Self Moderation

[FullMetal]

There seems to be some contention over the fact of modding in the Chat, and I want to propose something that might make it a bit easier.

If majority rule, and reputation can put people into 'moderation' on the forum, then why can we not do something like that in the chat? Well, I think there is a way. It is called ban by majority rule.

Meaning, if everyone votes against someone who they want to ban because they are being annoying as all ****, then a vote is cast, and if a certain # of votes in favor beats those not in favor, then a ban will be submitted.

In the past few day on IRC things have just been looking annoying, and ADISC is the place where members set the outcome of what they want their site to be, so why not their chat?

So I will start a vote and see how it goes.

FullMetal

 

[Pojo]

Sounds good to me, although would the voting be done on the forums? I saw each person needs a legitimate reason for voting too, not just people voting for the hell of it

 

[Mandy]

yes majority rules! i definatly agree here

 

[Charlie]

/ignore.

I think this works better and is fairer IMO.

 

[starshine]

I don't think so. There are friends in IRC. I can name about 20 people that I could eventually rally against someone if I tried hard enough.

It may work for a member or two, but what if a member is just not well liked, but they are still following the rules? There will be too much conflict.

If chat mods are doing their job properly then there is no need for a majority rule.

 

[Darkfinn]

No... no voting...

ADISC just needs more mods period.

If there were responcible mods... the shyte that is going on right now would have been stopped. It is stupid high school petty shyte... and it is getting annoying.

 

[FullMetal]

If chat mods are doing their job properly then there is no need for a majority rule.

As I said to Pojo, Chat mods can not be on all the time exactly when their shift starts.

And I think we are mature enough to know what rules to follow and we can make a logical decision as to who has to be banned and what not.

FullMetal

 

[Pojo]

Maybe hire another mod then?

 

[starshine]

As I said to Pojo, Chat mods can not be on all the time exactly when their shift starts.

And I think we are mature enough to know what rules to follow and we can make a logical decision as to who has to be banned and what not.

FullMetal

That's fine. They can't be on. But you would have to wait for a chat mod to come on to ban the person that everyone votes on anyways.


It's not fair. Plain and simple. What if I wasn't on when voting took place to ban someone? What if majority was one person? What if I could have swayed the vote the other way?

If mods are doing their job, and they are indeed, good mods, then they can choose who to ban, and who not to ban. It's not up to the users to mod the chat. If they were that good they'd be appointed as a chat mod.

 

[Trevor]

It's good to be thinking of new and different ways to make things better, but I don't think voting people off the island is the answer.

 

[Darkfinn]

Maybe hire another mod then?

Maybe hire 5 more mods. One is not going to make a difference.

What about you and Mandi... you are both already staff... why not just Op you on IRC too... it's not like you get any real power other than the ability to calm things down when someone immature starts acting out.

 

[LuvsGurl]

I don't think so. There are friends in IRC. I can name about 20 people that I could eventually rally against someone if I tried hard enough.

It may work for a member or two, but what if a member is just not well liked, but they are still following the rules? There will be too much conflict.

If chat mods are doing their job properly then there is no need for a majority rule.

I agree with Mandi, we could all start a mass attack of somone, and them get kicked out because they have one opinion that is not liked. THough what we should do is have more inforsment of already existing rules.

We have good rules but even after being warned many times we still have people that Spam the board with stupid and pointless comment. There are still people that are trying to pick fights and the like. These are the things that need to be looked into, when things like this are happening we should be able to majority vote on this said person being held to more stringent rules if you must have a vote at all.

Though over all I would say more people being responsible for what is going on, there are strength in numbers and more eyes and ears to keep open will stop people from making problem.

 

[FullMetal]

I am not insisting on a Forum ban. I am insisting on a ban that lasts maybe an hour or two tops to let that person cool down. We are all intelligent people, I think we can handle this.

FullMetal

 

[Grutzvalt]

If you are following the rules, but still bothering the majority of people, maybe, instead of FLAMING them, the members should KINDLY ask the user to stop doing what they are doing WHAT AN IDEA!

If a user shows he is angry (via use of exessive swearing, vs. PROTECTING himself), then ask the user if he is angry. If he can demonstrate it using capitols LIKE THIS, or swearing LIKE ****ING THIS, then perhaps try to HELP. I promise. By talking to a user, and stopping the actions YOU are doing, it will work out much better. Believe me, banning will just make some come back even stronger.

 

[Darkfinn]

If you are following the rules, but still bothering the majority of people, maybe, instead of FLAMING them, the members should KINDLY ask the user to stop doing what they are doing WHAT AN IDEA!

So... will you stop?

 

[Pojo]

If you are following the rules, but still bothering the majority of people, maybe, instead of FLAMING them, the members should KINDLY ask the user to stop doing what they are doing WHAT AN IDEA!

I doubt that would have stopped you today

 

[FluffyFluffers]

Don't like what is going on the /ignore them as good as a ban.

So No I don't think this is a good idea people idle to much.

 

[FullMetal]

FYI: This is not anything new, an IRC chat I used to go to had it a while back and on there, there was really not much abuse of this power, and it did take a lot for people to even vote. I think it will work for us only because of the maturity level I put us on. If you do not think we can be mature about having this right, than choose no. I mean, I have seen it worked, and I can see how it wouldn't work in some situations. But as Zyph said to me a few minutes ago, why does everyone need to ignore one person if that one person is the only problem at the time?

FullMetal

 

[starshine]

There are just a couple holes I see in this whole thing.

A ban that lasts a couple hours is a good time. However, to impliment that ban to let the user cools off a mod needs to be present. As far as I know there is no option in any server that allows the users to kick someone, only OPs have that ability.

If the OP is present during this time then the OP should have the common sense to ban the person, and this whole voting thing isn't needed. I can only see two underlying messages here. Either the OPs aren't doing their job, or their aren't enough OPs in the chat.

As for being mature about the whole thing... This whole issue is about being mature and immature. If the users can't even have a decent, mature, conversation... then I hardly see them being mature enough for this power. You might be mature enough, Zyph might be mature enough, but there are still 6 others who are extremely immature. If they're having a nice immature conversation with the problem person, why would they vote to kick the person out? It's never just ONE person. It takes two to tango.

 

[Error404]

I'd be up for modding the chat. *Shrugs.* Would give me a reason to hang out there and here more again. I actually partially quit for the very same above reason, primarily over one user who I was getting tired of whining whom I won't name.

Anyways, I disagree with the above method. Wouldn't take much work on a determined users part to get a group of people together and ban a person just because they dislike them.