"Around our Membership" or ??

But if I buy the second round, we're just going dutch....right?

LAP

Moderation should be used seldom and in well moderation, it's a discussion board and the best post ever might have come 37 seconds after someone got premature ejaculate on the lock button. What makes me qualified to tell you how to run your board? Well nothing except I've been doing it with the worst offenders, for a very long time. I've never locked a thread, because I was never afraid of what someone would post. Edited yes and scolded often, even my friends. Do you really think the members or the board are harmed by an open thread?

I believe it was WTF that wrote a very thoughtful post about why locking threads wasn't always great plan, but I couldn't find it. If someone does, please quote it here it's worth reading. The gist of it: cut people off don't let them post it out and you build resentment and ill will, let the treads die a natural death.

Now for the brutally honest part, I shouldn't be the voice of the "tiny e" (it's funnier and easier to say the ECKee or whatever) my opinion isn't more important or better than anyones. Neither should dearhunter, Whispers (ok especially Whispers j/k well sort of, have a laugh this is serious SHMB shit so it must be funny), WickedMILF, some post hoe or Deuce or ck1942 be the most impotent (typo and it stays) voice here. Sometimes a poster tries to set the tone for a board and that can be a good or bad thing.

Have a level playing field let the community sort it out, a gentle nudge may be needed from time to time. Sometimes a handle has just too much baggage, the poster might have something to contribute but the cult of personality gets in the way of that. Have them post under a different one for a while or something, you kids are smart you'll figure it out.

This mythical SHMB where there is never any conflict is great in theory, very boring for the members in practice. A light hand on the tiller can be as simple as limiting Whispers to 140 characters or dearhunter to fore telling the future or suggesting that Father Wayward returns to the Island of Misfit Toys to piss in that sandbox. WickedMILF I think she might cut you so you should let her do pretty much whatever she wants, just like the skipper did.

If folks don't want to read a thread they shouldn't read it, if they don't want anyone else to read it, I would ask why? If you find yourselves locking the threads with the most page views, you might be asking what is up with that?

Is someone pounding the RTM or are the good shepherds just over watching the flock?

LAP

We can go with that................

LAP

We can go with that................ Originally Posted by dearhunter

sniff sniff...... something smells around here.........You kids should get a room and order drinks from room service....

1) Moderation should be used seldom and in well moderation, it's a discussion board and the best post ever might have come 37 seconds after someone got premature ejaculate on the lock button.

2) Have a level playing field let the community sort it out, a gentle nudge may be needed from time to time.

3) This mythical SHMB where there is never any conflict is great in theory, very boring for the members in practice.

4) If folks don't want to read a thread they shouldn't read it, if they don't want anyone else to read it, I would ask why? If you find yourselves locking the threads with the most page views, you might be asking what is up with that?
Originally Posted by Wayward

For those that get lost in some of his flowery prose I grabbed four solid points he made.......

And if Eccie wants bragging rights to a near miracle..... Whispers and Wayward have never posted anywhere in the last 8 years in agreement with each other on any subject.......

Maybe we are getting too fucking old to care anymore....

Nanu nanu

I believe it was WTF that wrote a very thoughtful post about why locking threads wasn't always great plan, but I couldn't find it.? Originally Posted by Wayward

I don't think I've ever seen "WTF" & "thoughtful post" in the same sentence, but I guess it is a new decade...

For the most part in the Board I frequent most (D&T) it appears we've done an ok job of self moderation.

I'm not asking for more moderation, but if our 3 mods (none of which I know) could introduce themselves I think that would be great. And if there are "rules" that are deal breakers state them up front; hopefully in consultation with the membership.

Damn I though the whole post could have been reduced to the 140 character limit for Whispers?

I think this is an important issue.

In my opinion, some extremely heavy-handed moderation was done on ASPD, and it was tolerated by the membership because of ASPD's vast store of information.

The worst thing, to me, was that some ASPD moderators (and no, I'm not going to name names) acted at times like petulant children. Emotion has no place in moderating decisions; if a user angers a mod, the mod should recuse himself and ask another mod to look at the situation.

Another thing to avoid is the capricious locking of threads, as has been alluded to here. If a couple of posts in a lengthy thread are out of line, delete or edit those posts instead, and include a warning to that poster.

The other big issue, often mentioned but rarely substantiated, was moderators giving preferential treatment to providers in exchange for some sort of gratuity. Did it actually happen? Men being men, and women being women, I'd be astonished if it didn't. How can it be addressed? The only way I know is to have anonymous mods, known only to the board owners... or to have an occasional "Secret Shopper" member test the mods occasionally, offering a freebie in exchange for a favor.

I think a big part of this was the fact that mods at ASPD tended to stay around for a LONG time, and that the membership had zero feedback on the installation or removal of mods. An occasional anonymous (to everyone but the site owner) vote of confidence on each mod would be a great step toward allowing the membership to give feedback on the mods without fear of reprisal.

