Who would make for good moderators in the D&D forum?

@Clutch I would ban @Granville after that. wow!!! he can't keep his **** together & he wants your blood for it.

 

I suggested earlier in the thread that the moderator(s) be allowed to create alternate account(s) so they can do the job without the person they are disciplining knowing their political leanings. It would also save any hard feelings against who is chosen vs. who is not. They could then post in the forum with their normal account and only sign into the moderator account when needed. If the mod(s) is/are too heavy handed and targeting one side, then private messages to @Clutch about the bias would be the avenue to correct the moderator. A good moderator will be able to make sure they just enforce the rules without targeting one side. If a moderator is trying to dictate thread content and sway conversations with their authority then they will destroy the D&D and turn it into a one sided forum with people just agreeing with each other. We only need a moderator to recognize when a thread is going downhill and getting personal. Even when that happens just a simple warning to the participant(s) saying they are close to crossing a line should be enough to steer any conversation back to civility most of the time.

Not much needs to change here. We have diametrically opposed sides debating daily and we have done a great job of keeping things civil with some mild jabbing. We just need a referee to keep people from crossing lines into hurtful personal insults.

 

You following me around harassing me, is kinda what I'm talking about. You opened a thread to insult me for Christ Sake

261 posts since 2001...

 

insult you??? you did these things & should take some responsibility for your own offensive actions.

​

 

Granville showed admirable self control, IMO. He got upset as it went on, but his wins above replacement player was very respectable.

 

You asked a good question, jcf. You tend to do that. My answer would be that it's based on a very long stretch of time, and hundreds of posts. It isn't said lightly, and the few members I'm referring to know exactly what they are doing.

 

What nonsense. MojoMan wouldn't recognize a moderate if he or she were standing an inch from his face, @Clutch. He's an extremist who thinks anyone who disagrees with him must be one as well.

 

This might be one of the most annoying posts I've ever read on clutchfans.

There is nothing to be made aware of. There is no systemic hate speech here. Just get off your high horse. Stop trying to create problem when there isn't one. This place is pretty damn calm compared to MANY other places on the internet.

 

I think this thread provides enough evidence to suggest that it is largely impossible to moderate something like this without it de-evolving into some followup faux outrage over every mod decision. It'll turn into the same dumb tribalism we've grown to see daily in the real world. Frankly the level of discourse in this forum is pretty good for internet standards (even if it has arguably deteriorated over time but so has general discourse so I'm not sure that's a problem isolated to this forum).

As long as political discussion includes a continuous stream of outrage, there's no real room for calm moderation. Might as well just let people continue as is and hope some reasonable thought seeps in every now and then.

The number of personal attacks on here is quite low by internet standards. Maybe its better to just take it for what it is and just call it a win.

Then again I say this as someone who doesn't really post anymore so perhaps my take isn't accurate.

 

Thx

 

I agree. I don't know what he's thinking, but the fellow has gone round the bend in this case. As much as I agree with him that BobbytheNotSoGreat showed the BBS some entirely unacceptable behavior, what he's carrying on about in the post you quoted is absurd. I've been here for 16 years and have seen some pretty bad stuff, and I've never seen anything really awful, and what Bobby did was really awful, that hasn't been addressed by one of the Mods or by @Clutch.

It can take a while, but with 44,000 members and the same number of mods, more or less, I think it's understandable that it can. I've raised hell here, in Feedback, and a bit behind the scenes about members posting blatant bigoted slurs about the transgender community, and it never occurred to me to make a freakin' federal case out of it by calling the "International BBS Police Department." Like I said, it took a while, but something was done about it.

What a world. Some folks need to do what I did and take the ignore feature seriously. I have 50 members on mine.

 

...that feature does work...

...here in the Matrix or in the real world, too...!

 

I have considered ignoring one person's tweets on here but I still have zero on my ignore list.

The liberal voices on this forum are pretty non-radical so I enjoy their opinion even when they have loony takes. They are sincere unlike many on the left and MSM.

 

@Clutch

Let's just delete the D&D. Why go through the trouble?
You are at your best giving us Rockets news and takes not baby sitting a bunch of suckers.

Let's return this site to the original purpose as a Rockets Fans site to talk about the Rockets.
I'm ok with the other Sports and Hangout.

The D&D serves no purpose.

The other forums has created friendships, good advice, Rockets games watching parties etc

The D&D is a place for trolls and hatred and mentally unstable

DESTROY THE D&D

 

You make a good point that liberals are more numerous here. I'm actually fine with picking all mods from the conservative side, provided they have the reserve and wisdom to not be abusive in modding. It's not like a couple of conservative mods would be enough to tip the entire tenor of the board and stifle liberal voices.

He did it in the first place to get the political talk out of Hangout and GARM, which worked. Now, if someone says something impolitic they get run out of those forums on a pole. But, without D&D, the politics will return, especially to Hangout.

 

The first step should be to agree on what the standards are that this forum is truly committed to enforcing. If that is just whatever seems good to a specific moderator and the moderators are some of the usual leftist blowhards who post most prolifically around here, then I predict that this forum is going to be a pathetic joke in no time.

However, if the standard is a specific focus on not tolerating personal attacks or name calling against other posters by ANYONE, then any honest person who was willing to commit to the responsibility of enforcing that standard should be able to do the job, as politics or partisanship should not be a factor. It would certainly not have to be a conservative, but there are a number of leftist posters around here who have clearly demonstrated that they very probably do not have the personal integrity to perform this task in an evenhanded way. Alternatively, I am not sure I have seen a conservative poster here who I believe would have an objectivity problem in enforcing this standard if they were willing to make the commitment to try and do it, but I also suspect there may not be any who want the job, so it may well be a moot point.

 

...I'm just here so I don't get fined.

 

If leftist, Democrat Party and all the other stupid slogans and name-calling that are endemic to conservative politics are disallowed, what are you going to post about? Here you are claming liberals on the board have no personal integrity and of course claiming conservatives do have it? What is that but a personal attack?

You're an excellent example of the issue with moderation aside from the fact that you're trying to control the manner of moderation so that you and your brethren can continue to post conspiracy theories and trash that you find from the corners of the net. The kinds of bogus sources and posts that aren't tolerated on other parts of the board.

Nice job.

 

You do not seem to know what a personal attack is. Let me try to help. A personal attack is an insulting or derogatory comment directed at a specific poster here on this board. Not against the post or the idea posted by that poster, but against the poster themselves.

A general comment about "Republican rightists" or "Democrat leftists" is not a personal attack, because there is no specific poster being attacked. That is allowed, as are attacks against political parties, ideologies, public figures, or anyone who is not a poster here on this board.

Had I named a specific Democrat left poster who was sufficiently lacking in personal integrity to be able to fulfill the functions of enforcing a "No personal attacks" standard, that would have been an example of a personal attack. But I did not, so I am in the clear.

As far as your concern about the posting of conspiracy theories, do you mean like the one that the Democrat left media has been promoting seemingly nonstop for two years now about Donald Trump supposedly conspiring with the Russians to steal the 2016 presidential election from Hillary Clinton (D-NY)?

Seriously, this is a great example of why such commentary should not be moderated or censored on a forum like this. It is a matter of partisan political preference as to whether any specific conspiracy theory is considered legitimate or not. It is better just to respond to any such post with an explanation why you consider it to be lacking in credibility (without personal attacks against the poster of the idea) and let the scrutiny that comes from such remarks have whatever effect it will.

Unless everyone just has to agree with you and what you think. This is a discussion forum after all, is it not?