The New System: H's late night ramblings

[Mike Greathouse]

That is certainly one of the choices you can make, Mike. See ya....

That's probably for the best.
Good luck and I hope that you find what you're looking for here.

Goodbye.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Rich,
Your system does not do enough to rein in the chaos. IMO, you will lose folks who prefer more order, and retain those who prefer more chaos.

The fact that people are covorting in the BOI making threats as they have, and are still there, is not a hard problem to solve with minor tweaks. Easy fixes would be lowering the bar, raising the point values for infractions, giving your cops more than one bullet per day, etc. There are other fixes as well that may also address a few other complaints, with a high likelihood of solving more problems than they create, again all just IMMHO, and the MHO of others here.

As for the thread you used as an example, there was support there for the banning, although plenty of criticism. It was also criticism of a unilateral decision, and not of the verdict rendered by a jury of peers.

When I look at your current jury box, I do see 40 seats. Only a dozen are occupied, and of those, several are asleep, and a couple are doing crossword puzzles.

 

[kmurphy]

Your system does not do enough to rein in the chaos. IMO, you will lose folks who prefer more order, and retain those who prefer more chaos.

And I hope, Mike G. really isn't a casualty of this.

 

[WebSlave]

Well perhaps so. Mike seems to prefer a much more controlled environment, and that certainly is his right to choose. I know there are some sites out there that are friendlier and much more controlled. Some to the extent that NO contrary opinions are allowed and such dissenting posts are deleted and the posters banned. If that environment is what anyone prefers, then I wish them well in their new home.

I just am not going to lose any sleep about not being able to please everyone and losing those people who demand that I make this site THEIR way or they will take the highway. If that is the ultimatum ANYONE chooses to present me, then .......

No ill will on my part. This site is just not for you.

 

[Sledgehammer]

Well perhaps so. Mike seems to prefer a much more controlled environment, and that certainly is his right to choose. I know there are some sites out there that are friendlier and much more controlled. Some to the extent that NO contrary opinions are allowed and such dissenting posts are deleted and the posters banned. If that environment is what anyone prefers, then I wish them well in their new home.

I just am not going to lose any sleep about not being able to please everyone and losing those people who demand that I make this site THEIR way or they will take the highway. If that is the ultimatum ANYONE chooses to present me, then .......

No ill will on my part. This site is just not for you.

As I recall, Mike has been very outspoken in other threads about his dislike of sites that are as you describe - kingsnake specifically.

My take on his issue here is that there are a couple of individuals who need to be booted for the betterment of the site, and you are either afraid or unwilling to stand up and take some necessary action.

If he really is gone, you've lost one of the better members you had here today.

Congratulations.

 

[WebSlave]

As I recall, Mike has been very outspoken in other threads about his dislike of sites that are as you describe - kingsnake specifically.

My take on his issue here is that there are a couple of individuals who need to be booted for the betterment of the site, and you are either afraid or unwilling to stand up and take some necessary action.

If he really is gone, you've lost one of the better members you had here today.

Congratulations.

Nope, neither. Plain laziness on my part. You all can do that sort of dirty work for a change........

 

[Chameleon Company]

Then put some folks in the empty jury seats who have demonstrated competence and who want the job. If the only way for us "to do that sort of dirty work for a change" is to pay you, then maybe you put too much faith in Tom Sawyer and his fence.

 

[WebSlave]

Then put some folks in the empty jury seats who have demonstrated competence and who want the job. If the only way for us "to do that sort of dirty work for a change" is to pay you, then maybe you put too much faith in Tom Sawyer and his fence.

My decision is unwavering, Jim, no matter how many times you play the same old tune.... But we'll give you an "A" for persistence...

 

[Sledgehammer]

My decision is unwavering, Jim, no matter how many times you play the same old tune.... But we'll give you an "A" for persistence...

Translated: If it doesn't put coin in my pocket, why should I bother.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Thank you for the "A", but the end result of your decision to maintain the status quo is that the dirty work isn't getting done very well. Sometimes if the best effort one can make is what we would call "half-assed", its best to not even try. I do not mean that as a personal attack. We have all faced dilemma's where our own first efforts at problem solving came up somewhat short. That's not a sin. To keep them that way after realizing such is. It ain't dirty work when done properly. When things are still soiled after the cleanup effort .... that's dirty.

