So what's wrong with DNForum moderation?

[Anthony Ng]

Perhaps I'm a bit out of sync, but it seems that the mob is running DNForum instead of some sensible minds lately.

From my casual observation, this may be the result of:

a) the lack of respect for voluntary moderators (which I'm sorry to say, action has to be coming from Adam himself to revert it), and

b) an ultra "Laissez-faire" policy of moderation which has seriously hurt the "rule of law".

For a small circle of closely knit and respectable businessmen, the latter, anything goes forum management style may work. But DNForum is much bigger than that, and many quiet lurkers (who could well be your core clients) may have already been offended by those active bullying few who think they are running DNForum.

Let me cite 2 examples here:

- http://www.dnforum.com/f496/107-dom...t-ztom-net-streamsrubs-com-thread-384574.html

This guy (GUA) CLEARLY and knowingly post his "above $100" sales in the "$100 and under" section, but no action was taken.

- http://www.dnforum.com/f254/obama-wins-nobel-peace-prize-9-thread-390136.html#post1799028

This REPORTED post CLEARLY requires action. I couldn't believe any sensible moderator would think otherwise and let DNForum goes down like one of those cheap forums where kids paste a dozen pictures in a single post.

So my question is, what's wrong with DNForum moderation?

 

[Gerry]

The political/controversial section is simply a continuing flame war between right and left wing Americans. It's pretty annonying to see every post go offtopic and in abuse.

I am one of the guilty persons and I agree - shut it down.

Let everyone submit their comments, claims, concerns to the news media.

 

[A D]

I am reviewing this thread and some of the suggestions brought up are good ones.

I can see some value in implementing some of these changes.

-=DCG=-

 

[Raider]

This is yet another sad and pathetic attempt by our Liberal friends to silence free speech on this Forum.

If you cant take the heat in the Political section, why do you continue to go there? The section was even removed from Today's posts, and your still crying about.

I can go back and cite dozens of far worse examples, Everything from Palin porn to death threats against Bush/Cheney, Did we go crying about it to Adam? and create threads to silence the Libs? NO.

I think some members here need to grow up.

 

[Theo]

If anything else, Liberals are pro-freedom of speech. Unless you're referring to gun-totting images of Cheney hunting ducks as the definitive moment of freedom.

 

[Raider]

And for those of you not aware of this, Nameslave reported and requested that images be disabled in the political section, he got his wish.. But after a couple days, Admin reversed his decision and re-enabled it. This is very likely the reason behind Nameslave posting this thread.

 

[Dale Hubbard]

Daft avatars and multi-pictorial posts don't raise the bar for me.

 

[Raider]

If anything else, Liberals are pro-freedom of speech.

You believe in that FALSE myth too?

Liberals believe in Free speech so long as they agree with what's being said.

 

[Gerry]

No one is suppressing speech or freedoms. There are plenty of other venues available to all.

...referring to gun-totting

Eek! I'm showing my nines!

 

[TheLegendaryJP]

Curious lets just say I was a mod, what are the requirements or expectations, minimum hrs required etc?

 

[elius]

this is exactly the point I made in this thread. People deliberately derailing a thread.

This is a paid, private forum with rules. These should be adhered to by users and enforced by moderators. Only within these rules free speech applies.

If the rules say you cannot talk about aliens in the forum, you cannot talk about aliens. Go to an alien forum, see if they care.

The dnforum rules and section rules say you most stay polite and ontopic. Insinuating a liberal agenda of the op against free speech is neither ontopic nor polite.

edit: the impoliteness is not so much in this thread but in others in the political section

 

[MAllie]

If the rules say you cannot talk about aliens in the forum, you cannot talk about aliens.

Is that really somewhere in the rules? I hadn't realise they were that specific.

But speaking as an alien in at least one sense of the word (foreign, from a foreign country - OED), I don't at all mind if you talk about us.

 

[Raider]

The political section is the LAST place you want to put restrictions....

This is all about the image function that was disabled and re-enabled by Admin, If it was kept disabled, Nameslave wouldn't be here today b*tching about.

Libs like him are using ulterior motives to restrict the political section, systematically chipping away at it, to discourage posting. All because they cant handle reading the truth.

I was planning on taking a long break from DNF, but now I'm staying :yes:

 

[Biggie]

The political section is the LAST place you want to put restrictions....

This is all about the image function that was disabled and re-enabled by Admin, If it was kept disabled, Nameslave wouldn't be here today b*tching about.

Libs like him are using ulterior motives to restrict the political section, systematically chipping away at it, to discourage posting. All because they cant handle reading the truth.

I was planning on taking a long break from DNF, but now I'm staying :yes:

when the politics section was created, it was "assumed" that DNF members were "mature" enough to have discussions there, in a rational, intelligent manner.


so, i think those who post in the political section should put restrictions on themselves

try and restrict themselves from posting fiction and declaring it as fact.

restrict themselves from engaging in "mud-slinging" personal attacks and from carrying issues from politics section to other areas of the forum.


imo...

