what do you think of the moderating system on the sinner...

[Amanda]

exactly what it says on the tin: what do you think of the moderating system?

do you think the sinner should be more or less strictly moderated?

on what grounds should moderators be allowed to edit your posts?

do you think enough unreg. posts are getting through?

thoughts, opinions, points of view...

[rr12]

It's like being in Nazis Germany posting on here.

[The Famous Philosopher]

[s]rr12 wrote on 14:27, 14th Apr 2004:
It's like being in Nazis Germany posting on here.


Its certainly not that bad.
The moderators on the BBC Football messageboards(The Scottish football bit anyway) are considerably worse. 1 bad post and everything I had posted that night dissapeared.
Obviously they were St Johnstone fans

[hr]
Never buy a midget with learning difficulties, It's not big and it's not clever

[LeopardSkinQueen]

Hmm. I do think that some moderation decisions have been weird, biased and unfair recently. Also, lots of unregistered posts aren't getting through, for inexplicable reasons- like that post on 'going straight' which I posted in the end, after the original poster posting it on Statalk. The reasons for that not going through are frankly baffling.

[hr][s]Log Lady: I heard you speaking about Laura Palmer?
Dale Cooper: Yes?
Log Lady: One day my log will have something to say about this. My log saw something that night.
Dale Cooper: Really. What did it see?
Log Lady: Ask it.
[Cooper hesitates]
Log Lady: I thought so. (walks away)
[/s]

[TheGamesMaster]

Some sort of detailed guildlines for the moderators rather than just the Sinner's rules?

Maybe some sort of code of conduct?

[tordenskjold]

Well there doesn't seem to be much of a 'system' other than a person (or group of people) moderating things to their own preferece and maybe even bias. It is difficult to police effectively. So maybe an answer would be more moderators (if there is only one at the moment) three may be a good number. On top of this maybe letting things go on their own and only intervening when things get properly out of hand. If they do then the moderators should crack down on it severely. So lassaiz-faire with a big stick to crush eveil-doers? The fact that some unregistered posts take ages to come up or sometimes don't appear at all when they are innoffensive but seem to fly in the face of prevailing opinion is just irritating and should be reduced.

[Midget]

Unless something is obviously offensive then it shouldn't be deleted.
Anyway most really offensive posts would be shot down by other sinner's replies and this would be much more effective than mere deletion.
I know when things get personal then perhaps action has to be taken, but the censors must not delete for their own benefit, thats a bit biased.

[Pilmour Boy]

The values for Unregistered users posts are different to those for registered users. You might want to take a look at the Sinner Guide section on moderation and also see Oli's post on the previous thread about this.

[munchingfoo]

Yes, thats what happens when you post unrgeistered. Every student is entitled to an account, and for frequent visitors acc.'s can be created. Theres no excuse for complaining when unregistered post don't get displayed, just get an account or stop doing what was deemed wrong in the unreg post.

[hr]Management: The art of writing like you know what you're talking about and making others believe it.

(munchingfoo comprehensive dictionary)

My website:
http://aa.domaindlx.com/munchingfoo/

[Zombie Sheep]

Moderation is good. Everything in moderation. Seriously, keep moderating posts. I like it.

[hr]http://www.savetheworld.co.uk - help stuff, win stuff.

[possom]

[s]The Famous Philosopher wrote on 14:30, 14th Apr 2004:
[
The moderators on the BBC Football messageboards(The Scottish football bit anyway) are considerably worse. 1 bad post and everything I had posted that night dissapeared.

Yeah, they really are fuckers...

[Midget]

Yeah, I hate unregistered users particularly those withoput any name.

How can you communicate with someone if they don't have a name.

Get an account! Or three.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

I think that of late the moderation has gone wonky but not in any serious way. I know forums that are far worse.

[lifesothersecret]

Is slightly extreme, i made several posts yesterdayas an unregistered user, none of which made it through, and none of which were offensive! tis somewhat of the overkill i feel...

[Prophet Tenebrae]

That could just be because our beloved moderators are busy, busy bees.

[S.P.I.G]

Or it could be because they're a bunch of gits shipped in from 1940's Germany...

Or because they've been eaten by killer monkeys...

Or because the posts were lost in the sock eating compartment of the computer...

[Pender Native]

[s]S.P.I.G wrote on 15:23, 15th Apr 2004:
Or it [i]could be because they're a bunch of gits shipped in from 1940's Germany...

Or because they've been eaten by killer monkeys...

Or because the posts were lost in the sock eating compartment of the computer...
[/i]
I thought it was only washing machines did that, right I'm using the computer barefoot in future!

[Biitchboy]

I don't understand why certain threads have not been allowed to be started by unregistered users, e.g. the one about turning straight, and the one about the seal culling. What could possibly be wrong about them?

[Pilmour Boy]

[s]Biitchboy wrote on 16:04, 15th Apr 2004:
I don't understand why certain threads have not been allowed to be started by unregistered users, e.g. the one about turning straight, and the one about the seal culling. What could possibly be wrong about them?



Because there was no reason for them to be made by an unregistered user. The person who wanted them discussed could have registered and posted them.

[Plette]

[s]Pilmour Boy wrote on 18:27, 15th Apr 2004:
[s]Biitchboy wrote on 16:04, 15th Apr 2004:[i]
I don't understand why certain threads have not been allowed to be started by unregistered users, e.g. the one about turning straight, and the one about the seal culling. What could possibly be wrong about them?


Because there was no reason for them to be made by an unregistered user. The person who wanted them discussed could have registered and posted them.
[/i]

But what if the person wanted to submit the issue for discussion without their usual "sinner persona" clouding the way the issue was received?

For example, let's say someone who is typically very conservative posts an article on gay marriage. If the person has a high profile on the Sinner, and other people have argued with him/her in the past, then it will affect debate right off the bat. People will respond to the poster's persona, as well as the article itself. Or perhaps it's an article from Newspaper X, and the poster does not want everyone to know he/she reads Newspaper X...there are a thousand understandable reasons.

I know the rules are clear on this...but can the rules not be changed? If someone wants to submit a reasonable issue for discussion annonymously, what harm does it really do to allow it? I see no reason for it.

I think this is a case of the rules being enforced "because that's the rule" and not because the rule is really serving a useful purpose for the community.