Bottom line: ASPD had some good mods, and some bad mods. Overall, I'd give their staff a C- in terms of how they ran the discussion forums. Assuming ECCIE would like to aim higher, I'd think about JUDICIOUSLY adding the ASPD mods whose philosophy and integrity were in line with that of the ownership of ECCIE, and I'd strongly consider a good deal of new blood to the moderating pool.

Doesn't an influx of former ASPD Staff open Eccie up to taking on the "flavor" of the recently departed ASPD as well as put it at risk of evolving into what ASPD most recently was? Originally Posted by Whispers

Why should that be so? There were moderators and administrators on aspd who were good as well as bad. Rejecting all former aspd personnel just becasuse they were part of aspd would make no more sense than accepting any or all of them indescrimately. So far, eccie seems to have done well seperating the wheat from the chaff. What eccie becomes will be determined by the owners' abilities to choose wisely based on the qualities of an individual. Having been with aspd could be just as much a disadvantage as an advantage since one presumably could gain some insight by knowing how a potential moderator or administrator has performed elsewhere.

Wayward posted:
Do you really think the members or the board are harmed by an open thread?

If the threads are nothing more than antagonistic rants and some sort of decorum is not enforced, then many members who are not interested in personal diatribes will go elsewhere. In that case, the board is harmed by the rants of a few individuals and the members are harmed by threads filled with bullshit that displaces information. IMNSHO, the owners owe it to themselves to run the board as they see fit and let the chips fall where they may. They are the ones who took the risk of investing their money to start eccie (without asking for donations in advance).

Blowpop posted:
The other big issue, often mentioned but rarely substantiated, was moderators giving preferential treatment to providers in exchange for some sort of gratuity. Did it actually happen? Men being men, and women being women, I'd be astonished if it didn't.

If no one comes forward to substantiate it, you're sol in answering that question

How can it be addressed? The only way I know is to have anonymous mods, known only to the board owners... or to have an occasional "Secret Shopper" member test the mods occasionally, offering a freebie in exchange for a favor.

Having anonymous moderators serves no purpose. In fact, it allows anyone to claim he is mod X to exploit exactly what you think it will prevent. You can see how well it worked for ahc. Second, the ``Secret Shopper'' can easily be exploited by any provider: ``Hi, I'm the ``Secret Shopper. Do me a favor and I won't report you.'' The bottom line is that you have to trust someone, so the right place to do it is in choosing the right people in the first place and being willing to address issues as the issues arise, not after the fact - just like any other business. I would never hire people I had to treat like criminals by setting traps for them nor would I work for anyone who does those things. You can't run a business by suspecting everyone of wrongdoing without having unhappy employees and a large turnover.

Thanks for the feedback here by everyone involved, and honestly at some point it gets where we are restating the obvious and beating a dead horse.

Just like members, such as yourself, the volunteer staff carry their reputations with them everywhere they go. It's a fact of life that you, me, we all need to accept.

Here on ECCIE we have a good mix of new blood and former ASPD staff. With the death of ASPD we were flooded by requests from former staff to come aboard. This afforded us the luxury of being able to pick and choose who we felt would fit the ECCIE "model" We are still in the process of deciding on some at this very moment.

We'd like to think we have made excellent choices with our staff selections so far. I've heard very little about past reputations, and even if there are one or two cases where someone brings with them a negative perception, they'll get a chance to turn over a new leaf here.

This board is much bigger than me, you, any one member or any one staff member. Part of the ECCIE mission statement defines our stance regarding people who have chosen this board as their home. I'll restate for those who have not read it yet.

Everyone who gets here starts with a clean slate. That goes for you and the membership and that goes for my staff. We have a welcoming attitude toward people wanting to be a part of this family, and that's the way it is until someone wears out their welcome here, which unfortunately has already happened in a few instances.

Becky and I have put in place a certain standard that we have asked our staff to apply to how they conduct business on this board, .... much of what is being discussed here (locking threads, deleting things, edits, reprimands, etc) falls within that standard which has been very clearly explained to my staff before they were appointed.

Each have agreed to abide by that standard, and while I'm sure there's a member or two out there who'd love to have a hand in defining that standard for us, we thank you but it's already in place, and I've already seen cases where some of my newer staff have dealt with something differently than they may have on ASPD as a result of this standard. Believe me, there's alot of behind the scenes coaching going on as well. Trust me when I say that the vision that gave birth to this board is NOT going to change due to some added staff; if anything, the staff will be molded based on our vision. That's by no means an overnight process, but it won't take an unreasonably long time to happen either.

There will, and will always be people who seek to test the waters. It goes with the territory. That's understandable and while the vast majority will fit in comfortably without the need to do so, there will be those who will rely on this method to determine for themselves if this is the place they really want to be. For the ones in that group, we hope they reach the conclusion they are after.

T