What has me a bit amazed is that you yourself noted in a post recently that maybe the 500 point limit was a bit high, acknowledging why you had originally pegged it there. I believe I am accurate with that recollection, and now you are unwavering in adjusting things even as your own observations suggest areas for improvement.

My true best friends Rich are the one's that tell me when I have my head up my arse. Otherwise, they're just "yes men".

 

[Jim O]

Then put some folks in the empty jury seats who have demonstrated competence and who want the job.

Jim.

Even if Rich were to accept your advice, which we know that he won't, where is the line of said willing and able individuals?

 

[WebSlave]

Then put some folks in the empty jury seats who have demonstrated competence and who want the job.

Jim.

Even if Rich were to accept your advice, which we know that he won't, where is the line of said willing and able individuals?

And it would be all for nought anyway. The usual suspects would STILL complain about the lack of consistency, bias, and unfairness of not only the members selected, but their actions as moderators as well.

So yeah, someone go ahead and tell me I am wrong about that...

 

[Chameleon Company]

Nope. You are right Rich.

And it would be all for nought anyway. The usual suspects would STILL complain about the lack of consistency, bias, and unfairness of not only the members selected, but their actions as moderators as well.

So yeah, someone go ahead and tell me I am wrong about that...

BUT ! Many of your best will applaud the move, for most of the crying about consistency seems to come from steerage. Members of that same dedicated group might not depart as quickly, as there has been attrition. Of those here who have taken the time to earn the respect of their peers with their word talents and dedication, who wants to waste time continually jumping into threads to wordsmith with the likes of Northrup and his syringe or Sanchez with his guns? Many of us are quite capable of telling either where to put their noggins, in a post or in person. But its to swim in the gutter, and create and escalate antagonistic relationships well beyond when folks have earned a trip out the door. Who needs it ?

Ignore it ? OK. Let them trash your BOI then and scare away civil folks. I think its shortsighted. When folks criticize the BOI as a joke, etc, or quietly just don't come around anymore, its not due to the lack of quality here in what I will call "the 50", as opposed to "the 40", although there are some mutual members.

Jim O. Take the top 50 karma folks ..... "the 50". Rich can eliminate those he doesn't like from consideration. Karma is representative of dedication to the site, posting frequency, and peer approval. Then, if you want 10-20 dedicated cops, offer the job in sequence. You'll get 20 easy. And each of those 20 will know that they have 19 fellow constable/jurors who wanted the job, and have shown dedication to the site. Rich said "no way" ....... but you asked.

 

[Seamus Haley]

Take the top 50 karma folks ..... "the 50". Rich can eliminate those he doesn't like from consideration. Karma is representative of dedication to the site, posting frequency, and peer approval. Then, if you want 10-20 dedicated cops, offer the job in sequence. You'll get 20 easy. And each of those 20 will know that they have 19 fellow constable/jurors who wanted the job, and have shown dedication to the site. Rich said "no way" ....... but you asked.

Why couldn't you just answer that when I asked you which rejected selection method you were championing as an alternative earlier in this thread? When it was brought up the first time, it was rejected for a fairly specific reason- it, like post count, is too easily manipulated and doesn't actually address the underlying concern of putting bodies in a position to enforce the rules that have legitimately demonstrated a dedication to any ideals, goals or methods of enforcement that have been presented by the site staff. The karma system and any individual's karma rating were never intended to be an evaluation system for anything important and are not a valid form of peer review when it comes to putting anyone in a position (or even applying the option of volunteering to be put in a position) of authority and responsibility.

