[mornington]

would it be possible to throw some names around - I wouldn't want anyone to become a mod who didn't want to, so people should be able to opt out. At the same time, I think while the final say on who is a mod should be up to LL (and be kept secret) - maybe there should be a "mod" account - it might help LL to know who we would put forward. Does that make sense? I know it seems like a popularity contest, but personally I wouldn't know who to choose!

I think there needs to a a consensus on what is bad behaviour and what is out-and-out unpleasant. We can all put nasty/stupid people on ignore, but removing robot spam (and innaproriate spam - say escort ads in the survivor thread) and steve's photos needs to be done and done throroughly. I mean, we all discuss trolls anyway, and they usually bugger off after a bit - but maybe some sort of consensus should be given for deleting troll accounts?

[pollystyrene]

If moderators are put in place, I don't think that anyone but LL should know who they are. That way one can be accused of favouratism.

I think that's a very good idea, culture. As long as everyone is discreet about their status, it would work.

And I think bunny's suggestion of discussing whether to delete or not to delete on a case-by-case basis (in gray-area cases other than steve....to quote Strong Bad, DELETED!!) is a good idea.

[bunnyb]

Could we all perhaps vote on which two or three busties we think would make the best moderator? It's a hell of a job so I think many would think twice about voting for themselves. Maybe we could set up some kind of poll for that (not sure how the polls work here). The person with the most votes gets to be a moderator.

pugs, this was suggested in CF (I threw a few names in the hat) but I don't know if we can do this if moderators are to be anonymous... what do people think? should moderators be anonymous so we don't bother them/bug our friends? could we nominate people (and later vote) and then LL could ultimately decide?

[LoveMyPugs]

Could we all perhaps vote on which two or three busties we think would make the best moderator? It's a hell of a job so I think many would think twice about voting for themselves. Maybe we could set up some kind of poll for that (not sure how the polls work here). The person with the most votes gets to be a moderator.

[culturehandy]

If moderators are put in place, I don't think that anyone but LL should know who they are. That way one can be accused of favouratism.

I think that mods should have the power to delete posts only. Deleting threads and accounts would ultimately be left up to LL.

[Mr Pugs]

I think the moderators should have the power to delete offensive posts and threads, but should report to LL to have users deleted. That way it kinda keeps the pecking order in check. I have had experiences on other boards where I didn't agree with a user and it got into an argument, only to find out that the person I was arguing with was a moderator and my account was deleted. I think that the moderators should do the main cleanup (see the scary world posts still up) but LL should have the final say so. This method should free up LL a little so maybe more time will be spent on keeping the boards friendly.

[bunnyb]

pepper, I messed up with question 2 but I put that in my post.

I think anyone that anyone who took up the role as moderator would have to fully comprehend what they were getting themselves into and realise that they are probably going to receive countless PMs and have people disagreeing with their decisions; however, I know there are posters who are willing to take that on because it's potentially better than what we currently have.

I think we should have a thread -like BUSTing trolls or take it outside- where we discuss each troll in turn and decide collectively whether they are indeed a troll and whether their posts should be deleted or not, because obviously we're not all going to agree but we need to talk it through. Ultimately the mod would have the final decision but that requires them to be objective and levelheaded and there are a few BUSTies out there who have those traits. However, none of us are going to disagree with Steve's posts being deleted and he is at the crux of this situation.

[pepper]

you know that number two is an either-or and not a yes-no question right?

i think being a moderator will be a horrible, terrible, no good, very bad job. people are going to know that you have the power to delete and are going to come after you to get rid of stuff they don't like and get pissed off if you don't. i'd like to think we'd all be reasonable about it but you know how crazy it gets in here sometimes. i've personally had some serious throw-downs about who's a troll, what's offensive, etc etc (baby shaped pinata, hello!). we all have different ideas about that and we co-exist with some kind of magical happy balance that only blows up out of whack now and then for brief periods. we work it out together, and that's what keeps up going here and, i think, part of what makes this forum so unique and wonderful and tight knit. throwing a mod into the mix might very well change all that. not that i didn't vote yes to a mod with delete powers, i did. those pictures were freaking horrible. i have a small daughter that i hold in my lap sometimes while i'm on the computer. you can imagine how i felt when i all of a sudden could see those. i'm still smarting from it. i would love to have those gone for good so i'm not afraid to venture too deep into the threads again.

