Rules on deleting and moderating posts

Jacob Allen said:..there you go, Maria Barnes, look at the moderator in action.

..honestly, what can I even say? This Forum actually serves a massive educational purpose. It’s basically a training ground where you take a total troll or some flame-throwing jerk and mold them into a loyal moderator—someone who’s ruthlessly obsessed with the truth and has this uncanny, subtle knack for sniffing out hidden aggression before it explodes. Especially when they’re handed all the technical tools to do the job.

..so how could you *not* compare this place to others? I mean, we've seen people moderating over at Reddit, or those old-school message boards, or wherever else, including Maria Barnes and a bunch of others I can't even wrap my head around right now. It’s genuinely fascinating to watch this Forum evolve. Watching the shift from how things used to be versus how they are now—in terms of quality, actual wit, coherence (which is the word everyone uses here whenever they're tearing a post apart), and just the basic ability to actually articulate a thought.

But fine, whatever. Whether anyone actually stops to think about what they want from this place—be it just some mindless commercialized digital chatter or an actual attempt at a high-quality exchange of information—that’s not on me.
If you guys want to keep this "debate" going in the exact tone and style intended for this thread to be moderated, be my guest... just leave me out of it. I'm out.

Instead of a comment:

User: Jacob Allen
Registered: 05-05-2003

Posts in the politics subforum:
2003. 0
2004. 1
2005. 20
2006. 200

😁

Keith James812, you're totally hitting the nail on the head here!

Maria Barnes said:What the active users don't really realize is the fact that for every single registered member on this Forum, there are about ten non-registered folks dropping by every day (we're talking 3,000 versus 30,000!). So, at the end of the day, people are mostly coming here just to read. Plus, most of the registered users who show up aren't actually posting anything, which means the ratio of posters to lurkers is roughly 1:30, so keeping the quality of this Forum high is a constant goal even if it feels pretty much impossible.

😁

..and besides that, we're still missing all the data from back in 2001 and 2002. 🎉

Jacob Allen said:Keith James812, man, you're telling me

😁

..besides that, we're missing all the data from 2001 and 2002. 🎉

So, what you're saying is you used to hang out just to read Michael Adams2, since he was way more active on the Forum back then😁 and then, after scrolling through the politics subforum, you'd jump off and drop a hundred posts in other sections? 😁 Yeah, okay, that makes sense... if only Sulja were here to cut the power lines. 😁

No, honestly, I’m just annoyed because I can see you pivoting toward these low blows. Looking at this from the outside, it feels like since you can't find any actual facts to support your claim that Michael Adams2 is a desperate moderator, you're just trying to get a rise out of people by whining about "forum etiquette." Look, Michael Adams2 hasn't lost his touch, but that doesn't mean you aren't just straight-up trolling right now. 😁

Michael Adams2 is just a desperate forum dweller first and foremost—everything else comes after... and honestly, someone like him shouldn't have been given any moderator duties to begin with... ☕

The moderators over at the Edge of Reality subforum really ought to take a look—it seems like Geza has gone and cloned himself into two other accounts... He’s already a handful to deal with as it is, so just imagine the headache of trying to follow him when he starts having full-blown conversations with himself...

Keith James812 said:so, you were basically just hanging around to read Michael Adams2, since he was way more active on the Forum back then 😁 and then, after scrolling through Politics, you’d just drop a hundred posts across all the other subforums? 😁 okay, okay, I see the logic there... it's just that there's no Sulja around to start throwing cables about it 😁

but seriously, what actually bugs me is seeing you take this sudden turn toward those low blows... looking at it from the outside, it totally feels like when you run out of actual, solid arguments to prove that Michael Adams2 is a desperate moderator, you just pivot to making snarky comments about "decorum" on the Forum... Michael Adams2 hasn't lost his touch, but that still doesn't mean what you're doing isn't straight-up targeted flaming 😁

... oh, please, I see what you're doing there. 😁 ..anything can mean anything, really. :kirin:
honestly, I could probably say I’m missing my books right now—those intellectual crutches I need to explain here, or anywhere else on this Forum, that words like "argument," "thesis," or "premise"—which people love to toss around during that third stage of these so-called forum "debates" (which, goodness gracious, some people actually call polemics)—don't actually carry any functional weight and are basically just empty buzzwords.
even the crowd over at the local Starbucks would be embarrassed by how people use logical and rhetorical figures in the name of their own egos on certain subforums. 😳

