NationStates Jolt Archive

AKA Lets turn that anger from that Marathon thread into something useful.

What are some good alternatives to the 'officer style' moderation, where the mods are chosen by the admin and have the sole power to make changes. I suppose a democratic moderation would be interesting, like Nationstates UN, but on forum issues and the like. Although, this is probably better for slower forums or less serious forums. Representative moderation would be a good alternative too, where mods would be elected every so often.

What are your thoughts?

A note: I am NOT suggesting any of these things are implemented here, nor am I complaining about the system Nationstates has in place.

AKA Lets turn that anger from that Marathon thread into something useful.
What anger? :D

Actually, the present system's fine for me.

AKA Lets turn that anger from that Marathon thread into something useful.

What are some good alternatives to the 'officer style' moderation, where the mods are chosen by the admin and have the sole power to make changes. I suppose a democratic moderation would be interesting, like Nationstates UN, but on forum issues and the like. Although, this is probably better for slower forums or less serious forums. Representative moderation would be a good alternative too, where mods would be elected every so often.

What are your thoughts?

No, this is some democratic nation...

This is a forum owned by a private entity, to which they are entitled to do whatever they want. If you don't like it, leave. That's the beauty of capitalism.

Duelling at dawn with full platemail and rubber chickens!

...no? Then I guess there's always democracy...

Thoughts/Suggestions Regarding NS Moderation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=387961)

NSRP/NS Local 8976 Releases Platform (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=405771)

It's been done. It's been done to death. I'm sure I could turn up another 50 threads with similar themes and number of responses. Doesn't matter.

Vote yourselves bread and circuses all you want. That's not going to make them materialize.

No no no, I wasn't suggesting that any of these things are implemented here, I was just making discussion of the alternatives.

It's been done. It's been done to death. I'm sure I could turn up another 50 threads with similar themes and number of responses. Doesn't matter.

Vote yourselves bread and circuses all you want. That's not going to make them materialize.
You seem to need a cookie...

But I want the circus.

The alternatives to officer-style Moderation are these:

1.) Everyone behaves themselves, thus eliminating the need for more Moderation. I'd like that.

2.) Democratic or representative election of Moderators, which would most likely turn the position into the equivalent of a Miss Congeniality Award. That's really not my preference.

My best suggestion is that if you see the need for a different style of Moderation that is effective, post in such a way that you get considered for a Mod position. Be helpful, knowledgeable, objective, humorous, and clear. Understand the community, both in its persons and its practical realities.

Ultimately, if you want better Moderators, be better posters. Because the Moderators are selected from among you.

Why is everyone bitching about the moderation here? There are by far more fucktards here than the mods ban. I've seen far far worse moderation elsewhere where any thread that goes off topic even a little is immediately locked. Stop whining. The forum isn't owned by 'the people'. The mods are selected by the admin and if you don't like the rules they enforce, then leave and find someone else to annoy.

Why is everyone bitching about the moderation here? There are by far more fucktards here than the mods ban. I've seen far far worse moderation elsewhere where any thread that goes off topic even a little is immediately locked. Stop whining. The forum isn't owned by 'the people'. The mods are selected by the admin and if you don't like the rules they enforce, then leave and find someone else to annoy.

I'm not whining about the current moderation, I'm trying to find the alternatives for the remote chance that I start a forum.

I'm not whining about the current moderation, I'm trying to find the alternatives for the remote chance that I start a forum.
Rule as a fun dictator of the forum.

Each of the moderator candidates will be elected from among a choice group of elite NS players. They will then compete with slogans and fundraising for about a year. Finally, every region will send from one to thirty representatives to the capital of NationStates, where they will all vote by region on their preferred candidate. And we'll want primaries, too.

When you think about it, having the administrators pick the people they think are doing the best job is an awful lot simpler and generally works out better.

I usually prefer it "officer style".


Although, "naughty nurse" style can be good too.

I'm not whining about the current moderation, I'm trying to find the alternatives for the remote chance that I start a forum.

Should probably have mentioned that in your OP. It comes off as yet another moderation bitch post.

Should probably have mentioned that in your OP. It comes off as yet another moderation bitch post.

I added it afterwards, but I understand the confusion.

Vigilantism. Somehow.

AKA Lets turn that anger from that Marathon thread into something useful.

