|
|
Forum: Site Goals and Ideas
Thread (Discussion): make victims co-moderators for most forums
Message 139026
Posted by brennus
on Aug 23, 2004 02:08 AM | Also by brennus
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: 21 - 29,
State: Wisconsin,
Country: United States |
Victims should be co-moderators of the Victim & Survivors corner. I also believe that victims (or at least non SO's) should be chosen as assistant moderators in addition to steve for all forums except the Other SIde. For The Other Side, there should be either an SO or non-victim co-moderator. I am NOT interested in this position myself. During your vacations, forum updated tend to be slow, and posts which were written Fridays sometimes wait until Sundays to show up, and may be lost from sight.
Also, threads with only a single post to them should only be visible for 12 hours at most.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
Message 139036 (In Reply to Message 139026)
Posted by steve
on Aug 23, 2004 04:11 AM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: 30 - 39,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
Victims should be co-moderators of the Victim & Survivors corner.
brennus, your idea about chosing additional moderators is good. Unfortunately, there isn't a suitable interface to allow others to moderate right now.
During your vacations, forum updated tend to be slow, and posts which were written Fridays sometimes wait until Sundays to show up, and may be lost from sight.
I agree that it's an issue. If/when I add moderators obviously this won't be an issue, so long as there are moderators around to review pending posts.
Also, threads with only a single post to them should only be visible for 12 hours at most.
Are you saying you think they should only be visible from the main forum page for 12 hours? Or from the thread lists under each specific forum?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (139026)
Message 139039 (In Reply to Message 139036)
Posted by brennus
on Aug 23, 2004 04:56 AM | Also by brennus
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: 21 - 29,
State: Wisconsin,
Country: United States |
Are you saying you think they should only be visible from the main forum page for 12 hours? Or from the thread lists under each specific forum?
Main forum page. Leave the thread lists under the specific forums alone.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (139036)
Message 139049 (In Reply to Message 139026)
Posted by Rachel
on Aug 23, 2004 10:15 AM | Also by Rachel
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: 30 - 39,
State: N/A,
Country: Australia |
I'm not sure how the process works as far as choosing moderators, isn't it for those people who post regularly ?
I agree with your suggestion that victims should be co-moderators. However, it's fair to say that there are both victims and offenders on here that are abusive to some degree.
Steve should probably use his own discretion when deciding who should be moderators.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (139026)
Message 139068 (In Reply to Message 139049)
Posted by steve
on Aug 24, 2004 02:33 AM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: 30 - 39,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
I'm not sure how the process works as far as choosing moderators, isn't it for those people who post regularly ?
That's not a requirement in my mind, but I'd require a level of trust. A user who has posted here a lot over a long period of time and is willing to moderate according to standards that I find acceptable is someone I'd consider. I have two people who help out from time to time with moderation who do not post to the forums.
A year ago I was planning a fairly elaborate user-based moderation system where many users would be able to control moderation, but I have not implemented it due to a lack of time to program the functionality and observations of its effectiveness in other forums I visit with similar mechanisms.
I am considering a way that users would be able to moderate as a group, but it's just an idea I've been kicking around for a few months. In a nutshell, users who have met a certain threshold for time here and total posts would be able to view a queue of pending messages and either 1. do nothing, 2. assign a message a vote of confidence (worthy to post) or 3. recommend it for admin review. If a certain total # or % give a message a vote of confidence it would be approved. If a certain # recommend it for admin review it would be removed from the queue and flagged for admin review. All other posts would stay in the queue until either of those scenarious occurs or an admin approves or rejects the post. Admins would have authority to overturn any decision, but if the system worked well, that wouldn't be necessary often.
The big issue is how to prevent abuse. I don't have a firm idea about the mechanics, but I would basically look at how often a user's vote differed from user votes that resulted in #2 or #3 or were different than how I'd vote. I probably didn't communicate that well, but basically if a user makes blatantly poor moderation decisions, the user would be warned and could ultimately lose moderation privileges, at least temporarily. Thoughts?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (139049)
Message 139069 (In Reply to Message 139039)
Posted by steve
on Aug 24, 2004 02:39 AM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: 30 - 39,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
brennus, please elaborate on why. If there's something negative or annoying you envision this addressing, I'd like to know what that is. Once I know what that is and how others feel, it'll be clearer what possible solutions to explore.
