SkyscraperCity banner

Should the GMA Forum have their own Moderator Team

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 70.6%
  • No

    Votes: 5 29.4%
  • Dont Know

    Votes: 0 0.0%
1 - 20 of 68 Posts

·
MORI
Joined
·
8,646 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Some of the regular forumers feel that the Glasgow Metro Area Forum needs a security guard to keep this forum in order.

This thread is for feedback from you all that surf and post on the GMA forum.

Your thoughts and and replies here please as to wether we should approach the main Moderators for some authority to moderate the GMA forum by a select team voted by the GMA forumers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
456 Posts
I fail to see the need. The traffic is sufficiently low as to render it pointless. What is going to be 'kept in order'? One presumes that means the threat of posts being deleted or even bannings or other sanctions. Do we have one individual who decides what is and isnt acceptable or what us poor innocent souls should or shouldnt be exposed to?

**** that shite. I have no need of a censor. I am happy to form my own views of whatever i read and while i may find some opinions offensive i would find the denial of people's rights to express those opinions and be questioned on them more offensive. I despise this santisation of the internet that seems to be accompanying the spread of web based forum discussions. It truly is a case of people coming together to reinforce their own prejudices at times.

Such moderation that there is here is tolerable where it moderates with a hand so light as to not touch at all. If the function is there it should be used almost not at all and it certainly should not be extended to the actual users of the forum. Without casting aspersions as to the moral character of any potential candidate there are limits to how impartial someone might be were they to be engaged in any sort of even mildly warmed up debate.

There is the suggestion that this power wont need to be used. If it wont need to be then why is it needed? I really do struggle to see whats broke here and in need of fixing.

Let the thing develop and change and live and die as it will.
 

·
control yourself
Joined
·
4,368 Posts
I think we should have a Moderator who acts as a sort of figure-head, with any moderating being decided upon collectively, with the exception of 'house-keeping', through discussion in this thread and then acted on by the Moderator. I also think the Moderators 'powers' should be limited to the Glasgow Sub Forum in a sort of sub-Moderator role.

I realise that we don't really need much Moderating here as we do it ourselves, but sometimes you just really need someone with the capability of deleting a single post to stop it all kicking off. And stop our threads being hijacked.

Mo for Mod.
 

·
control yourself
Joined
·
4,368 Posts
I think you miss the point Outo... as per...
You already are moderated, moderators and being moderated is part and parcel of internet forums. Sometimes people do need to be hushed.

I don't think banning is part of the intended remit of a Glasgow sub-forum moderator.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
I happily second outofchaosaworld's opinion. Although I am not a regular poster to these forums, I am slightly disturbed that moderation may be introduced to keep the forums "in order". By its very nature, any form of censorship is entirely subjective. Who has the right to say some comments, however unpleasant or inflamatory they may be are ripe for deletion? I would rather run the risk of being offended by certain comments than have them deleted.

Surely the whole point of a forum is to be able to express an opinion without fear of censure. For God's sake, we are (almost) all adults on here, get a grip.

I would also like to add take a shit on my balls, you cunting motherfuckers.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
5,921 Posts
Crikey - talk about missing the point.

I think having a specialised Mod for this forum is a great idea for the following, painfully obvious reasons:

1) It keeps the forum in check. No regular/semi regular poster on here will ever need moderated. We all have our disagreements and arguments and what not, but there is nothing that we say that needs moderated as such. Not even the foul language that you lot churn out on a regular basis ;).

The idea of a mod here is not to censor what you guys are saying, its to stop trolls who come into the forum purely to cause trouble.

That post left in the elph construction thread was a nonsense - it had nothing to do with the building, contained a link to an extremely sensitive and most importantly irrelevent (to this architecture forum) subject. Stuff that like merely tarnishes the board.

A mod can get rid of this, brig the offender and stop the situation from getting out of hand before any of us begin to fuel the fire, or before it takes one of the UK mods to do anything about it.

2) Administration: a mod will be able to delete pointless threads (of which there are many in here), rename, reorganise and update other threads at will. For example: The first post of the development summary hasn't been updated in a long time (or hadn't been the last time I checked). A mod can go and edit gleegies post making it up to date. There are many other instances where that would come in handy.