What are some good alternatives to the 'officer style' moderation, where the mods are chosen by the admin and have the sole power to make changes. I suppose a democratic moderation would be interesting, like Nationstates UN, but on forum issues and the like. Although, this is probably better for slower forums or less serious forums. Representative moderation would be a good alternative too, where mods would be elected every so often.

What are your thoughts?

A note: I am NOT suggesting any of these things are implemented here, nor am I complaining about the system Nationstates has in place.

I have seen over and over and over again what elective style moderation gets a forum and I would dislike very much to see that happen to general

Popular idiots take root ... they make bad decisions ... often shady decisions to support friends. They get elected for having 0 skill set and almost no really knowing of the person. The forumites tend to get more and more angry with the moderators.

The other mods start having to spend a lot more time policing each others decisions.

In the end I have yet to be part of any forum in which it actually turned out good for the forum to have an elected mod

Vigilantism. Somehow.

There was a thread on /b/ awhile ago suggesting a board where anyone could delete any thread at anytime, creating mass chaos.

I've been on a lot of forums in my day, and IME, the best ones were run by benevolent dictators. I've seen anarchy, and trust me, it's not pretty! And I'm afraid democracy wouldn't be much better. It works for a nation (more or less), but not for a forum.

What anger? :D
QFT...

Actually, the present system's fine for me.

Err... QFT... again...

I like the system the USSR had. Everyone gets a voice if he is part of the Communist Party.
Now, when it comes to choosing who is in the Party...

--snip--
You like me, don't you? :D

*gives you a cookie and a glass of fruit soda*

NSRP/NS Local 8976 Releases Platform (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=405771)

It's been done. Ohh yeah.. the 8976 !!!

Party times :D
I had a good time.. I always do. ;)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=403021&page=4

BTW, Kreitzmoorland, Baby I still dream about you some-nites :cool:
u r unforgettable..

I've been on a lot of forums in my day, and IME, the best ones were run by benevolent dictators. I've seen anarchy, and trust me, it's not pretty!

So have I, I hail originally from the wilds of un-moderated usenet. We had a little thing called a kill file that dealt with any trolls we didn't want to mock and it worked just fine. In essence everyone was their own moderator using the kill file to block people and threads they didn't like without preventing others from interacting with those threads/people.

So have I, I hail originally from the wilds of un-moderated usenet. We had a little thing called a kill file that dealt with any trolls we didn't want to mock and it worked just fine. In essence everyone was their own moderator using the kill file to block people and threads they didn't like without preventing others from interacting with those threads/people.

The Jolt forum has an Ignore function that serves a similar purpose. Strangely, not everyone has the self-discipline to make use of it. I think I'd be out of a Mod job if they did, and I'd be cool with that.

The Jolt forum has an Ignore function that serves a similar purpose. Strangely, not everyone has the self-discipline to make use of it. I think I'd be out of a Mod job if they did, and I'd be cool with that.

Where is this function? I've heard it mentioned before, but have never seen it.

Where is this function? I've heard it mentioned before, but have never seen it.

You can add any user to your ignore list through your user CP (and it is under buddy/ignore section on the left)

Click on a poster's name, then view their profile. In the center of the screen, there's a link that allows you to add a user to your Ignore list.

Oh then there is that way too :)

Where is this function? I've heard it mentioned before, but have never seen it.

Click on a poster's name, then view their profile. In the center of the screen, there's a link that allows you to add a user to your Ignore list.

The Jolt forum has an Ignore function that serves a similar purpose. Strangely, not everyone has the self-discipline to make use of it. I think I'd be out of a Mod job if they did, and I'd be cool with that.

Yes, but imagine a land where people use the ignore button. Silence.

Click Stand;13175206']Yes, but imagine a land where people use the ignore button. Silence.

Ain't it beautiful? ;)

Ain't it beautiful? ;)

People moved to use the ignore button take things way to seriously in my humble opinion.

I think mods should be elected, but I don't like the idea too much. The current system is quite adequate and the best.

People moved to use the ignore button take things way to seriously in my humble opinion.

It'd be great if we all could keep our cool that easily, but I'd rather that those who have trouble doing so use the ignore function instead of flaming people.

The Jolt forum has an Ignore function that serves a similar purpose. Strangely, not everyone has the self-discipline to make use of it. I think I'd be out of a Mod job if they did, and I'd be cool with that.