 

[Raider]

when the politics section was created, it was "assumed" that DNF members were "mature" enough to have discussions there, in a rational, intelligent manner.


so, i think those who post in the political section should put restrictions on themselves

try and restrict themselves from posting fiction and declaring it as fact.

restrict themselves from engaging in "mud-slinging" personal attacks and from carrying issues from politics section to other areas of the forum.


imo...

Agree 100%, Mostly with the part highlighted in Bold, Is there a Doc in the house?

 

[Dale Hubbard]

If anything else, Liberals are pro-freedom of speech. Unless you're referring to gun-totting images of Cheney hunting ducks as the definitive moment of freedom.

I think he means 'toting'....

 

[MAllie]

Libs like him are using ulterior motives to restrict the political section, systematically chipping away at it, to discourage posting. All because they cant handle reading the truth.

I think you mean 'the truth' as you see it, Raider. After all, if the truth were so self-evident there would be no point in debating, would there?

But I think that the main problem with this kind of discussion on the forum is not that it takes place - after all, it's surely understood that domainers have other dimensions to their lives than domain names - but that so many posts attack a person rather than what he or she is saying.

If everyone stuck to aiming at ideas rather than those who express them, the debate would be much more constructive. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Gerry]

when the politics section was created, it was "assumed" that DNF members were "mature" enough to have discussions there, in a rational, intelligent manner.

Ahem, I'm no angel...but, when and why was that section created?

And what service does it serve? Giving members a spot to ***** about something?

Yeah, I know I have no room to talk, but it honestly seems like some peeps view this as a political forum/debate forum with domains on the side.

 

[tristanperry]

hmmm....

when i was mod, there were complaints about too much moderation.

and now...

[My quoted post]

i see it as "pacification" for the outspoken minority

they were mad about getting their threads closed, threads moved or posts deleted, so they rose up in anger.

when the "silent majority" gets tired and start speaking up, then they may get a pacifier too.

imo...

I know what you are saying, although it's different people complaining this time

As the previous owner and admin of a large forums (used to get same number of posts as DNF; just with many less guests/traffic ^^), I'm convinced that the best way to moderate a forum is:

1) Have a clear (but not essay-length) set of rules

2) Have the mods and global mods enforce these rules

Some of its common sense (hence why you wouldn't need an essay-length set of rules), however for the most part it's rare to get people complaining when there's clear rules which are then being enforced.

I know that DNForum.com has clear rules, but they aren't always enforced - at least, not consistently.

There is flaming and flame wars daily here, which breaks the rules and nothing is done.

Then (more importantly, and this is a good thing of course) rules breaches in the sales board get dealt with very quickly.

Edit: I know it isn't easy, and I do agree that people were complaining about 'too much' moderating here (despite the rules being in place). Sometimes communities do go in "peaks and troughs". It's always a bit tricky to know how to fix things, but I do think that reasonable moderation and cutting out the flame wars (that latter point is the most important IMO) is the best way forward, even if it does make things a little more 'boring' in the short term.

when the politics section was created, it was "assumed" that DNF members were "mature" enough to have discussions there, in a rational, intelligent manner.


so, i think those who post in the political section should put restrictions on themselves

try and restrict themselves from posting fiction and declaring it as fact.

restrict themselves from engaging in "mud-slinging" personal attacks and from carrying issues from politics section to other areas of the forum.


imo...

This is easy to clean up. Enforce the "no flaming" rules. Close the board temporarily if needed.

My forums (I don't want to keep referring to them as though my way was 100% right or anything; that's not my intention) had a debate & discussion board, and the regulars all knew each-other's differing views, but it worked. This was because flaming and all was stamped out quickly. This was a forum which had mostly teenagers and young adults, not business men and women, too.

I agree that ideally people - especially business people - would be mature enough to enter religious and political debates without resorting to mud-sligning, but I think that without moderation (to clamp down on personal insults) any sort of debate will tend to personal attacks after a while.

A debate and discussion board can be a great thing, and they can be a good place to learn too (even if 99% of internet users wouldn't admit they have changed their mind over something 'their opponent' said in a debate ) - as long as personal attacks are stamped out.

 

[Gerry]

There is flaming and flame wars daily here, which breaks the rules and nothing is done.

Rather than finger point and pick out members, get rid of the source of the problem - the subforum that really has no place or serves no purpose.

I look at the members posting in those threads and wonder when was the last time they were involved in a sale as either the buyer or seller.

Obviously, the flame wars are going to heat up at anytime and any place rather than have a subforum whose sole purpose is to propagate this.

 

[tristanperry]

Rather than finger point and pick out members, get rid of the source of the problem - the subforum that really has no place or serves no purpose.

I look at the members posting in those threads and wonder when was the last time they were involved in a sale as either the buyer or seller.

Obviously, the flame wars are going to heat up at anytime and any place rather than have a subforum whose sole purpose is to propagate this.

That's definitely a solution, yes. However the problem is also relatively simple to solve, too (i.e. without removing any boards). So it's not like the subforum *must* go to 'restore order'.