I can't really see anyone else's totals or comments or the specific number of positive or negative changes to their total... but if mine are in any way representative of the way the system is used, then it's so completely disconnected from anything meaningful as to be utterly useless. I've written a lot of posts here over the years, not as many as some other users but not a one of mine was ever "lol" or a smiley face holding a sign saying "I agree"... I've written good guy posts about transactions, bad guy posts, added comments or thoughts about business transactions, helped a couple people with animal issues, debated topics where there was contention, cracked the occassional joke and hurled an insult or two- the single highest number of positive karma responses I ever got for an individual post came when I ripped on you for defending that criminal porn queen against all logic and reason. The biggest negative hit I reccieved for a single post (and it was mixed) was for espousing an anti-hybrid viewpoint in the discussion forums. Jokes and one liners generate positive karma, holding a different viewpoint sometimes generates negative karma. The system is, once again, so far removed from any reasonable connection with rule enforcement I can only draw one conclusion about why you'd suggest it.

Oddly enough, one of the other posts that I got a lot of positive karma for was about this topic... The one where I pointed out that a lot of people arguing that mod abuse was possible were the same ones who were clamoring to have the paid requirement lowered to coincidentally put them in the group of people who'd be getting the new status and abilities. Could it be that you're too cheap to pony up for the ability but would argue for a change to the system that puts you in the user group that gets it for free?

Hell, go for it. Push for the change and if you actually manage to enact it... Well, I know dozens of people who are either already registered or that would sign up for free and start handing me positive karma for every post I've ever written if I asked them to. You know, the way whatsherface used to. Or there's always the free registration using anonymous email accounts that are allowed to give positive karma... hey, I don't even need to bother anyone else, I can artificially inflate my karma totals all by myself! [sarcasm] What a brilliant basis for selecting the people who'll have their fingers on the button, I'm glad you had the foresight to pick a selection method that's so intimately related to the idea of rule enforcement and so difficult to artificially manipulate.[/sarcasm]

In thinking about it... I really, really hope for your sake that you were pushing for that selection method because it'd be a way for you to insert yourself into a mod slot without paying for it. 'cause the alternative is that you genuinely thought it was a good idea and, any disagreements or personality conflicts you and I have had aside... I honestly didn't think you were that stupid.

 

[ravensgait]

Jim F. if you want the job so bad pony up the bucks!! you can say what you want but it comes down to some here upset that they were not picked to carry the stick around here..Well then there are others that complain no matter what changes are made and will complain the next time Rich changes something here.. Hey I said before that I didn't think this was the greatest idea in the world and was worried about those who would pay to get revenge.But guess what this is Rich's site and he can do what he wants.. Besides I don't see any chunks of the sky laying around here!!

People keep saying this and that about the site when they are really talking about the BOI. I can understand Rich's reasoning on allowing folks to hang themselves but yeah I wouldn't mind seeing a couple two or three get the boot either.

I guess things will continue to plug along here with the whiners still whining and the butt wheat's still well doing what they do and the rest will just go along as if nothing has happened at all. When someone has trouble they will come to the BOI for help and there will be those who try to help. Some folks may leave and some even missed and others will come along to ad to the site. I have to wonder if in 3 years Jim will still be trying to get Rich to do things his way, will the people who have done nothing but complain about everything since I've been around still be complaining or will they finally give up and or be replaced by new complainers. Ah the possibilities !
Randy

 

[Seamus Haley]

Oh and uh... since it's a big topic and it's all about opinions... I figure I'll mention again that- based on what I look for out of the website- Fauna was at it's peak when there were three or four active, dedicated supermods. I have no idea what kind of selection process Rich used when he picked them; who approached who with the idea, what kind of discussions happened about what was "expected" or at least anticipated or what kind of discussions went on behind the scenes about things like site rules or which issues were to be emphasized as important...

And the discussions from everyone outside that group hollering about why they did or didn't like it or making demands of the people who have been in that position are... they've been done. Many times. I wouldn't go so far as to demand the kind of dedication that these guys have shown in the past and fully understand why they're sometimes reluctant or unable to keep that pace up in the present... but I appreciate what they did and continue (to whatever degree) to do. I'd love to see a few more people brought on as supermods and I do not doubt that there are willing individuals... but that's an insanely high level of trust to put on someone and when it comes right down to it- anyone asking for the responsibility and headaches stands a good chance of being someone that would cause more problems than they solve. It's also a process that once again becomes active and requires attention from Rich that he's simply unable to give anymore.

