Perhaps Boscoe, but the Moderator's "Code of Conduct" is something that is separate and distinct from the "Rules and Regs". That is because the former applies solely to Moderators and dictates their responsibilites and outlines their roles, while the latter applies to both parties. That being said, they may not be a secret but neither are they freely available on TLR with the exception of this thread. Surely such information belongs next to the "Rules and Regs" link, after all, the Moderator's "Code of Conduct" is a set a set of rules and regulations as well.

As for the thread deletions, you said this:

---

If a thread is turning into a spamfest, and has lost its purpose, and really has no way of getting back on track, we'll lock it, with an explanation and leave it up for a day or so, then delete it. We want to make sure people have a chance to see why a thread was deleted. If warranted, we'll email the original poster.

---

As I said, I find the act of deletion over-kill in this particular situation.

Usually these threads die a natural death, so there's nothing we need to do. It's the ones which have posts like "yeah, so what" / "I don't care" / "you're a dope" / "I know, but a nice dope" / "Maybe, but you're still a dope" / "I know" / "So dopey, what're you doing this weekend?" / "Idunno" / "Idunno either" / "That's good" / "Yeah" / "Maybe some TV?" / "Yeah" / "What's on?" / "Idunno" / "me neither" / "lol" / "he he" / "got beer?" / "yeah some, but should get more" / "yeah" ...........and on and on and on.
Those get annoying, and usually start with a good topic, and our members end up wasting their time reading this. Email or IM each other for this.
If a thread goes from topic to topic, but the conversation remains good and interesting, we'll leave it alone and let it run its course.

Some other reasons. People interpret things in different ways, so what we've all agreed to may be thought of in a completely different way to someone else. Also, people will want to pick word for word the way we run things. Generally taking things out of context then making a stink about it. Also, we may be trying new things that may or may not work. If we post it, it's set in virtual stone. We may decide a particular issue isn't working, and get together and rework it.

Besides, do you know of any sites which actually post the moderators code of conduct? I don't.


Edited by - Boscoe on 4/5/2005 8:12:50 PM

So you are stating that "you're a dope" types of threads should be deleted because they "get annoying" and "waste members' time"? One could say that about literally *any* thread that they do not have a personal interest in and therein lies the problem. As for your statements regarding interpretation, that is precisely why possessing a definitive and publicly available "Code of Conduct" would be a good idea; to help stop misunderstandings and arguments over subjective interpretations. As for sites featuring CoC's this site (onlinegamers.org.uk) possesses a Moderator's "Code of Conduct" which clearly delineates their roles and responsibilities. Such a Code seems to work well for them.

Edited by - esquilax on 4/5/2005 8:31:58 PM

Like I said Esky, these generally die a natural death, and we just let that happen. That link is the only site I've seen which publicizes moderater rules like that. No wonder there are only four of them! Abuse is by far the main reason we close a thread. We simply don' t tolerate abuse here, and that's been the case since this site opened in 2000. We have "guidelines" we follow, nothing like that bizarre moderators adherence thingy in the site you linked. Remember, we all do this in our spare time for no money, and often get much grief. But that's the job of a moderator. We do talk often between ourselves over many issues, so we do all we can to stay on the same page. There's really nothing more to it than that.

Esq - moderators do not write their own rules (unsuprisingly) - so I would suggest if you have an issue with the rule, that you take this issue up with Eraser or BP.

Boscoe - Locking and perhaps deleting an abusive thread is one thing, but locking and deleting a thread just because it has become a haven of spam is something else. As for the Moderator CoCs, I can find more sites if you wish but I do not think that it would accomplish much; I've made my point .

Chips - I never said anything about Moderator's writing their own rules, nor did I make any criticisms regarding the current set of TLR rules. I simply stated that I felt that it would be in everybody's best interests if the new rules ie. the Moderator's "Code of Conduct" was made publicly available. Does that seem unreasonable?

---

I must also state my opposition to thread and post deletion. I feel that it is something that should *only* be done under exceptional circumstances. Locking a thread and then deleting it because it it spam-filled seems like over-kill. Surely a *click* coupled with a post by the staff member in question explaining their rationale for locking the thread is sufficient. What's the harm in leaving a spam-filled thread up? It would encourage more spam? *Rolls eyes*

---

Sorry, my post was in direct response to that - where i thought you were questioning/disagreeing with moderators about how to undergo their task, and the rules for which they now operate under. As I said, that is for admins to comment upon, not moderators. The administrators set out the rules as they wish for us to carry out the task of ensuring the forums run in the way they wish. If I have the wrong end of the stick there, then I apologise.

---

In perhaps amending the Code and/or forum "Rules and Regs" based upon the input of the forum posters may be a good idea, because it would allow them to have a direct say in the way in which the forums are overseen. Such a scheme would work by posting a thread in an appropriate forum and perhaps having it linked to the frontpage, and getting some intelligent and productive discourse made available. After all, if people provide input to a process or procedure, they are more likely to follow it because they were personally involved in its creation.

---

The rules and regs are the way the owners/administrators - the people who provide the site which you partake in, wish for other people whom use the website to adhere to. This is the same for the vast majority of internet sites, infact, probabily all of them. As always, if you dislike a rule - then you can always email the admins - putting forth your arguement - and hope that they will make some changes.

As the rules always stated, we prefer input into these areas via email. I would ask that you respect the wishes of the staff, and follow those proceedures.

Edited by - Chips on 4/6/2005 2:28:27 AM

Very well, I will email the staff regarding my position on these matters if I feel that there is anything else that needs stating.

it's very rare i ever disagree publicly with my firry-eared clleague, but in this respect I feel that his suggestion is unreasonable and impractical.

firstly, it is *their* site; they *the staff* can run it anyway they want. In view of the staff's recent efforts to reach out to the membership, which you are well aware of, i think they really ought to be given some credit for that. personally speaking I trust whatever Eraser decides to do will be for the benefit of the community as a whole and won't be anything unreasonable.
secondly, democracy works very well in *another place* where everyone knows each other, precisely because of its privacy; in an open public forum, that level of democracy cannot work. For that reason, public discussion of a Code of Conduct would be self-defeating.
thirdly, said Codex isn't finished yet and is very much a work in progress, as you know full well, Bunny-boy. This is neither the time nor the place for a public debate and you know you have other channels you can use to get your point across, which are just as if not more effective than open forums.

It's not my fault! Arcon made me do it!

Anyway, the discussion of the CoC was only a suggestion and I actually *wasn't* aware that that new CoC hadn't been finalised when I made those posts. I am aware of that now however .

Edited by - esquilax on 4/6/2005 5:06:58 PM