F.A.O. Dutch

Mr Hat , you probably post the highest ratio of bulls**t to decent stuff on here , without people like you we wouldn't even need mods , how ironic is that

If you post bulls**t and then some serious posts then people just ignore the serious stuff . You should thank me I'm giving you good advice here

 

whats this about

 

Its fao Dutch, lets not post and take it off topic

 

I'm afraid you must be mixing me up with someone else.

All the usual suspects post bullshit yes bot not me.

Never me. It's never my fault.

 

Dutch this is a new low for you. Stop posting stuff in other people's names.

 

Simple solution in two easy steps.

First, all Mods are elected through an open poll for a 12 month period, (now would be a good time, just before the season starts), if a Mod wants to keep their position they can enter the poll to be re-elected, if not they can step down.

Second, when disputes like this arise between a poster and a Mod its the responsibility of the other Mod's to either publicly back the Mod's actions if they are acting within the best interests of the board or to suspend that Mod for a set period (perhaps a month) until the feud has calmed down. Disputes happen on here all the time, that's just the nature of a forum, but there isn't any place for personal arguments between a Mod and a poster.

 

I have no feud with anyone. One or two have spent years having issues with me. There's been several occasions where their outrage is actually aimed at the wrong person, but there's little mileage in raising that.

The other mod is unlikely to be able to offer support as he's off line, which makes suspending a mod reckless, even if it was within their powers and they could get on line.


The simplest solution is for posters to take responsibilty for their actions and consider the rest of the board users when posting. That'd save mods having to act.

 

Most sensible suggestion of the year (so far).

 

I suggest a mod-free day and see how the board copes.

Afterwards we'll either appreciate the work the mods do or decide we don't need moderating.

 

We have them quite often.

Mostly the boards run fine. Other times, it can take a lot of sorting as things have built up a head of steam.

As above, all it takes is for posters to take a bit of responsibility and consider other board users and there'd be little for us to do.

There are over 2000 registred on this board, it rattles through more threads than many of the rest combined, there's less than a Scunthorpe handful of posters that seem determined to cause the most disruption.

 

Firstly, my apologies, I wasn't criticising you personally, I believe you've acted in the right manner here, however those two simple steps would cover Mods like yourself when these situations arise. It would only take another Mod to back you publicly then a warning or suspension could be issued to the poster and everything would be fine.

If the other Mod is offline it surely just highlights the need for more Mod's, the more of you the better, its not an easy job and the work load should be shared between more of you.

I agree, people need to take responsibility for their actions it would make everyone's lives easier, but its a public forum and that's just not going to happen I'm afraid.

 

Simple as that.

 

Without doubt, another mod is needed, but mainly because of a handful with issues intent on some agenda of disruption.

 

If people were given the opportunity to vote I don't think that the moderators would actually change that often, most people appreciate the job is difficult and that the current moderators are doing a good job.

However periodically opening it up to a vote gives people the opportunity to have their say or potentially become a moderator themselves, it is a public forum and these things should be decided by the majority not just when the current one decides they've had enough.

 

Ricardo doesn't come on here as often as other posters and DMD's role as moderator has been questioned by a considerable amount of people, it's only fair if elections are held for new moderators.

 

What's been questioned is the issues created by a few posters that end up in long dull threads, that's not quite the same thing. On some occasions, the cause of these disputes was actions not even done by me.

 

Exactly, if another mod backed your actions then the poster causing the problems can either be warned, suspended or banned (depending on the situation), this is something you can't personally do alone as people would question how impartial you were (not a reflection on you, more just the nature of the situation).

 

I appreciate what you're saying, and that is what used to happen in the past. Unfortunately, there's generally one (or less mods) on line now, so to look at all that's gone on would take up too much time to unravel.

When people did take the time, it lead to broader disputes with the same people and others trying to play mods off against each other.

I can only repeat, the simplest solution is for the notable few to behave like the rest of the majority and there'd be little for mods to do.

 

You said yourself that you can't moderate all the posts. With Ricardo not here as much wouldn't it be logical to have two new moderators? You and Ricardo could remain as moderators, granted you were elected by the majority on this forum.