What's new

Forum News New Moderator.

verticity

I'm interested in things
I wanna see your food, I do not want to see your "grub". Was that you? That image haunts my nightmares.
 

HeadHodge

Bula To Eternity
Good news!
BTW, I was wondering if we could perhaps clean up the tudei megathread a wee bit and just keep the msgs related to discussions on "tudei vs noble" consumption? Other posts are important and (often) interesting, but many of them are hardly adding anything to the discussion and are just turning this mega thread into a MASSIVE thread without making it more valuable to new users or those who want to read more about this controversy.
Most specifically I am referring to random youtube videos, smileys, unrelated jokes, personal attacks unrelated to the issue of tudei vs noble, etc..
Why don't you just create your own thread and mark it 'On Topic Only'? then when you see something you don't like or agree with you can justly bitch about it? (Just a thought).
 

TheKavaSociety

New Zealand
Kava Vendor
I just miss the facebook "blocking" option, which allows people to avoid seeing content from users they find offensive, annoying or irrelevant (just a thought). I think we could all find such an option incredibly useful.

But as this itsn't facebook, I think it's not an unreasonable suggestion to limit the content of important threads to relevant posts/questions and discussions as otherwise such threads can become too long/large to read through. It seems that Jimmy was the author of the tudei thread, hence I've made my suggestion here. Apologies if I've offended anyone.
Cheers
 

HeadHodge

Bula To Eternity
I just miss the facebook "blocking" option, which allows people to avoid seeing content from users they find offensive, annoying or irrelevant (just a thought). I think we could all find such an option incredibly useful.

But as this itsn't facebook, I think it's not an unreasonable suggestion to limit the content of important threads to relevant posts/questions and discussions as otherwise such threads can become too long/large to read through. It seems that Jimmy was the author of the tudei thread, hence I've made my suggestion here. Apologies if I've offended anyone.
Cheers
I totally agree with you 100% when it's 'your' thread.
 

TheKavaSociety

New Zealand
Kava Vendor
I totally agree with you 100% when it's 'your' thread.
As it wasn't my thread, I obviously didn't delete or move anything. I've just made a suggestion. you may or may not agree with it. will be up to the author to decide whether it is a reasonable suggestion. I am open to suggestions about the threads I start. I think most of us are. And those who aren't, can simply ignore any suggestions they might receive.
 

HeadHodge

Bula To Eternity
I just miss the facebook "blocking" option, which allows people to avoid seeing content from users they find offensive, annoying or irrelevant (just a thought). I think we could all find such an option incredibly useful.

But as this itsn't facebook, I think it's not an unreasonable suggestion to limit the content of important threads to relevant posts/questions and discussions as otherwise such threads can become too long/large to read through. It seems that Jimmy was the author of the tudei thread, hence I've made my suggestion here. Apologies if I've offended anyone.
Cheers
No worries from me @Henry.
 

verticity

I'm interested in things
I just miss the facebook "blocking" option, which allows people to avoid seeing content from users they find offensive, annoying or irrelevant (just a thought). I think we could all find such an option incredibly useful.

But as this itsn't facebook, I think it's not an unreasonable suggestion to limit the content of important threads to relevant posts/questions and discussions as otherwise such threads can become too long/large to read through. It seems that Jimmy was the author of the tudei thread, hence I've made my suggestion here. Apologies if I've offended anyone.
Cheers
I'm not offended. It is a very important topic being discussed in that thread. It should not be mucked up with...muck. Your suggestion to "clean it up" seems quite reasonable.
 

HeadHodge

Bula To Eternity
As it wasn't my thread, I obviously didn't delete or move anything. I've just made a suggestion. you may or may not agree with it. will be up to the author to decide whether it is a reasonable suggestion. I am open to suggestions about the threads I start. I think most of us are. And those who aren't, can simply ignore any suggestions they might receive.
Hey Henry,

I was thinking about this at lunch today. I had a thought and a question for you. What would you think about the concept of 'self' moderation. And what I mean by that is what if everyone owns their own threads and could delete (not edit) any posts they wanted to from their thread? A real moderator would still be needed to enforce the T.O.S agreement. but place the ownus of moderating on the thread owner. I think that's possible with this software, so just thinking out loud here........
 

