OG proposal #1 (June 09) - Cull worthless members?

Oh hey.. no need to be snappy. I was just trying to figure out your stance.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The whole point is that people will find reasons to nominate someone, and it will be a vote. Nobody will say "that vote doesn't count", because then that defeats the entire point unless you have someone who is to be an impartial judge, which is what mods are here to do at this very moment. So nothing changes.


By the way you do realise you won't be going anywhere right? Nobody would ever vote for you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think you are being kind, but thanks

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I have said that I am going to be away for sometime anyway. Btw, here was my nomination in post #52:

So, until later :wave:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

While that is true, but the moments of silence in between may allow for a relatively low woowoo factor and no derailing of perfectly good threads with inane bullshit. And I think that's okay.

But having so many woowoo's mucking about causes other users to behave badly and generally think it's okay. In fact, some of those woowoo's threads have drawn in more woowoo's from Google, n'est pas?

 

Even if it's adopted I'm abstaining from nominations as I don't approve of the policy. As much as there are people I'd nominate I feel they would be banned on the basis of others feelings towards them, not the cognitive content(or lack of) in their posts. I want people banned on the basis that they deserve it, not that someone has a vendetta and can find an innocent reason to hide behind. It would make a mockery of the forums.

 

Yeah ok but then I think the mods should simply act on it. Anti-flag made a point I agree with which is that a proposal like this will not be objective for many posters, instead of looking at what is good for the community as a whole they will simply opt to nail people whom they have some grievance with and its not hard to show proof of someone derailing a thread who may otherwise not be ban worthy. As far as overall quality is concerned this is something that is dependent on us not the mods. Anyway I've been here a long time and we have never had a shortage of noobs and woowoo's no matter what was done, I don't think getting rid of a few now as has been done in the past will rid us of them. The only way to do this is to have an exclusive membership and not an open board.

 

Totally agree.

 

I just realised I bothered to make a good serious post, this calls for a celebration, anyone want a beer?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And we're back.....

 

What is the purpose of this james? What happened to bring this on? I think everyone contributes in some way or another. There are occasionally some people that get on my nerves a little. I won't mention any. I still wouldn't want to see them get banned. Even though they may not post anything of value, they may just say something from time to time to get peoples minds going.

 

I absolutely agree, and I agree with Anti-Flag as well for the most part, but I think that JamesR is looking for input more than he is requesting for us to BE the firing squad. I would have done it differently, and it may be a little experiment on JamesR's part... I don't know the intentions of others and I don't try to guess. I read what was posted and am trying to be as honest as possible with my opinion because it was asked of us. I think Inzomnia was trying to do the same and shouldn't be chided (bad Enmos

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) for speaking her mind.

As I said, I think that some of the posters pushed way too far and no one knows why they are still here except what's been said behind closed doors. But there are also a few that should probably be "let go" for their own sake, not for the forums sake.

 

Skaught this is what brought it on. Excerpts from James post:

The problem I have as an administrator is that I hear calls to get rid of certain members all the time - complaints that the place is being "dumbed down" by certain people, that back in the Glory Days sciforums used to be an intelligent community but now we're just a bunch of school kids and so on and so forth.

But then, when I suggest we clean out the supposed "dead wood", I only hear the reasons for why we shouldn't do it.

Can you see why the moderators/admins might get a little annoyed at the apparent inconsistency in what members say they want? What do you suggest I, as an administrator, do regarding this issue?

Ah, but whenever a member is banned for contributing nothing useful, as judged by the moderators, we get complaints from some members saying that our decision was wrong and unfair and unjustified.

Clearly, some members don't trust the admin/moderators to make these decisions. That's why I'm asking you all how you'd do it.

 

I'll buy you that beer Anti-Flag!
:cheers:

I would also abstain. Apparently some people with high-school popularity issues have no idea what the ignore function is for.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Its what I had to do after a temp-ban and it works.
If the annoying people are put on ignore by enough people and no one responds to them, they will go away.

 

Kinda skimmed the thread(which I generally think is horseshit so I care not to comment overly), and DID NOT see my name....so I voted YES get rid of these damn useless members, by any means necessary!

Put them in a concentration camp if possible!

Seriously...if I was to get enough PMs saying we think you are actually too lame for sciforums....I'd prolly slit my wrists...because that's pretty pathetic as things stand now.

No ok, seriously seriously. Just ask, and I go, I've never been one to be where I'm not wanted.

 

1. people who knowingly and deliberately post false information.
propaganda is a special case and cannot be easily defined, which probably makes the politics forum such a wild place.

2. people that come here "just to catch up on things".
we're fine, if you don't really have anything to say then check out your favorite posters personal page by clicking on their name, yak away.
i prefer to keep "what's important and/or in the news" to be the primary focus of sciforums. sorry, your individuality is irrelevant in this case.

3. people on a mission against the forums.
people registering, making one or two posts, then creating a thread chastising mod actions could be seen as an example of this.

the only poster i can think of that deserves banning is cluelesshusband
the poster is a deliberate idiot, their avatar gross and disgusting.
i have no idea if (s)he changed their avatar or not since (s)he's on my ignore list.

 

quite happy to moderate posts?
some posts would be easy but i assume the vast amount of them would involve more than one post. i would also assume that the history between the parties involved would have some bearing. the topic would also be a factor. and that's just off the top of my head.
some of your mods might take the easy way out of a questionable situation and just give an infraction to the poster that has been getting them lately.

 

i would also add scott3x to the ban list for the above reason.

 

Why not just put him on ignore? If everyone quit interacting with him, he would leave.

 

Ignore is a mixed bag for me. I do have people on ignore, and yet curiousity gets me and I take them off to see what stupid thing they posted next.

 

Ignore also doesn't work, if your cookie or whatever times out and you are not actually logged in...then you realize you are not logged in because you are finding yourself reading Draqon's fucking posts. It's too late, you read them, they are still in your head even after you ,yes once again login.

 

I suppose that is true, but then again I stay logged in.

Although ignore is enough for the "I don't like your opinion/method" members..........the really USELESS ones are the ones that are registered and literally do nothing. Or the ones that spam. Those can and should be banned.