Someone put a dime in the meter over there

External Since: May 04, 2007 Posts: 3021

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:11:24 -0400, salty DeleteThis @dog.com wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:34:08 -0700 (PDT), justwaitafrekinminute DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 3, 8:17 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing <em... DeleteThis @swsportsremove.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:54:31 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>
>>>> justwaitafrekinmin... DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 3, 7:25 pm, "Jim" <j... DeleteThis @boatnet.net> 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.

External Since: May 10, 2008 Posts: 273

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 01:14:56 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
<email RemoveThis @swsportsremove.org> wrote:

>On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:11:24 -0400, salty RemoveThis @dog.com wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:34:08 -0700 (PDT), justwaitafrekinminute RemoveThis @gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 3, 8:17 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing <em... RemoveThis @swsportsremove.org>
>>>wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:54:31 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>
>>>> justwaitafrekinmin... RemoveThis @gmail.com wrote:
>>>> >On Jul 3, 7:25 pm, "Jim" <j... RemoveThis @boatnet.net> 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.

Heck, I suggested to Chuck that he make JimH and Harry co-moderators over
there. Pretty soon there'd only be three posters, but everything would be
all sweetness and light amongst the three.

Chuck deleted my idea. I felt pretty badly. But, I'll survive. Maybe.