Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mcgrath5860
Denise if everyone is out on the sidewalk gawking at the policeman who just pulled someone over, who is minding the store. According to Rich, and I believe this to be true, but if the 4 moderators were overwhelmed with the output of posts before, don't ya think good management would be to delegate responsibilities in other area so there wouldn't be to many overlaps and areas not being watched. Thats what I was questioning. How many moderators came into this thread to view these and when they did this what other areas were being neglected. I probably could spend hours searches through all the threads and find rule breaking that wasn't enforced. Have already done this in the past and got dinged for it. Good managers make sure all the sections of the store are being monitored and when a fire starts in one area bring others over from their sections to help put it out. I was asking to see if all 41 (not sure if this is still the number) come running to this thread because "ole Wes" had stirred it up again and we need to see what he said so we can all spank him real hard." It also refers back to a previous analogy I used earlier. I know on Rich's other site he has the moderator listed and I assume that person is responsible for that area. I was just asking to see if that was the case here and how many moderators came running into this area because it was a "hot" spot. Denise don't fault me for being inquisitive.
|
I'm not faulting you for being inquisitive, but it's been asked many different ways and addressed many different ways - many times over. This is Rich's site, and what he says goes. The ideas being thrown at him now are not new ones, and he is perfectly aware of how it's done on other forums and what the 'norm' is. If he chooses to run his site the way he chooses, then so be it. History repeats itself on forums of all kinds, and he's right - no matter what he does, there will always be someone to gripe and voice misgivings, cry foul, cry wolf... etc. The suggestions and discussions going on now are not much different than threads and situations that have taken place here year to year, and this forum is not alone in those discussions.
There is simply no way monitoring who is on what forum could work - what would you propose happen?
Mod A is reading a thread in Mod B's section; does Mod A get a 'ticket' because he shouldn't be allowed in Mod B's section? Pffft.. I won't even give that thought.
Have you ever ran or managed a forum? Let me tell you how it works... even if Mod A sees a problem and can't mod in Mod B's section, Mod A can and will probably report the post, send a PM, or post it in the mod forum so Mod B is aware of the situation. On the other hand, it might go on not noticed. Given this situation, it wouldn't matter if one person was assigned to each forum; moderation may or may not happen, and that's just the way it is. I understand the analogy you're using, but once again, Rich is right - it doesn't apply here.
The argument about consistency is an argument that will never end, and there is no outright solution for it. Moderating is done by humans and humans are prone to the possibility of inconsistency and mistakes, whether intentional or unintentional. I've complained about this myself and shouldn't have; I know personally how forums work and how there is no way possible that every move is fair to every person. It's not that way in the real world, and it's certainly not that way here.
In order for a forum to be sufficiently moderated, it takes more than one or two people assigned to each section. There are 24 long hours in a day, and when you count the sections on Fauna, it's downright unrealistic to expect 100% consistency with realtime moderation. If someone needs that kind of supervision, perhaps seeking living quarters in a psychiatric ward would fill the need. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want to live in a situation like that.
Going back to the multiple mods, when you get that in depth with the size and expectancy of a management team, it takes more than volunteering to make it work; it takes cash paid to the people doing the management. How would you propose that happen? Well.. paid memberships, of course. Paid memberships at much higher levels and requirements than we have now, that's for sure. That's not realistic, either. There just isn't money enough in informational sites to pay for moderation - it's the way of the web.
Another option is to let it go free like it was. Did that work? Certainly not.
The alternative? Exactly what has been done. Self moderation at its finest. While not everyone agrees with the criteria of selection, after I sat back and thought about it, it's not the worst way to do it. It might not be the best, either; but most that pay for that level of membership ARE people that have time and effort into Fauna and have an interest in seeing things work. That's not to say that the members who haven't paid in DON'T have the interest, but it does say that it wasn't a priority, and that's fine. It is what it is. Not everyone can afford it, not everyone cares to afford it, and not everyone cares to do it.
Those that don't care to do it won't use it. Those that are 'bad' folks but have already paid will probably not pay again when it is time to renew.
If someone chooses to abuse the system, the self moderation will take care of that, too. If one wants to see it be more fair, there's nothing stopping that person from ante'ing up, is there? If the reason is lack of funds, then that's the way it is. It's either a priority or it's not; the world is not going to end for anyone if they can't afford to contribute.
None of this makes non paying members any more lowly than paying members, and there IS a way to stop the dogs from picking on one person... as has been said many times, over and over and over and over...
Keep it clean and don't cross the line, and there will be no trail for the dogs to follow. Many will argue that the line isn't clear, but I'm willing to bet 95% of the people that have been warned and dinged for something were perfectly aware that their post may not be in compliance with the rules. Self moderation starts with the poster not the moderators, however the moderators might be chosen.
There's a really simple rule to follow when posting most anywhere on the web...
If in doubt, leave it out.
Linear Mode