..look, I have zero interest in explaining my views here—heaven forbid!—and I don't owe anyone an explanation or a defense, nor do I feel like I should even ask... which "low blows" are we even talking about? I'll just grant myself the luxury of staying blissfully unaware. It's much easier that way. If someone sees something that isn't there, that's on them, not me.
I'm not trying to descend into that typical forum brawling folklore, but yeah... I am absolutely going to target-flame whenever I see someone being allowed to act aggressive while someone else is being totally silenced, and I'll do it whenever I'm feeling weak enough to react like this. It's just how I know how to handle it.
besides, where does it say that Forum members with thousands of posts spanning years—which is, like, at least thirty minutes of life spent here—aren't more or less dissatisfied people? whether it's their social status, their job, their family, or just other struggles, or maybe they're just at that stage of maturity where they need to prove themselves, even virtually. There's nothing wrong with bruising your ego a little bit, even in a place like this.

..as for moderating forums, I don't know anything about it, and I don't even know what I *should* know about such a job. All I know is that it's incredibly hard to moderate yourself. If someone doesn't realize that, yet thinks they can lecture everyone else—which is super obvious—and then tries to wrap that up in a whole "premise, thesis, and argument" package just to reach a conclusion they think makes them right, well, hey, Keith James812... if I actually wanted to do that, I'd at least be doing it for a paycheck.
the way things are, it's all just unpaid service, so... yeah... maybe the Forum itself has just had a stylistic shift. 🙂

and of course.. 🎉

..edit.. I'm not trying to be brief... hey, Keith James812, since Maria Barnes showed up here, I'm gonna step aside for a bit. we can just keep this going somewhere else.. 👍

Jacob Allen said:..sorry to barge in. just one question. okay, two. actually, make it three, please.. 🙂

..why isn't the politics subforum open to the rest of the Forum as read-only?

..is this your call, or is it what the majority of moderators want?

..what are you protecting?

And I apologize to the other users for not wanting to dig deeper or drag this out further. 🙂

Who says they aren't open to the public? 😁

Look, the moderators aren't open because we decided a long time ago to handle Forum management and decisions in "peace and quiet." That’s how it was accepted, and that’s how it stayed. People know that whatever is posted in Moderators stays there—even when someone stops being a moderator, they aren't allowed to leak it. It's not like we're hiding state secrets, but it's the deal. If we suddenly announced we'd publish everything now, we'd be changing the original agreement retroactively, which wouldn't be right. Some people might not want that. As for me, I said a while back that anything I've written there can be copy-pasted anywhere. But if we ever do make Moderators open, it will only be from that point forward, not looking backward.

Why can't it just be a read-only subforum? Because if you saw the threads and discussions, it would be hard for you not to comment. Once you start, it's impossible to ignore, and then it's like you're part of the group. Too many questions get asked, too much explaining is needed, there are too many people, and some can be pretty exhausting (you don't find those types in Moderators; they're easy to get rid of 😉). Besides, if a topic is visible, it would be totally uncool to prevent you from weighing in.

I wouldn't mind if certain non-moderator users participated in Moderator discussions—specifically those who might be interested and could actually contribute constructively to the Forum's development. I've actually already made that suggestion in the Moderators section.

Unda, in those "three questions" of yours, I sense (aside from curiosity 😉) a desire to discuss important Forum matters more broadly, and that makes sense to me. As long as the discussions stay civil and coherent, I'm fine with it. We can give it a shot...

Maria Barnes said:Who on earth says they aren't transparent? 😁
...

