely but I have soften some what when someone makes a thread or post and all it is is gratuitis swearing. I read one that started "F the march, f so and so and F this if that happens" (not verbatim) since the post in general had no use other then to make one feel better, then it was unnecessary and I think he was well deserved Banned. Some suggestions that I would make and have worked to weed out trolls.

1. Make a 48 hour waiting period before your first post. This will give newbies time to read the rules, learn our group and get used to ....our flavor (nicest way to put it). This also discouraged trolls who get hyped up and want to come over and do something negative. They have a waiting period, almost like hand guns but actually constitutional.
2. More effectively define the groupings of threads. Hot Topics should come with a lable and maybe even off topics. Let people know that the views may or may not be endorsed by the candidate and that language can be used that isnt endorsed by anyone other then the user.
3. News about official campaign should be the MOST regulated. This is our representation of what DR. Paul has actually said and done. It holds the MOST credibility. Even though I have fought long and hard about language being un-restricted, In the News About Official Campaign, I would have no objection to severely limiting this section AND placing a Lable that states the more specified rules. The lable can also direct new people to this location.

If the 48 hour new post time period is used, I would also suggest that they have a required reading (something very small) that describes the areas and explains the differences. This will help them avoid the more flavorful areas.

Lastly, I would more effectively use the feature for "Senior Member". Newbies shouldnt be able to come in and whore post with a hundred bumps, me toos, atta boy or any other non sensical crap. I would limit how many posts per day until they have hit 30 days, then up them to a new level. Also, I wouldnt allow newbies into areas like off topic and Hot topics or any other area that is more "flavored". In other forums that I have been on, Senior Member is actually voted on by other senior members. If someone votes against them, they have to state why. ( I for example am not a fan of truthers, but I COULD NOT vote agaisnt them for that reason, I could vote agaisnt them because they havent done much and their post count is 3000 bumps) Once someone reaches Senior Member, they have had to show restraint and have gone without warnings for a period of time. We have also allowed senior members the ability to flag posts, this makes them temporarily locked with the message "under review". Once a moderator reviews it, then they can do as they wish, with an explanation PMed to the OP. If a senior member is overly flagging then they get a warning.
Some of these ideas really seem authoritarian but in the end, they work and arent difficult.
I hope at least my first few ideas are considered. I expect the last few will not.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

I voted no, but I see no reason why if the admins want to do it, it shouldnt be done. I wouldnt go there, since I feel this forum is already too heavily modded.

The whole point of libertarianism is to let the marketplace of ideas decide what is good or bad. I agree the mods have a right to do what they do, but I think it ill advised to usher topics off the main areas just because they dont fit someone's idea of appropriateness. If the community doesnt want to discuss it, it will drop like a hot potato all by itself.