3) If there were major problems with the forum (excess of trolls), our mod could go about getting them banned permanently, much much quicker than if we all started pestering Gothicform and co about getting it done.

4) There's not too much traffic here, so it won't be too tricky a job. It'll be leisurely, almost...

SO. The glasgow mod will never really need to censor us, only stop garbage rolling in from other areas trying to disrupt what we've got. And it'll be handy to keep the forum in good working order.


I am well in favour of it, and I'm flattered you mentioned me Crusty, but I share your opinion that Mo is definitely the best choice for mod. Mo is the standard bearer for the forum - now that Gleegie is more busy with FG (I miss Gleegie's inputs here - come back!), Mo is easily top contributer here, and keeps this place afloat when no-one else has anything to say. Plus he's a class guy, so even more reason for him to be it :)

Only if you can be bothered, tho, Mo :)
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
5,921 Posts
Oh god, we have an undefined 'us'.....that presumably means there is a 'them' somewhere. You are ok if you are an 'us' but the 'them's are fair game and subject to being removed for being contentious or considered a 'troll' (what is that? Isnt it often times someone that just doesnt toe the opinion line?

Is this really all about one post? If thats all the problems you have had then there truly is no need for this. I despair of all this 'painfully obvious' crap. Its like Blair and his ID card shite. Oh we need it for national security, really we do....
Haha I just went from thinking you made a good point in the Glasgow Latest thread, and respecting your opinion to thinking you're a jumped up retard with little or no common sense.

Is this all about one post? No, of course it's not. Am I going to list all the stuff in the past that has brought plenty 'o disripute to this fine forum? No, I'm not, as it would require far to much effort. Those who have been here long enough will know why this place needs a bit of moderation from time to time. Those who haven't clearly won't.
 

·
control yourself
Joined
·
4,368 Posts
In the name of christ.. are you on drugs this evening? Can I have some?

You obviously don't understand the concept, why not leave it at that instead of thinking you're being dead clever 'acting up' in your verbose and florid manner and in a way some attention-craving troll would and somehow illustrating some conceited point you hold about moderating.

Forget us and we. You are a pishflap.

:eek:ld:
 

·
Local man
Joined
·
394 Posts
Are you saying you want to force us all to accept your opinion that there shouldn't be a moderator? Screaming that you want to censor those who want censorship is one of the most self-refuting points ever made.
 

·
smalltown boy
Joined
·
3,433 Posts
I say this as a good Lib Dem who's just as concerned about the erosion of civil liberties as anyone: yes, it would be a good idea, although I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

Having a moderator doesn't reduce free speech or anything, because it never existed on here before. It's a private discussion forum, which people are cordially invited to participate in. If someone comes along purely to disrupt proceedings, then appropriate action is taken.

Anyway, the only change to the status quo would be that a new moderator would be someone who is a regular participant, which can only be a good thing, imho.

If there is a mod though, the most important points is that it should be someone who posts regularly; and isn't a hothead who would abuse their power. M_Riaz, who started this thread, has been been mentioned by a few people, and I think he would be a good person to do it based on those criteria.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
410 Posts
Let's censor GM+AD for 6 months. After all, there are many other offices doing good works in Glasgow..... ;)
 

·
control yourself
Joined
·
4,368 Posts
there are many other offices doing good works in Glasgow..... ;)
Why aren't they speaking up then? ;)

What about a moderator, whats your thoughts on that subject? Yes/no?

I think opinions expressed (regardless of what we think of them!) will count more than voting in the poll. And at the end of the day, if Admin decided no, then the answer will be no.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
410 Posts
Personally, I don't think we need one. Like adverts on the TV, I tend to skip most of the crap which appears.
 

·
Local man
Joined
·
394 Posts
There are a number ofissues here, let's try and clarify them and the arguments for and against.

M_Riaz was probably incautious to use the phrases 'security guard' and 'keep this forum in order', which make the proposed moderator sound like nothing more than someone who deletes posts he/she finds offensive. Of course, the role would encompass more than that.

