Proposed changes to Totse policy
Amie
Regular
This thread is intend to discuss the changes in Totse policy we consider necessary in order to allow this community to flourish. Let's keep this a constructive thread, please.
Fatty, TDR, Spectral, Daguru: this is the thread in which you can post your suggestions for improving Totse's policy. Please keep it civil. Post your suggestions, give serious, constructive replies to the other posted suggestions and stick to doing just that. Don't feed the trolls.
Speaking about trolls: The nr. 1 thing I want to see changed is the way troll posts are dealt with. IMO we need to make more effort to trash troll posts in the serious forums, 'cause the "don't feed the trolls and they will starve" policy is IMO insufficient. Half Baked and, to a lesser degree, Spurious Generalities and Bitch and Moan, are the only forums in which troll posts should be allowed. All other forums: move 'em to the trash. AFAIK that's not a very difficult thing to do.
However, this only applies to troll posts.
Going off-topic is not trolling IMO, that's just the way a thread evolves. It's up to the forum moderator to decide how far off-topic he will let a thread go, but I'd prefer to see a rather lenient policy concerning going off-topic, as long as it's constructive. It's also up to the moderator to decide how strict he is in his subforums regarding what he considers a troll and what not. That way, every subforum gets it's own atmosphere. People looking for serious conversation go to the more serious forums, people looking to post random characters go to half baked, people looking to vandalize threads in the serious forums go to the trash.
Nr. 2: No more guest posting, no double accounts. I don't think this one needs explaining.
Nr. 3: Every user is treated equal. If a moderator is strict, he is strict for every user who posts in his forum. If he is lenient, he is lenient for every user who posts in his forum. The rules are the rules, and they are to be followed.
And speaking of mods, nr. 4: No demi-mods. It will not prevent the things it was created to prevent, 'cause it's very unlikely for a mod to get pissed, trash the place and leave in his first two weeks. When a mod is appointed, warn him to use his buttons very, VERY carefully, but let him moderate already.
Fatty, TDR, Spectral, Daguru: this is the thread in which you can post your suggestions for improving Totse's policy. Please keep it civil. Post your suggestions, give serious, constructive replies to the other posted suggestions and stick to doing just that. Don't feed the trolls.
Speaking about trolls: The nr. 1 thing I want to see changed is the way troll posts are dealt with. IMO we need to make more effort to trash troll posts in the serious forums, 'cause the "don't feed the trolls and they will starve" policy is IMO insufficient. Half Baked and, to a lesser degree, Spurious Generalities and Bitch and Moan, are the only forums in which troll posts should be allowed. All other forums: move 'em to the trash. AFAIK that's not a very difficult thing to do.
However, this only applies to troll posts.
Going off-topic is not trolling IMO, that's just the way a thread evolves. It's up to the forum moderator to decide how far off-topic he will let a thread go, but I'd prefer to see a rather lenient policy concerning going off-topic, as long as it's constructive. It's also up to the moderator to decide how strict he is in his subforums regarding what he considers a troll and what not. That way, every subforum gets it's own atmosphere. People looking for serious conversation go to the more serious forums, people looking to post random characters go to half baked, people looking to vandalize threads in the serious forums go to the trash.
Nr. 2: No more guest posting, no double accounts. I don't think this one needs explaining.
Nr. 3: Every user is treated equal. If a moderator is strict, he is strict for every user who posts in his forum. If he is lenient, he is lenient for every user who posts in his forum. The rules are the rules, and they are to be followed.
And speaking of mods, nr. 4: No demi-mods. It will not prevent the things it was created to prevent, 'cause it's very unlikely for a mod to get pissed, trash the place and leave in his first two weeks. When a mod is appointed, warn him to use his buttons very, VERY carefully, but let him moderate already.
Comments
Let it be anarchy, assholes.
First of all thank you for the recognition but you have 4 people lumped together under one label when in fact you should be using 2 separate labels for two of them and a third label for two of them. I understand you are still angry because the first thing I said to you was "Who the fuck are you?" But really, get over it already.
While I agree with the spirit of this part but you need to define what a troll means to you. I have seen hundreds of people weigh in on what a troll is and no two people seem to have the same definition. Therefore at this point in the discussion troll is a very subjective term. With subjectivity you get actions based on opinion and not facts or agreed upon definitions.
Letting every mod decide for themselves what is off topic and what is not is fine on the surface. But when you fuck up and mod the wrong person then you are in for more Zos/Flabbyshark action. The other problem with this approach is again, you are back to subjectivity. Of course there is no avoiding that really so this part of your suggestion is really kind of moot.
Agreed
What favoritism have you personally been subjected to? I know I have not seen any of it myself. I have seen DFG be lenient with Fatty, Spectral, and DaGuru. But I have not really seen any other users who are disruptive to require any sort of leniency.