Scaling down the... suspension (?) level could have some positive ramifications. The supermods; when active, have occassionaly thrown real problem cases out on their ear when the justification was there and it didn't always take two weeks for things to escalate to that point... Dropping the suspension level down to a lower number has the drawback of opening the system to some abuses but the overwhelming benefit of working faster. I'm not sure what number would really work... three hundred? Three fifty? I'm frankly not inclined to do the speculative math when the number of active new mods is still something of an unknown. Maybe toss in the addition of banning after a couple suspensions again too... suspended three (or five or ten or... whatever) times? More trouble than they're worth.

 

[Jim O]

And it would be all for nought anyway. The usual suspects would STILL complain about the lack of consistency, bias, and unfairness of not only the members selected, but their actions as moderators as well.

Ya think?

Jim O. Take the top 50 karma folks ..... "the 50". Rich can eliminate those he doesn't like from consideration. Karma is representative of dedication to the site, posting frequency, and peer approval. Then, if you want 10-20 dedicated cops, offer the job in sequence. You'll get 20 easy. And each of those 20 will know that they have 19 fellow constable/jurors who wanted the job, and have shown dedication to the site. Rich said "no way" ....... but you asked.

I'm not certain that he'd get 20 (though he might get 10) from that group for the very reason that was mentioned above. Who then is to say that they would be any more "effective" than the 10-15 or so active members of the current posse? With the exception of possibly a couple of those individuals, the rest seem to have been conscientious and "consistent". Not that I love the idea that there is an admission price to give warning points, but Rich has a point, and that point is that if you like this site and benefit from it, and really think the trash needs to go out, then be part of the solution. It's his site and he's entitled to create revenue sources on it but even if it draws 20 additional Benefactor level memberships that isn't going to change his standard of living or move up his retirement. After he pays the taxes on it, he might have enough for insurance on his Corvette.

And yes, there are some bad guys out there with the ability who haven't pulled the trigger, but if they really abused the system then Rich and the others can put them out of business with "abuse of warning system" points. Like you said, each point is worth about a dime.

Well, I know dozens of people who are either already registered or that would sign up for free and start handing me positive karma for every post I've ever written if I asked them to. You know, the way whatsherface used to. Or there's always the free registration using anonymous email accounts that are allowed to give positive karma... hey, I don't even need to bother anyone else, I can artificially inflate my karma totals all by myself!

That would take a long time, as one can only leave karma twice in 24 hours and can't give the same person twice until they have give (I believe) 20 others karma so that's once every ten days at most. New registrants cannot give any karma until they have 100 posts, and and their "power" is dependent on post total, length of site membership, and karma total.

So, while karma is imperfect, it is some measure of what other site members think of one's posts. As a starting point for Rich to gather a list, it might not be a bad place (though I suspect that he could come up with a similar list without looking at karma), but it would only be a starting point. At that it would involve far more work and effort than Rich wants at this point, and that is a completely understandable.

 

[WebSlave]

Actually, all things considered (and pretty much in agreement with the flaws noted by Seamus) the karma system would be one of the LAST rule of thumb criteria that I would have considered for mods. I do monitor those comments made every now and again, and it is pretty amusing to see a group of "usual suspects" who will regularly give positive karma to ANYONE who has anything negative to say about myself or this site. And on a similar note, some of those members higher up in the karma ratings even actively took part in bashing this site, myself, and other members here. So for whatever reasons people hold dear to them about the karma system, using it as a measure of members most qualified (and wanted) to be moderators likely shouldn't be one of them.

Sorry, but no. There were a lot of possibilities to use as criteria, and I selected the one that I felt was best to utilize. Heck, VERY recently one of the members a lot of people felt would be very highly recommended to be a moderator here got himself worked up into a tiff and pretty much told me by his actions that if I didn't make this site the way HE wanted it to be, he was leaving. Personally that sort of attitude would make me pretty nervous coming from a moderator. But perhaps people with short memory spans have forgotten some of the problems I have already had with moderators who went into destructive mode here. Certainly I never would have expected THAT either from them, but it DID happen, and certainly CAN happen again. So there is no PERFECT way to select anyone for such a job.