Firstly, there is the purely organizational aspect of the role. I assume everyone will agree there are 'dead' threads that there is no worth in keeping - duplicates, threads which only attracted a couple of posts, and similar things. Someone with moderator powers could clean these up, as well as updating certain threads like the development summary. Provided threads which are no longer used but which contain useful information are kept, I do not see any reason not to have someone to perform this task. We have enough evidence that the current moderators don't have the time to do much in the Glasgow forum, and so having a 'local' to do it here seems useful. I don't see any arguments against this, apart from perhaps that our forum is not that messy. Perhaps so, but even if there is some work to be done, and someone willing to take on the job, no matter how small, it seems like we should have such a person.

2) The issue of trolls. At least some parts of this issue seem to be independent of any censorship worries. I am sure no-one thinks that it is any kind of censorship (positive or negative) to prevent someone who wants to post nonesense, inappropriate material (e.g. pornography, gore), or maliciously clog up a thread by attempting to flood it with posts. Perhaps others disagree, but this doesn't seem like any attempt to stifle opinion. Having the right to free speech shouldn't be thought of as the right to say anything you want in any way you want; If I don't want someone to scream in my ears, I'm not engaging in any kind of negative censorship. Nor am I engaging in censorship in any meaningfully negative way if I call someone who incites others to commit crimes a criminal for doing so. And if I complain about your choice to express yourself at 100Db outside my house at 2 a.m., I amn't some kind of authoritarian, tellng people what to do (Or at least, I am only asking people to agree to certain rules adopted by society).

This brings us to the issue of censorship in a negative sense. I hope we all accept that what constitutes negative censorship isn't simply denying anyone the right to express whatever they want, whenever they want, in whichever way they want. It really seems to be something more like denying someone the right to express what they think when what they are expressing, and they way they are expressing it, does not violate some other right we imagine people to have. For instance, I am not censoring you in a negative way if you want to scream at someone about what they believe, and make fun of them. I am censoring you in a negative way if you want to calmly express yourself in a way that you would allow someone else to express themselves, yet I stop you purely because I disagree with what you think.

The issue is how far your rights to express yourself extend - do they extend, for example, to making posts with little or no content, that simply express ignorant mocking of another society? And even if they do, does it follow that everyone must tolerate this, even if the person makes no attempt to engage in rational discussion? If a post is useless, expresses a sentiment that the vast majority of people here disagree with, and goes beyond an expression of an opinion to something that might be found offensive, why should the will of the majority that it be deleted be denied?

Outofchaosaworld, my initialpost was somewhat facetious, I admit. But I do have a more serious point. The issue is not just about expressing yourself - what people are expressing is a desire for something to happen. You (and others) expressed the desire that there not be a moderator, others expressed the opposite desire. But one of the two situations has to occur. Both sides expressed the desire for something to happen, and only one side can get their way. So if you allow others to express their opinion that there should be a moderator (as your position requires you to do), and these others are in the overwhelming majority, you have a problem; if you continue to demand there not be a moderator, you are on the one hand saying people have the right to express themselves, but that they are somehow wrong. You therefore have a duty to say why this is so - if the desires everyone is allowed to express are in the majority for a moderator, yet you insist that the outcome you favour is the one that is allowed to happen, you have to provide some reason why your desire is 'correct'. If the other side are right, you should favour there being a moderator. If you continue to say they are wrong, then there must be some reason for this - and you can't just say that it is because they are demanding censorship, that simply begs the question. My initial post was meant to highlight this circularity - if you desire people not to be censored, but other people want some censorship, either you have to let them have their way, or you have to provide some reason why we should not censor - and this canot be because it wouldbe to censor your opinion that there not be censorship...
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
5,921 Posts
Right, sorry for insulting you outofchaos - you really bring out the worst in me and I rise to it every time.

--------------

Macca is right - this isn't a big enough deal to lose sleep over - lets consult the mods and see what they say, then take it from there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
456 Posts
Kentigern i really dont think there is a circularity. I diagree with the notion but i neither have the power nor the inclination to deny the popular will should it decide that a censor is needed. I dispute the notion but not the democratic process. I am really not sure how your argument is founded since i have not suggested any means or measures with which the 'us' people might be denied their policeman, i have just expressed my own disagreement with the need for said policeman.

Ultimately it doesnt impact majorly on me if there *is* moderation. If it ultimately does impact on me posting here i will either stay or go depending on circumstance but my principled objections are more abstract than that.
 
1 - 20 of 68 Posts
Top