six and ft, i HAVE to disagree. psychobitch is so totally a troll. a CLASSIC troll, what with the claims of innocence amist the frou-ferah it creates itself. passive agressive to the n-th degree. i would delete that cow so maude damn fast. someone who comes here for the sole purpose of aggravating and stirring shit up, name calling, starting threads with NO consult in the community forum, etc is not a community member. it has Zero reason to continue it's shit but it persists. not because it's welcome here, it clearly is not. simply because it's spoiling for a fight and knows how to get one. if that isn't a troll than what is?

see? how do we agree on this without knickers getting into knots?

[faerietails2]

sixel, I agree 100%. i would also agree that looking and psychofemme are just bitches rather than trolls, and i wouldn't delete them either (well, looking tends to delete himself after a while, anyway ). Lynda was just plain stupid, though I would've deleted some of the posts she made in the abortion thread, in particular. but do I think she warranted entire deletion? probably not.

posts i think would warrant deletion: spam, dead baby pics, the same long-ass bible passages over and over (bible spam?).

[sixelacat]

See, I think the hang-up will be on what is deemed "offensive". Some things are obvious, like the nasty pics. But what about some of the other things that have been called "troll behavior" lately? I think "psychofemme" is rude, obnoxious, and condescending. However, I don't think she's a troll and wouldn't want her posts/threads deleted as such. And I feel that way having read all her posts in context. She's a bitch, and to me that's just not the same thing.

"Looking" poses an even more complicated problem. I remember him (yeah, for some reason I think it's a guy) when he first posted last fall. He was pretty much ignored and only posted a few times then went away. When he showed up again, his posts were pompous and inappropriate to the discussion at hand. And yet, at that point I wouldn't have said the posts were worthy of deletion, even with the rapid revisionist fantasy he was making. To me backtracking, bullshitting and lying are still not being a troll, just someone not worth listening/paying attention to. BUT, when he flipped his lid entirely and re-edited all his posts (and added more) to make it seem like "some kids" jacked his computer or account and were posting craziness all over, I ABSOLUTELY would have deleted all his posts. I would not, however, have wanted his account deleted. He is still making some small effort to be part of the community, and I think that as long as he stays on his meds that is fine. It's not like I'm forced to respect or even care about what he has to say.

And I wouldn't have deleted "Lynda" either. Being rude, crude, and socially inappropriate, even in sensitive topic threads, still doesn't merit deletion to me. Not as long as we have the ignore function.

So I guess what I'm saying is that while I think it is an EXCELLENT idea to have some moderators, I would only want it to happen with a "less is more" attitude. I think some home-grown Bustie mods would have more time and inclination to do a more thorough job of clean-up when clean-up is needed (seriously, you couldn't get ALL the pics LL?!), as long as there are strict limits/guidelines to what can be done.

*edited slightly for grammar

This post has been edited by sixelacat: Nov 7 2007, 09:02 PM

[bunnyb]

Here it is BUSTies and BUSTers, a poll to vote on whether we want moderators to help us with the ongoing troll problem.
I've kept it simple and covered the basics (you are only allowed three poll questions) and we can always have additional polls for who should be moderators -if applicable, depending on poll results- and other grievances later.

Please add any comments, suggestions and constructive comments about having moderators below. Perhaps we should have an open discussion (with turbojenn and quantumspice weighing in, if possible) about the pros and cons of moderators before we vote our gut instinct (although feel free to vote if you're already convinced/have heart set on it).

Who knows whether LoungeLady will even listen to us and act on any decisions we collectively make but there's only one way to find out!

Happy voting.

eta: okay, I've just realised Q2 is a little unclear answer-wise: let's say that yes is you do want across board powers, no is you only want sensitive thread powers and maybe is obviously maybe to them having full board access.