As for the comments that anyone can buy into this, well yes, they can. I would interpret that as meaning anyone can help in a multi-faceted way with this site in that manner. Someone could very well want to help out financially here as well as being placed into a position whereby they can make a real difference in regulating the way things will go here. If they desire to do so, they can actively guide the manner in which posting on this site will be considered acceptable or not. And that is a bad thing? Not in MY book! Actually, I would classify that pretty highly on my list of GOOD things for this site!

As for abuse, well yeah, people can generally screw up an anvil with a rubber mallet if they are suitable motivated to do so. This will be no different. But they do have some risk involved if that is their goal, which will hopefully greatly limit that possibility. Blatant abuse would likely get that mod soundly nuked in short order. Which means that they would get suspended and fined $50 for that activity. This also means that unless they pay that $50 fine, then that $100 spent on becoming a higher level paid member JUST to attack someone with warning points will be flushed down the hopper as well. So how many members will be THAT motivated to "buy into" the warning system just to cause trouble? In my opinion, pretty darn few, if any.

Further, having this set up in this manner is just EASY on me. And EASY is a REAL GOOD THING right now. It is pretty nearly completely automated. If someone pays for the higher level membership, they are automatically granted access to the warning system. If they allow it to lapse when the year is up, or run WAY afoul of being abusive with the warning points and get suspended, they will then lose that privilege. ALL this is automatic. I don't have to life a finger if I don't want to. And THAT is the way I want it to be. My original reason for doing this was because I wanted to be able to step away from the grind (and subsequent followup abuse) of enforcement of the rules here, yet give control to those members who pointedly want to use it. And honestly this was an experiment that I felt worth trying out to see how well (or if at all) it would work. And, so far, I do FIRMLY believe that this is REASONABLY accomplishing what I wanted it to.

So in a nutshell, this was my decision to make, and I made it. I am not entertaining any recommendations from anyone to change this system to something I have already considered and rejected. There may be tweaks involved down the road, but again, I am not at this time soliciting opinions to change anything prematurely. This project is still VERY young and needs some time to break in before making any decisions. To most of the mods, this is being one hell of a learning experience, so I fully intend to give them the time to grow into what is needed from those who choose to participate.

So Jim, this is for you: Cease with the campaign, please. I know it is difficult for you to let go of something, but this is a dead issue and you are following along in the footsteps of others who kept on badgering me about one of my decisions. It will likely continue until one or both of us just gets exasperated, frustrated, then angry at the other. I don't think neither one of us wants to go down that path to where it ultimately leads, if history is any guide.

 

[hhmoore]

(I will probably regret stepping back into this, lol)

Regarding the issue of "taking out the garbage". I have to admit that, were we more dedicated to that goal, we could have ousted a person or three by now. Take the aforementioned Terry Scott Sanchez (PLEASE!!). He accumulated a whole lot of points in a short period of time. I entered the fray fairly early, and subsequently hit him again before the dust settled. Now, if piling on the points WERE the objective, I could have gone back to that thread daily and hit him for something different...as could any/all of the other adjunct mods. However, once the offending activity has stopped, it seems to me that OUR job is done. Keep in mind that a common theme heard in the various threads is consistency. If we were to target one person in that manner, shouldn't we make a habit of doing it to anybody that makes more than one offensive post within 24 hrs (or even ganging up on every infraction seen)? Imagine how loudly the populace would scream about our actions, then. We are the underlings, the keepers of the peace, the minders of the shop. The big dogs can be the ones to make the moral judgement about who needs to get booted.

 

[ravensgait]

Well said Harald.... I find it funny that some are so worried about a few people who can hand out warnings. Heck as has been pointed out we don't have much power in our single shot one pump a day BB guns.If someone tries to run amok I think they'd be noticed and dealt with before the month or so it would take to run someones warning level up to 500.. Much ado about nothing...Randy