..I mean, seriously, the Vatican Secret Archives or even some top-secret FBI files are probably easier to get into than the politics subforum, and the moderators are basically like... Marines or something? Like, is there some secret initiation ritual you guys have to go through or something? Do you get some kind of special protection or a company car when you finally retire from modding? 😁

Even though I’m totally happy with the answer and I totally get where everyone is coming from, I still find this whole thing super fascinating... just the idea that someone wouldn't want their posts seen, maybe because they want to be perceived a little differently by the rest of us on the Forum.
It can't be easy being a moderator, really, it isn't, because I can see how stressful it gets, having to constantly fight for and against the users, the mods, and their own sanity at the same time. 😁

So, my totally naive little idea was that we could just open up a peek into that subforum, but then strictly shut down all the trash talk, the insults, and any threads trying to gossip about the mod room—basically hit them with a massive ban or some nasty penalty if they cross the line—but if someone manages to be clever and hide a witty little joke or a tiny jab at a moderator deep within a regular post using some sort of code, well, if they pull it off, no harm done, right?

And, even more naively, I honestly think letting the users catch a glimpse would have way more upsides than downsides, though I won't get into the specifics here, I'll save that for another time. But hey, I get it... a deal is a deal.

Don't go overestimating me, though; this is really just fueled by my own curiosity and this little itch I have to stir the pot just a tiny bit, purely for the sport of it.
Please don't take it personally when I try to recruit a mole outside the system to leak something to the public, especially now! : wink : ...it's just more fun that way. Am I being fair or what? 😁

..thanks, cheers, peace!

Jacob Allen said:..honestly, I feel like the Vatican Secret Archives or some high-security government files are easier to get into than this politics subforum... and the moderators? They're like.. Marines? Semper Fi? ..is there some kind of secret initiation ritual involved over there, maybe some fancy wine or something..? do they at least get a pension and a company car when they finally retire from moderating? 😁

no company car, I guess I'll have to buy my own... 🙄 😁

Jacob Allen said:... seriously, give me a break. 😁 ..anything can mean anything if you squint hard enough. :kirin:
Honestly, I could probably sit here and write a whole dissertation—I’d need to pull out my entire library of knowledge just to explain it—about how words like "argument," "thesis," or "premise" get tossed around in the third stage of these so-called Forum debates. These things, which some people honestly call "polemics," are nothing more than empty noise. They have zero actual weight.
Even the guys over at the Ivy League universities would blush seeing how people misuse logic and rhetorical tricks on certain subforums while claiming they're being intellectual. 😳

Look, I’m not interested in preaching my views here—heaven forbid—and I definitely don't owe anyone an explanation or a defense. And I certainly don't feel the need to ask... what exactly counts as a "low blow"? I’m perfectly fine staying in the dark on that one. It’s easier that way. If someone thinks they've spotted one, that's their business, not mine.
I don't want to sink to the level of typical internet trolling folklore, but yeah... I will flame someone every single time I see one person getting attacked while another person is being silenced. If I feel weak enough to react like that, I will. That's just how I operate.
Besides, where does it say that people who spend years posting thousands of messages—which adds up to at least thirty minutes of their lives every single day—aren't just fundamentally dissatisfied people? Whether it's their social standing, their jobs, their families, or just general life struggles, or maybe they're just at that age where they desperately need to prove something, even if it's just through this virtual nonsense. There's nothing wrong with polishing your ego a little bit, even in a place like this.

As for moderating these Forums? I don't know anything about it, nor do I know what one would even need to know to do it. All I know is that it's damn hard to moderate yourself. If someone doesn't realize that, yet feels entitled to throw dirt on everyone else—and it's obvious too—they'll try to wrap it up in a fancy "premise, thesis, and argument" just to reach a conclusion where they're right. Look, Keith James812... if I actually wanted to deal with that headache, I'd do it for a paycheck.
The way it is now, it's all just unpaid labor, like serving in the military. Maybe the Forum just decided to take a stylistic turn or something. 🙂

And of course...🎉

...edit... I'm not trying to be brief. Hey, Keith James812, since Maria Barnes showed up, I think I'll just step aside. We can keep this conversation somewhere else...👍

Unda... try explaining in one single sentence why you're nominating Michael Adams2 😎 😁 😁

Keith James812 said:Jacob Allen... seriously, just try to give me one single sentence explaining why you're putting Michael Adams2 up for nomination 😎 😁 😁

Nah, we aren't doing that today... look, you're definitely not Big Brother, and I'm just not playing that game with you..😁