What are the things it was created to prevent in your opinion?
Keeping the trolls out of serious threads is what thread bans are for. Something you seem to be against.
There is a difference between a thread veering off topic like will happen in any conversation and people like DaGuru/Spectral who derail them on purpose to make sure the focus is always on them/
I agree with you here.
Users already are treated equally here. So I'm not sure why you felt the need to add this. Stop buying into spectrals crap like it's gospel.
So we should get rid of the demi mod thing because it made spectral butthurt? Really what harm does it do? In fact in the case of spectral I think it already helped us avoid a power hungry mod by him straight up saying he wouldnt agree to it.
You four are currently causing the most debate. That's why you're all named in one breath.
Also, I honestly don't care about the "who the fuck are you?" and I never have. I dislike you because you have acted like a huge pain in the ass for way too long and because you act like you're wiser, more respectable and generally better than the rest of us. But let's keep our personal differences out of this.
Good point.
Attempt at defining trolls: A troll is a post / thread which is not intended to provoke a constructive debate and disrupts the flow of the conversation / the subforum.
Off course, that is also a subjective definition, and that brings us to your second point. I don't think it's possible to completely rule out subjective moderation. If a user feels like he's being treated unfairly he can PM the mod, if that fails to resolve the issue PM a global mod / admin and if that also doesn't satisfy him he can create a thread in which he tells the whole community how much of an asshole mod X is for deleting his thread about fuzzy shoelace ends.
What I'm trying to say is: let a mod be a mod for a while and review his actions. If he's not good at it, demod him. AFAIK, all actions a mod takes are reviewable and revokable by the other mods / admins, so it can't be too hard to keep an eye on the new mods.
Me? None. Not talking about myself here, but other users have been treated too strict / too lenient. But I don't want to keep stirring up old shit, this thread is about moving forward.
AFAIK it was created shortly after Fanglekai deleted his posts and left. And the issue of somebody being modded who decided he didn't want to be a mod so he banned everybody was also mentioned when demi-modship was created. Anyway, the first thing won't be prevented by a two week demi-modship and the second thing can be prevented by careful selection of new mods and reviewing their actions.
Yes. I'm still a HUGE free speech fan. If a user decides he wants to take part in a serious discussion which he trolled before, he should be able to do so without having his posts reviewed first or whatever else. The rest of your post is already answered above.
Number 2: Agreed and it's done already.
Number 3: I try to treat everyone equally.
Number 4: I planned to make Demi Mods for 1 week but I had to increase the time due to this drama. Personally I would prefer not using this option but gives us a buffer to work with.
When it comes to giving mod full power to do whatver they want, we already allow that. As long as the Mods don't break the rules and follow the guidelines.
Threads do get moved to trash but yes we need to define some guidelines of what is what. Most of the mods asked about this and I tried to clear this in some guides but still it's a difficult subject to handle.
Again, thanks for this thread Amie. Please, everyone contribute as much as you can.
Can we please not do this here. I don't want to create drama here
EDIT: There he goes again :facepalm:
DFG, please scroll back up and reread Amie's takes in regard to demi-mods. She has already explained quite clearly why the whole concept is flawed if not redundant...yet you have given us no true "reason" at why this whole demi-mod idealogy is so imperative in your mind.
Please try again with your response, and explain to us all the "need" for the whole demi-mod part of the equation.
Demi Mod was created as buffer before adding new Mods. When a user is Demi Mod he gets access to everything except the ban button. The Demi mods get trained by other mods and they learn the ropes. It also lets them contribute more freely and after 1 or 2 week the Demi Mod in question is reviewed and if he performs well he is promoted to Moderator group and he gets access to the CMS.
It's a two stage procedure since we give access to the CMS and we need to take care of snitches and problem makers that can't handle the job. It's also a way to train new mods the ways of totse. By removing the element of power the mods use wit to handle problems.
It's been running successfully. Plus, using this method we can add new mods easily and limit any damage caused if the mod in question goes haywire.
I believe that off topic posts should always be allowed. Well, what I feel about the Thread Ban is that it is just a way to wiggle out of the problem. I feel there are two options, you can ban the member or you can let them post off topic. Personally, I would prefer if users were allowed to post off topic because discussions often can go in many directions, if the users do not want to discuss the off topic post, they can continue with their thread in the fashion that they prefer. The Thread Ban is just an attempt to compromise between these things, so that we can still say that we do not ban members while we are still censoring them. A site that is driven by strong principles and ideals should never have to compromise for anyone.
I completely support this. It is in the original rules, and I believe that mulple accounts should result in a ban.
I completely support this, simply because I believe that all totseans should be treated equally.
