Doomer boards WITH MODERATORS?

>and they will not be able to see the rest of the forum
can this part be removed (if the engine allows that)? i mean, sure, one can simply log off and read everything anyway, so what is the reason? if anything, this will only make people more angry, i believe.

One suggestion, 5-10 sounds like a lot of people. There's a lot of room for abuse. I think if you kept it from 2-3, it would be a lot more reasonable imho.

Legacy Mods are moderators in name only, with zero power. If anything, it is more of a mark of being part of the original Doomer board population. It is only nominal designation, like what happened to the Patricians of Rome later in history.

Agreed. If there are going to be moderators then I don't feel comfortable with that unless it's the OG forum guys. Making the Legacy Mods back into mods.

That makes sense, and yes that can be done. My thoughts were that members may need to be losered in order to break up fights they might be having with people on the forum. If there's a conflict between two members, or groups of members, and one gets losered and the other doesn't, they might use this separation to post at each other from across the forum.

The inconvenience is to direct the losers' attention on communicating their case to forum staff only, and not be so fixated on the reactions from the people they were fighting with.



The system is that the anonymous moderators will have the ability to loser, mute, unloser, and unmute members. Historically, I'm extremely lenient on what is permitted to take place on this forum. The moderators will get to make it their job to shut people up, and I'm going to make it my job to decide how soon they get set free.

The muted or losered members are assigned to a respective member group that gets posting priveleges taken away. The forum doesn't have an ability to remove members from a group after a specified time. It has to be done manually, which is quick and easy, but can't be automated.



Thanks for the suggestion. I think that's a good idea, but the point of the anonymity is I don't want moderators colluding together to decide who gets silenced or not. If anyone gets losered or muted, it would be the unbiased and uninfluenced opinion of one of the selected moderators. They don't get to talk to each other about the decision because they won't be able to know who the other moderators are. And they don't get to post on the forum to voice their reasoning for doing it, because that would out themselves and I'll take that power away. They can make the action or not. And I will decide later if it was valid or not.

My plan is to make pretty much any regular doomer boards user qualify for the position. My thinking is that holding the position of moderator would be so strict that it will be very difficult to keep the position if you use it at all. This is on purpose to regularly cycle people in and out of the staff positions so this forum doesn't develop a 'culture' or a secret club like other forums do.

You could have one who represents the Legacy Mods, the other that represents the new members.

Sort of like a House of Lords and a House of Commons.

Thoughts:

If the mods are secret, how will someone know the justification for a ban/mute?
Is there an appeal process? (Just DM you?)
Do you expect specific guidelines/rules are followed? (Or those are secret?) The definition of "emergency" can vary from person to person.

The secrecy, anonymity, moderator independence, and oversight portions I think are all good.

I'd recommend starting smaller than 5-10. One learns a lot from a first attempt at something like this; a smaller group might be easier to adjust and manage.

The great doomerboards social engineering experiment continues apace. I approve of this motion, if only for the glorious drama potential.

I'm a bit skeptical but I like the anonymity and that mods can unmute/unloser. My biggest worry is the potential for powertripping so its nice that some of the other mods can counteract this. I think there's going to be a lot of fear about who you pick because it's pretty rare to find a place with lenient moderation, most places start off relatively free and get more and more restrictive as time goes on and the forum gets bigger. It seems like the more the forum grows, the more there's "state of the forum" type of conversations happening here and more talk about the forum having "problematic" elements, which I think contributes to this fear a bit, at least for me. I think the suggestions for choosing legacy mods to be actual mods is a good one for that reason. I also think recent events are a bit of an anomaly but I guess we'll see as time goes on.

I agree a lot with this. IIRC one of Joe's temp bans coincided with the development of DBP46 and I think he was banned when I submitted my demo and feedback for one of his maps in the dev thread. There's potential for temp bans/losering to be detrimental to the DBPs so I think it'd be best to let losered members see the DBP subforum at the very least.

Believe me, I know exactly how you feel. It's like teaching middle school sometimes, idiots always want to argue things while in the middle of my lecture or roll on the floor with a shitstain in their pants (not joking in my case it actually happened once in my classroom this year). Naturally, I'd expect those with attitude problems towards others wouldn't make the cut, they're the ones who usually get their well-deserved writeups. One thing that I should mention for anyone who gets this moderation status, there's certainly a balance to it. Sometimes you must be a hardass to the retards who can't stop being retards but at the same time it sort of exposes a weakness that can be exploited. And it's actually worse if you're way too lenient and try to overbalance things. Stuff that I've learned that might be useful.

I imagine you'd still be punishing people for major infractions, posting illegal or especially henious shit, etc. Moderators would just be acting in a "janitor" role