TheKavaSociety

New Zealand
Kava Vendor
Hey Henry,

I was thinking about this at lunch today. I had a thought and a question for you. What would you think about the concept of 'self' moderation. And what I mean by that is what if everyone owns their own threads and could delete (not edit) any posts they wanted to from their thread? A real moderator would still be needed to enforce the T.O.S agreement. but place the ownus of moderating on the thread owner. I think that's possible with this software, so just thinking out loud here........
Not sure, mate. What if someone started a thread where he/she accused you of x, y or z and then kept deleting posts published in your defense? Or if someone started a thread about a particular product and then kept deleting critical voices/reviews from other users? Sure, these other users can start their own threads, but some people might not be bothered to re-write long threads and in any case this would mean more confusion.
I suppose I like the idea of having "on topic" tags and then allowing moderators to clean up the off-topic stuff regardless of the authorship of the thread (obviously only if the author designated his/her thread as "on topic"). What do you think?
 

HeadHodge

Bula To Eternity
Not sure, mate. What if someone started a thread where he/she accused you of x, y or z and then kept deleting posts published in your defense? Or if someone started a thread about a particular product and then kept deleting critical voices/reviews from other users? Sure, these other users can start their own threads, but some people might not be bothered to re-write long threads and in any case this would mean more confusion.
I suppose I like the idea of having "on topic" tags and then allowing moderators to clean up the off-topic stuff regardless of the authorship of the thread (obviously only if the author designated his/her thread as "on topic"). What do you think?
Well that's the thing, in the former case the owner could control what was said or not (but again not to edit or inject stuff into others posts). It wouldn't stop others from posting their own counter threads elsewhere so they would still have a voice, but people would have a choice as to what they want to read or who they would want to read it from. And posters would get a reputation (good or bad) over time for the quality of their content. For example my threads would probably be more humorous in nature, others would be persons looking for information, and yet others would be about other kava topics of self interest. A true moderator still needs to make sure it's not a thread discussing verboten stuff. In the latter example, where only the moderator controls the content, the thing I don't care for is that we are forcing others to use their personal judgement for enforcement.

An example of self moderation, is one where I might want to make a humorous kava realated thread and didn't care how far off-topic it got, one could personally self control that. You can make up your own examples of other more heavily self moderation.
 

TheKavaSociety

New Zealand
Kava Vendor
Many people are not regular members, readers. They get here through google etc and often look for specific info. That is why I see the option to refute/dispute various arguments and opinions in the same thread as valuable. Otherwise one can never trust any thread without going through the entire forum to see if there are any counter threads.

I dont mind funny, friday type threads. I just dont always read them. I dont think anyone minds them. But I know that many people do mind it when serious threads get hijacked or derailed by countless youtube videos or gifs. So, for me personally having a meanigful "serious thread" tag that would imply moderation would be amazing.
 

HeadHodge

Bula To Eternity
Many people are not regular members, readers. They get here through google etc and often look for specific info. That is why I see the option to refute/dispute various arguments and opinions in the same thread as valuable. Otherwise one can never trust any thread without going through the entire forum to see if there are any counter threads.

I dont mind funny, friday type threads. I just dont always read them. I dont think anyone minds them. But I know that many people do mind it when serious threads get hijacked or derailed by countless youtube videos or gifs. So, for me personally having a meanigful "serious thread" tag that would imply moderation would be amazing.
Like Deleted User says I've already created one of those. I was just bouncing some thoughts out loud.
 

verticity

I'm interested in things
Hey Henry,

I was thinking about this at lunch today. I had a thought and a question for you. What would you think about the concept of 'self' moderation. And what I mean by that is what if everyone owns their own threads and could delete (not edit) any posts they wanted to from their thread? A real moderator would still be needed to enforce the T.O.S agreement. but place the ownus of moderating on the thread owner. I think that's possible with this software, so just thinking out loud here........
I'm sorry, but I think that would lead to stifling dissenting opinions within threads. Some people would probably delete posts from threads they started simply because they disagree with the opinion, not because it is off-topic or inappropriate. Vendors could delete posts that are critical of their products. Members could delete others' posts simply because of personal animosity. Each thread would in effect become a walled garden. I think the present system of a small number of moderators chosen for their judiciousness really is best.
 

HeadHodge

Bula To Eternity
I'm sorry, but I think that would lead to stifling dissenting opinions within threads. Some people would probably delete posts from threads they started simply because they disagree with the opinion, not because it is off-topic or inappropriate. Vendors could delete posts that are critical of their products. Members could delete others' posts simply because of personal animosity. Each thread would in effect become a walled garden. I think the present system of a small number of moderators chosen for their judiciousness really is best.
fair enough... thanks for your feedback.
 
Top