I have no problem with the demi mod system. In fact, I think that it was one of Dfg's better ideas. The people who want immediate power should not be trusted, and are power hungry. I support the idea that a moderator should first learn to moderate with out banning people. I don't want to ban anyone (yes, I know that sometimes it is necessary), but it is not enjoyable.
Now the thing that I do not like about the demi mod to moderator process is what Dfg said about having to do a background check on demi mods. If you don't trust us or have any questions about our beliefs, just ask!
Seriously.... Background checks? :facepalm:
There must really be something important like state secrets that you have to hide from us. :rolleyes:
Again, Amie did in fact refute all of this above....and point out all of the redundancy...but I do appreciate you giving a more detailed explanation as to why you think it is necessary here.
Isn't that the same as a regular mod?
These are the rules that I believe should be set in stone, as well as my opinion concerning spam and off topic posts.
The way I see it is that most of those rules regulate threads. Even in SG there were rules such as a requirement that each thread be started by at least one complete sentence that would generate discussion, not just saying "discuss".
The only rules that should regulate individual posts are 3,4, and 5 which I believe should be strictly enforced.
Aside from that I do not believe there should be any regulation of individual posts. DirtySanchez and fanglekai have said that on totse there were strict rules, and they are correct but the rules applied mainly to those who started threads, not those who posted in them. The idea of an "off topic posts rule" was not an original totse idea and comes from zoklet influence.
On totse, we have seen many people post things like "+1",or "5char", or "InB4 Lock", and the moderators did nothing about it. None of us complained then because there was so much great content and we enjoyed it.
This "no off topic posts" thing was just made by Zok to make his forum like every other forum on the internet.
Background checks == Checking IPs etc. We will have new enemies on Totse in future. There is always a group of haters trying to destroy something. In reality those checks don't get placed unless the person in question is a bit suspicious. I do trust you but accounts get hacked and things go wrong. Think of this as a way for future Admins, mods to check things out. In reality, I know almost all of my mods and Demi mods. So, those checks aren't in place anyway.
Yeah, I don't get it what the difference is supposed to be. A ban is like the easiest thing to reverse.
And what is the CMS exactly and what harm can somebody do there?
And if the CMS is the only thing where a mod can do serious harm, why not just restrict access to the CMS for his first couple weeks?
I am pro off topic posts, as long as they contain at least some content. What I am against is threads in the serious forums being filled with facepalms, penises, STFU's, insults and just plain e-vandalism. Yes, ignoring a couple users gets you rid of most of that, but even Fatty has posted two or three serious posts, and I'd hate to miss those.
I understand why you are doing it, but I don't think that it will ever be that serious. Moderators cannot hard delete anything, only an administrator can do that. Any problem created by a moderator such as deleting content, can be reversed by you in a matter of seconds. Now, you might believe that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of care" stuff, but it is not worth creating an elite hidden M&A group, because that very institution was created by Zok. If we work that way, this site will become like zoklet.
You're right. How about a 1 week of delay and the mod moves to Moderator group
But what is the buffer needed for?
Bans are easy to reverse, and access to the CMS can be restricted seperately (well - I figure it shouldn't be too hard to do that but I know next to nothing about most of this).
I think that would be acceptable.
It is not bans that I am concerned with, I would be fine even if I never get the power to ban people.
What I am against is keeping certain aspects of policy making hidden from the community. It leads to elitism, users making assumptions, and ideas of a secret agenda. All three of those things just adds to the confusion and drama.
*sigh*
Here we go again, community/MULTIPLE members (including staff) are trying to explain to you why your idea is flawed. Yet you STILL hold to your own belief system with a death grip that ONLY you agree with.....and in THIS particular scenario "community's wishes" is completely irrelevant, or dare is say off topic to even bring into this conversation?
See folks, this is why Spectral said above that talk is cheap. Dfg's profound stubbornness and whatever personal agenda trumps all the other cutesy buzzphrases and rhetoric that he applies willy nilly on a whim when it suits him.
Actually this makes a lot of sense.
The idea is fine, and would require an active administrator like Dfg, but I think the administrator should be an "absentee dictator" who rarely interferes like it was in the past. I don't think they should be banning people regularly.
It's mostly needed by me to adjust new mods and give them some attention and it also allows for a smoother welcome in the team.
Most of the policy is discussed openly but I do feel it needs to be centralized in some way,
How about global Moderators?
Now, you're really trying to derail this thread. I suggest you take your drama some place else.
I think all moderators should be allowed to ban users the way they were on totse, but it should not be taken lightly. Moderators should only ban people if the reason falls within those ten rules in the FAQ. If any moderators bans a user for a reason that is not in the rules, they should be demodded with out any second chances.