Jacob Allen said:nah, let's not go there--look, you aren't Big Brother, and I didn't sign up for this game anyway..😁

Looks like Big Brother just kicked Inqui out of the house. First Natch gets banned, then Michael Adams2's embarrassing moderation run hits the brakes... what is even happening right now? 😁

What’s going on here? Sadly, it’s not the news some people were hoping for—the kind of news that would have made their whole year, or even the next three... something like, "Hallelujah, Inqui finally got the boot!" 😛

Michael Adams2 decided to step down as moderator on his own terms.
He actually had to dig his heels in and fight quite a battle just to make sure this, his fifth term, was finally treated with the respect it deserved. 😁

Jack Harris3 said:Michael Adams2 quit being a moderator on his own accord.
He practically had to stage a one-man protest just to make sure this—his fifth and final stint—actually meant something. 😁

Honestly, I’m dying to know who they’re going to pick to fill his shoes. Every time we get a new moderator, they seem to be a total disaster. Where on earth are they going to find someone even more incompetent than him?

With Inquiv heading out, the admins and the rest of the moderators should probably be celebrating—I mean, the Forum is only as strong as its weakest link, right? Whether he was kicked out by the party, Maria Barnes, or someone else... honestly, I couldn't care less.

dustywalker12 said:where are you even going to find someone worse than him

If we’re really going by that standard, we might just have to come to you for answers. 😛

We'll see who's next on the list... nothing's been decided yet.

Jack Harris3 said:If we go with that specific criterion, we'll be coming to you for answers. 😛

We'll just have to wait and see who's next on the list. Nothing is set in stone yet.

g2sl said:Happy birthday! 🙂 I'll pass on the drink, though—I'd have to keep up with dustypilot22, and that sounds like a tall order.

http://www.forum.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=7494

🙂

😁

..man said:..sorry to barge in here. I just have one question. Actually, make that two. No, three, please... 🙂

..why isn't the moderator sub-forum open to the rest of the community as a read-only section?

..is this your personal call, or is this what most of the mod team wants?

..what exactly are we trying to protect?

And honestly, I apologize to everyone else on the board for not wanting to drag this out or pile on more questions. 🙂

..seriously. Just take a second to think about why things are set up this way. 😉

dustypilot22 said:He isn't actually saying anything... he's just quoting stuff and laughing his head off.

Do I really need to take this suggestion seriously, or should I just pretend I didn't see anything at all? 😁

Anderlon said:Who says we aren't transparent? 😁

Look, the moderators aren't open because we made a call a long time ago to handle the site's management and decision-making behind closed doors. That was the agreement, and we’ve stuck to it ever since. People know that whatever is discussed in the moderator section stays there—even when someone steps down from their role, they aren't supposed to leak anything. It’s not like we’re hiding deep dark secrets, but it’s a pact. If we suddenly decided to publish everything now, we'd be breaking our original agreement retroactively, which just wouldn't be right. Some people might not appreciate that change. Personally, I've said before that anything I've posted in there could be copy-pasted anywhere. But if we ever move toward making the moderator section public, it would only apply moving forward, not looking back at the past.

Why can't we just make it a read-only subforum? Because if you could see the threads and discussions, it would be almost impossible for you not to chime in, and once you start commenting, you're effectively part of the inner circle. Publicly, people ask endless questions and demand explanations, and with so many users, things get chaotic—plus, some people can be pretty relentless (though you don't have to worry about that in the moderator section, since we can easily 😉 deal with them)). Besides, if the topics were visible, it would feel totally uncool to tell you that you can't participate.

I actually wouldn't mind if some regular users joined the discussions in the moderator section, provided they are genuinely interested and can offer constructive input for the site's growth. In fact, I've already put a proposal for that in the moderator section.

As for those "three questions" of yours, I sense (beyond just curiosity 😉) a genuine desire to have broader discussions on important site matters, and I can get behind that. As long as the debates stay civil and make sense, I'm down. We can give it a shot...

Mr. Anderlon. Your very first sentence, and the tone you used, really sets the stage for how your whole post should be read.

Do you honestly think anyone with half a brain is going to believe a single word of what you just wrote? 😎

"It's not secrets," you say. Give me a break.