For those who might not be clear on what's listed on the main forum page, it's discussion threads with recent posting activity. To appear on the list, a thread has had to have 1 or 2 posts in the last 48 hours, depending on how I've adjusted the settings.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (139039)
Message 139081 (In Reply to Message 139068)
Steve
Posted by Rachel
on Aug 24, 2004 03:12 AM | Also by Rachel
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: 30 - 39,
State: N/A,
Country: Australia |
All that makes sense and sounds good....I have 1 concern which I'm having trouble putting into words, so I'll use a pretend scenario:
Person A is very vocal about victims rights and frequently irritates person B who may be supportive of paedophiles. Person B is also a moderator, and through either his dislike of person A or his disagreeance (is that a word ? lol) with the post, votes not to allow the post...
What do you think ?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (139068)
Message 139085 (In Reply to Message 139081)
Posted by steve
on Aug 24, 2004 04:13 AM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: 30 - 39,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
Rachel, that's a good hypothetical situation. If Person B voted to reject the message, they'd need to supply a reason, which would probably involve selecting from the list of forum guidelines. If it's not legitimate, hopefully there wouldn't be enough users voting to reject to actually reject the post, but if they did, I would review all rejected posts and if I disagreed I would likely approve the post. Not liking someone wouldn't be a legitimate reason. Using profanity, posting copyrighted articles, viciously attacking another user, etc. would be. I wouldn't expect all users to interpret the rules the same as me and exceptions would be expected, but if I decided that a user is doing an inappropriate job moderating that user would be warned and/or lose moderation privileges.
In any case, one user voting to reject wouldn't reject a post. 2 or 3 probably reject votes would probably be required. Remember, worst case a message is rejected, I review it and either overturn the decision or leave it as is and if reject votes are made, but not more than the threshold, the message would just be in the queue until enough reject it or I review it. The idea is basically to speed up the moderation process by getting users who demonstrate an ability to enforce the rules to help. If there was a lot of abuse, the users who abuse the system would lose moderation privileges, leaving only those who actually moderate according to accepted guidelines. I guess in the worst case system some people might get mad or think they're being treated unfairly, but everyone will need to trust that I'll guide everyone in the right direction and if it doesn't work, we could go back to the current way.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (139081)
Message 139090 (In Reply to Message 139085)
Posted by Rachel
on Aug 24, 2004 10:57 AM | Also by Rachel
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: 30 - 39,
State: N/A,
Country: Australia |
Sounds fair to me....Thanks Steve.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (139085)
Message 139093 (In Reply to Message 139069)
Posted by brennus
on Aug 24, 2004 02:09 PM | Also by brennus
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: 21 - 29,
State: Wisconsin,
Country: United States |
I was just thinking that threads with just one post may clutter the board, but what seems to be happening is one thread posts are being responded to more than they used to. That's a great way to get more discussion. Also, for the moderation, with the system you and Rachel described, I think that when others can co-moderate posts, anyone with at least 6 months and/or 100 posts here should be able to do so.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (139069)
Message 139095 (In Reply to Message 139068)
steve
Posted by Navigatr1
on Aug 24, 2004 03:53 PM | Also by Navigatr1
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
steve wrote:
That's not a requirement in my mind, but I'd require a level of trust. A user who has posted here a lot over a long period of time and is willing to moderate according to standards that I find acceptable is someone I'd consider.
I agree. A moderator should be someone you can trust to enforce the rules of the forum, and who will be even-handed when moderating. It shouldn't matter whether it is a victim who is a moderator or someone who supports sex offenders. The important thing is that they enforce the rules for all posters even though they might disagree with what was posted. Not everyone is suited to be a moderator. I know some victims on here who would reject all posts by sex offenders, or those who support sex offenders.
Being a moderater isn't always an easy job either. I know from experience. Some posters will try to test your limits, and you have to try not to take it personal.
I might consider being a moderator for this forum if you are looking for volunteers, but I am not sure yet. I would have to change my signature though. lol.
--Navigatr1
CopWatch.com News Moderator
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (139068)
Message 139125 (In Reply to Message 139095)
Posted by 1dadof5
on Aug 25, 2004 08:47 PM | Also by 1dadof5
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Indiana,
Country: United States |
Having victims moderate the forum would not work because they would have a bias against anyone who doesn't support thier views.