Ok. Then how about changing the name to new moderator instead of demi-mod? They're not half-mods, just new. That way you're not creating a second class of mods but you've still got your seperate group for administrative purposes and people can see "Gee, that dude got modded recently?".
About banning: I personally don't care if mods can or cannot ban a user. Banning is a last resort measure IMO. I think this place for the most part can be kept pleasant without banning people. But we do need to make sure there are enough active people with a banhammer to keep spambots out of here, and maybe give the occasional flooder a time-out. But either give every mod a banhammer or none of them.
Done, the second one will need a bit of time to work out.
Again, spectral you're trying to derail this thread. Amie you can see how users like these tend to disrupt serious threads like these. Even after two request he still doesn't back off. What should we do about these type of users?
Oh btw, go make a new thread about this Spectral. Your lies will never cease to end it seems.
But, I thought they were half mods, seeing as how they have half of the powers. There are two categories of power, the first is to manipulate threads, and the second is the power to ban.
Also, I don't think there should be any user titles except:
Administrator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Regular
Any more titles, and we will be like zoklet.
Super Moderator = Global Mod
As for the New Mods that will be only in affect for a week. Which means current mods will be promoted shortly.
Do you have any proof for such an accusation?
He doesn't
Anyway, I will rape Spectral a new asshole over this.
How about removing the "New Arrival" and "Acolyte" titles? I think the titles should show official positions, not post counts. I also don't like the idea of titles being related to posts, because I think users should post for the sake of posting, not for some meaningless number. Making sure that user title is not connected to post count would also encourage users to put more effort into their posts and would discourage users form spamming just to get a title/avatar.
It's not really a primary concern, but since we are discussing policy....
Actually it's a bit too late in the game to change that. There are users in those groups and it will fuck up some permissions here and there. Sorry mate I can't remove them
IMO either all mods or no mods should get banning powers. But I don't care either way.
He's probably talking about how a couple guys on here helped pay for the VBulletin license back in July - which AFAIK was all donated straight to Hellish and he's the one who owns the license now.
Spectral, I honestly don't know what you're trying to achieve now. Could you please just either contribute to the thread and join the discussions going on or take it to bitch & moan? I know you can contribute. Some of your posts had very good content. But not the ones in this thread. If you don't want to contribute to this forum anymore, fine. But if that's the case just leave already. You've said what you wanted to say in more than enough threads. Repeating it over and over is just tiring everybody out.
I thought you could do anything now? Anyway, it is not the most important thing. The number of posts and permissions don't seem to match though,
This was on totse:
New Arrival = 0 - 29 posts
Acolyte = 30 - 99 posts
Regular = 100 posts
It seems to change here, some people are not regulars even once they reach 100 posts, then suddenly it changes at some number such as 112.
I never paid anything towards this site since I'm a broke motherfucker and I seem to have my opinions heard on here just fine. Stop with this conspiracy bullshit. And Poast is a good name.
Changed
I am sure Hellish will find this comment very interesting. Spectral contribute or beat it.
Say what?
Could you please elaborate, because I still don't get what you are trying to say here. Could you describe SPECIFIC stuff that you are talking about, not quite as broad based as this?
Whether you want to admit it or not Dfg, you taking $$$$ is one of a very few plausible explantions to piece together exactly why you've been going about this the way you have.
Nothing else makes much sense, so yeah.....there ARE people speculating with all kinds of theories/ideas why you would appear to sell-out the real Totse ideals so blatantly and in the public realm.
While not overly opposed to off topic posts, I do not agree with the censorship of them. Although I do not fully comprehend how a post is to be considered both off-topic and constructive.
This should go without saying.
This. While the Demi-mod system may not be absolutely necessary, it has already proved effective, leading to its potential to make things go over more smoothly in the future.
The most effective way of dealing with trolls in the past has been to ignore them. If overburdening to a particular user, they have the option to use the ignore feature. If it is clearly an issue rather than nonsensical banter, the moderator of the forum should warn through pm or infraction (decided by the mod and dependent on severity). Censorship in any fashion does not sit well with me, address the matter directly (not insinuating thread bans) or not at all.
If a system were implemented in which higher ups ultimately decided the status of a ban, a small selection of global moderators should have to come to a consensus concerning the matter; any form of sole power allows for a larger potential for bias.
Ultimately though, I feel that the moderators should have the power to ban within their own forums, although each ban should be noted within the mod team, minimally "screened" if you will.
I am partial to these three "titles". Once you get past regular, 100 posts being a relatively low number (coming from an acolyte
Although I am not opposed to:
Although not absolutely settled on the matter myself, I am curious as to your opinion of a "donate button" of some sort, or is a procedure already in effect? While I don't feel that one should ever ask for money, I am not opposed to those who utilized a system contributing in various fashions at their own free will.
No gold stars please.
Edit: My apologies for all of the quotes.