Well, that's the thing with this system, if you DON'T use it then it's assumed that you WANT to participate in the threads you aren't ignoring and talk to the people who you aren't ignoring and no one else is making arbitrary decisions about whether the thread is allowed to continue or the poster is allowed to continue posting. For example I didn't put any of DK's clones on here on my ignore list because sparring with him amused me . . .

Exactly how long does one have to post/ what behavior is conducive to selection? (Takes notes, wonders whether to follow or do exact opposite)

I think there's many criteria but there's a link in the Moderation section giving hints.

I don't think it's about length of time as I believe, given hazy memory, that Katganistan was elected quite early due to some rambling diatribe she made or somesuch.

I think people can even nominate you for future...ammm....nomination when the opportunity arises.

Good behaviour includes being helpful in various sections and, this is in no way an insult, being similar to what we'd expect from a good teacher. (EDIT: Technical skills help as well I believe)

Frankly, why would you bother? That's not to say Moderators don't have a thankless task, it's that they do, generally, have a thankless task aside from the occasional dinners with Max Barry I'd assume - though who knows, he might be infinitely boring to dine with.

I'd like to be a moderator simply for the ULTIMATE POWER though that rightfully excludes me off the bat.

Click on a poster's name, then view their profile. In the center of the screen, there's a link that allows you to add a user to your Ignore list.

I see it now, thank you.

By the by, what happens if I had someone to my "Buddy's List?" Do I see all of your posts in bold or something?

I see it now, thank you.

By the by, what happens if I had someone to my "Buddy's List?" Do I see all of your posts in bold or something?

I've never seen it actually do anything. Let's try and figure it out.

I've never seen it actually do anything. Let's try and figure it out.

Okay.
We're buddies now, HotRodia! It doesn't seem that different.

I've never seen it actually do anything. Let's try and figure it out.
Add me! Add me! :D

I don't think it's about length of time as I believe, given hazy memory, that Katganistan was elected quite early due to some rambling diatribe she made or somesuch.
Hee, which one? I've made a number -- before and after getting the magic hat.

Add me! Add me! :D

Now I have two buddies. Yay!

But really, I think the only difference is that I'm more likely to try to mooch money out of you guys.

Okay.
We're buddies now, HotRodia! It doesn't seem that different.

Indeed. But let's just wait and see if we notice a pattern. Maybe there's actually a point to it.

Add me! Add me! :D

Done.

Done.
Now I have two buddies. Yay!

But really, I think the only difference is that I'm more likely to try to mooch money out of you guys.
Yay! I have two buddies!

I've got no money, just a big big bottle of fruit soda. You'll be getting free soda and cookies because we're buddies :)

Hee, which one? I've made a number -- before and after getting the magic hat.

That information is within the paid content section of my brain, for which it seems I've forgotten the password alas :(

Probably not important anywho, but the only one I can think of in the hazy mists of time might have been about how much it sucked that you could make your own region and want to be left alone in it with your friends, and then raiders could kick you all out and take over (pre-influence, pre-founder powerz, if I recall correctly). Likened it to bullies coming over and kicking over the monopoly board -- just 'cos they could.

Why is everyone bitching about the moderation here? There are by far more fucktards here than the mods ban. I've seen far far worse moderation elsewhere where any thread that goes off topic even a little is immediately locked. Stop whining. The forum isn't owned by 'the people'. The mods are selected by the admin and if you don't like the rules they enforce, then leave and find someone else to annoy.

Please, PLEASE refrain from using the word "fucktard".

Probably not important anywho, but the only one I can think of in the hazy mists of time might have been about how much it sucked that you could make your own region and want to be left alone in it with your friends, and then raiders could kick you all out and take over (pre-influence, pre-founder powerz, if I recall correctly). Likened it to bullies coming over and kicking over the monopoly board -- just 'cos they could.

It was definitely about RP or the UN rather than General - and it provided a solution as opposed to just being a complaint.

Anyway, the main point is that you didn't need to have been a long-term RP'er or poster to gain nomination, if I'm not wrong you were under 1, 000 or close.

Probably not important anywho, but the only one I can think of in the hazy mists of time might have been about how much it sucked that you could make your own region and want to be left alone in it with your friends, and then raiders could kick you all out and take over (pre-influence, pre-founder powerz, if I recall correctly). Likened it to bullies coming over and kicking over the monopoly board -- just 'cos they could.

Shame, shame. I expected better spelling than THAT from a moderator. :rolleyes: LOL