HP for one would never get a post allowed if victims had that power.
victims could moderate victims section only, but leave the main moderation to unbiased and open minded people following the prescibed rules of the forum.
In the past 2 weeks since my daughter stopped posting, this site as gone ultra-conservative and closed minded to some who dont share thier views. This site is becoming nothing but a hater support group, full of paranoid and protectionist minded people who think that they know what is best for all.
I still find it amusing that a 15 y/o was able to intimidate so many in this forum
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (139095)
Message 139150 (In Reply to Message 139125)
Hater Support Group?
Posted by dp1
on Aug 26, 2004 01:08 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
I love it. Maybe Steve can change the name of the Victim's Corner to Hater Support Group and require anyone that posts to sign a statement swearing they hate sex crimes. This is good. Pass the word around more. There shouldn't be any secret that people that post in the Victim's Corner hate sex crimes.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (139125)
Message 139158 (In Reply to Message 139125)
Posted by orolan
on Aug 26, 2004 02:46 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
I still find it amusing that a 15 y/o was able to intimidate so many in this forum
Quite hilarious, I agree. My daughter has a large circle of friends who have attitudes similar to KK14's. Maybe we'll have them register and post en-masse, flooding the forums with posts from 17 year-olds;-)
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (139125)
Message 139172 (In Reply to Message 139125)
Yeah right
Posted by Rachel
on Aug 26, 2004 11:07 PM | Also by Rachel
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: Australia |
Sex offenders, paedophiles etc on this forum don't have a bias against those who don't share their views ???? Come up for air !
They are no more open-minded or unbiased than anyone else in here.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (139125)
Message 139179 (In Reply to Message 139026)
no posting
Posted by poetsdreamscape
on Aug 27, 2004 02:59 AM | Also by poetsdreamscape
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
I think the best way is to have moderators is that arent allowed to post there opinions here. That keeps it neutral. What they can do is post an opinion through steve or a question so that people dont claim bias.just an idea
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (139026)
Message 139203 (In Reply to Message 139172)
rachel
Posted by 1dadof5
on Aug 27, 2004 09:22 PM | Also by 1dadof5
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Indiana,
Country: United States |
i find it very amusing that just about anything that is said in this forum can be twisted, spun, and taken totally out of context.
I did not say that the sex offenders, and such have the biases, its some of the others here that are so closed minded. I do not hate those who molested me, i do not hate the sex offenders here either.
what i do dislike is the single and closed minded people posting here that spead their negativity like a virus. most pedophiles are not predators or commit a crime. Silver is proof of that. I hear the "christian values" thing all the time, and some of you who claim to be christian sure couldnt prove it in a trial by jury
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (139172)
Message 139204 (In Reply to Message 139172)
Posted by orolan
on Aug 27, 2004 11:32 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
As an SO, I have no bias against persons who have views counter to mine. In fact, I have and will engage them in constructive debates to develop a common ground.
What I do have a bias against is stupidity and hatred. And like it or not, quite a few people on the "other side of the fence" have both of those traits.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (139172)
Message 139205 (In Reply to Message 139026)
Posted by orolan
on Aug 27, 2004 11:37 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
I don't oppose victims moderating The Victim Corner. Nor do I oppose SO's moderating The Other Side. I do oppose any crossover, though.
As for the General Forum, either Steve goes it alone as is currently done, or moderation is handled by an equal number of victims and SO's.
Just my opinion.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (139026)
Message 139207 (In Reply to Message 139203)
Posted by dp1
on Aug 28, 2004 02:08 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
most pedophiles are not predators or commit a crime. Silver is proof of that.
Do you know of any studies or have proof that pedophiles do not commit crimes? Is this your opinion or can you share proof with us that this is fact? How long have you known Silver and have you been with him every minute to know for a fact that he has never molested anyone? Nothing personal against Silver, but if you only know him briefly through this website I'd hardly call that proof of anything. For all we know he could be a serial rapist, how much quicker can anyone jump to conclusions and call them facts. I'm amazed. So if I told you I was the Queen of England after three or four posts would you believe me? Hardly anything resembling fact by a far stretch......
