D.Duck wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jul 3, 9:19 pm, HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:11:24 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:34:08 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:
On Jul 3, 8:17 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:54:31 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:
On Jul 3, 7:25 pm, "Jim" wrote:
It's melting away. Check it out.
Nothing personal, and I admit I don't like this Gould sockpuppet,
but
I knew he couldn't do it. Moderation, is for moderates.
I knew it was going to happen and I even told Chuck so. It's not that
Chuck isn't capable of moderating, but his dream was to have a
lightly
moderated forum in which everybody got along with the occasional spat
that would dissolve quickly. It's a very "New Age" approach to forum
moderating and doesn't work worth a damn because of three members in
particular just couldn't drop what went on here and dragged it over
there.
Secondarily, it was too easy to just drop down to the last fifty
posts
which compacted the latest activity and became the defacto forum
without reference to the various thread categories. I could have told
Chuck that would happen too - been there, done that.
Thirdly (thirdly?), he shouldn't have even gone with an off topic
thread category - told him that too.
Chuck wanted it to go his way and it didn't. He's also stubborn
because this was evident two months ago shortly after he got it up
and
running, but he kept hoping. Instead of banning people or barring
them for a day, three days, week, month, he deleted the posts and
that
never works.
He had the resources if he only asked for some advice before he set
it
up and gotten some advice from former moderators who have been
through
the wars.
Chuck needs to be the last court of appeal for the actions of a
moderator or maybe two moderators who become the bad guys. That way
he
can isolate himself from his group and act as a "El Supremo Grande"
when complaints come flying. He doesn't even have to be personally
involved - he can read through the posts and give instructions to the
moderators if there is something that he doens't like.
I tried to tell him months ago that one forum, and hefty groundings
for anyone who was a jerk would work. Also suggested opening up for
negative as well as positive karma. This allows folks to know right
off the bat if a responder is respected in the group. In other groups
I frequent, if you are a positive poster, with knowledge, you had a
lot of green leaves, if you were useless, you ended up with a huge red
bar...Also offered to help him moderate.. Like you said, he needs a
couple of helpers to do the sifting, and he needs to be the Court of
Appeals.
In other forums, the most effective technique I've seen is when a
thread goes
nasty or too hot headed, the moderator just locks that thread for 3
days. By the
time it gets unlocked, everyone is on to something else, and it rarely
gets any
fresh fuel after that. It's nice because it doesn't point any fingers,
or make
any one person wear a pointy hat that can lead to festering resentment.
I've seen that done - unfortunately, it bleds over to other threads.
Chuck needs to get a moderator for him - the hands off approach isn't
going to work and he probably will end up talking to himself.
But he's got to do it his way - good luck to him.
All that has to happen is for the turd blossoms from here behave. But I
don't think they can control themselves. Hope the chuckster kicks them
off and soon.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are WAFA

===============================

Earlier today you asked me to ignore him.



You would pay attention to the resident child abuser?