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (139203)
Message 139208 (In Reply to Message 139204)
Posted by dp1
on Aug 28, 2004 02:18 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Can someone explain to me why all the discussion about bias? What does that have to do with moderating a site? Either a post violates a forum rule or it doesn't. Why would it matter which side the person was on? Grow up folks. Quit whining.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (139204)
Message 139218 (In Reply to Message 139208)
Posted by dp1
on Aug 28, 2004 12:27 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
I don't think we should know the identity of the person moderating. They should sign in with a new name like moderatoroftheday or whatever. It's none of our business if they are a victim or SO. Either they moderate the posts according to Steve's rules or they don't. If not then it's up to Steve. The moderator can still keep their old sign in name and post about whatever they want and feel free to express themselves.
I've noticed that folks on the site get majorly caught up in personal issues and make the outrageous assumption that a person can't separate their personal feelings when making a decision. I disagree. I believe a lot of the long time posters here who have demonstrated a level of maturity would do a good job moderating regardless of their SO status or victim status.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (139208)
Message 140339 (In Reply to Message 139207)
DP1
Posted by Silverthorne
on Oct 09, 2004 05:42 PM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
"How long have you known Silver and have you been with him every minute to know for a fact that he has never molested anyone? Nothing personal against Silver, but if you only know him briefly through this website I'd hardly call that proof of anything. For all we know he could be a serial rapist, how much quicker can anyone jump to conclusions and call them facts."
I dont take it personally. Rest assured though that newspaper article on my situation last year I posted here was factual. They had access to my medical records, polygraph from therapy, interviews, they even did a criminal background check on me (I had to provide my past addresses). They didn't want to publish something that would come back to haunt them.
I agree though there is no way to tell how many don't act out. I'm inclined to believe most people with pedophilic tendencies DONT act out. Basically I believe this because it is such a stigma. I find it hard to believe all pedophiles have no moral guidance in their lives. My personal belief is they are more likely to commit suicide then act out. I think alot of "strange" suicides for no reason are related to sexual issues including pedophilia.
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (139207)
Message 140340 (In Reply to Message 139205)
Posted by Silverthorne
on Oct 09, 2004 05:43 PM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
I could moderate both sides but I'm pretty "neutral" overall. As I fit the victims category as a victim I feel at home there. Likewise though given my experience with therapy I'm probably the best "other side" advocate around.
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (139205)
Message 140341 (In Reply to Message 140340)
Posted by dp1
on Oct 09, 2004 11:13 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Any moderator will do. Steve, where are you? HELLO!!!
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (140340)
Thread
139026, brennus, Aug 23, 2004 02:08 AM
139036, steve, Aug 23, 2004 04:11 AM
139039, brennus, Aug 23, 2004 04:56 AM
139069, steve, Aug 24, 2004 02:39 AM
139093, brennus, Aug 24, 2004 02:09 PM
139049, Rachel, Aug 23, 2004 10:15 AM
139068, steve, Aug 24, 2004 02:33 AM
139081, Rachel, Aug 24, 2004 03:12 AM [Steve]
139085, steve, Aug 24, 2004 04:13 AM
139090, Rachel, Aug 24, 2004 10:57 AM
139095, Navigatr1, Aug 24, 2004 03:53 PM [steve]
139125, 1dadof5, Aug 25, 2004 08:47 PM
139150, dp1, Aug 26, 2004 01:08 PM [Hater Support Group?]
139158, orolan, Aug 26, 2004 02:46 PM
139172, Rachel, Aug 26, 2004 11:07 PM [Yeah right]
139203, 1dadof5, Aug 27, 2004 09:22 PM [rachel]
139207, dp1, Aug 28, 2004 02:08 AM
140339, Silverthorne, Oct 09, 2004 05:42 PM [DP1]
139204, orolan, Aug 27, 2004 11:32 PM
139208, dp1, Aug 28, 2004 02:18 AM
139218, dp1, Aug 28, 2004 12:27 PM
139179, poetsdreamscape, Aug 27, 2004 02:59 AM [no posting]
139205, orolan, Aug 27, 2004 11:37 PM
140340, Silverthorne, Oct 09, 2004 05:43 PM
140341, dp1, Oct 09, 2004 11:13 PM
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
|
|
|
