Deletion of posts

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by nightprowler10

Best way would be to create a mod that allows the poster to see his deleted post with the GM's reason for deletion. Attached is an example from PC of how the poster would see this.

And nice to hear that mods are using the delete button a little more often, long time coming IMO. Oh and welcome to the dark side.

Seems a good idea IMHO. I'm in favour of CW's new all singing, dancing, arse-kicking & bitch-slapping moderating, but if posts are just disappeared like latin American dissidents there's a danger threads might begin to make less sense for those who read it after.At least with a notice of deletion we'll know something untoward has happened.

Love the fact a reason for deletion is given too; could became an art-form in itself.

Reason for deletion: mentions first chance average.

[Fusion]

With NP and Brumby here. I think it's great that mods are deleting posts, rather than allowing them to derail threads left and right. However, there should be a note that a post was deleted and the offending party should be able to tell why.

[vic_orthdox]

Originally Posted by Pratters

Post deleted means he broke a rule.

Generally, slanderous statements are what has led to posts being deleted. However, we are also inclined to stop all discussion around that slanderous statement.

E.g. accusing someone of matchfixing when there is no evidence. We have to delete the post concerned, and will warn the person involved. We will also delete any posts quoting and addressing that point, because it will sidetrack discussion over a topic that generally will not concern the thread; it may be quoting the statement.

Thus, people with deleted posts can often not have done anything wrong. It is a case of us redirecting the thread to appropriate discussion.

[pasag]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

That's ironic. 2 weeks ago you were compaining that certain moderators, in your opinion, weren't active enough.

wai delete rant?

[Pratters]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

That's ironic. 2 weeks ago you were compaining that certain moderators, in your opinion, weren't active enough.

Unrelated.

Certain moderators are certainly not active enough. Guys like Loony Bob and Pickup don't moderate nearly enough. As Pasag said in that thread, I would prefer guys not to do just the backyard work and leave the front yard work to a few people. There are enough people to take responsibility of doing both jobs, in Pasag's own words. That's my opinion.

I must say though that given that it is a moderation team, it is their opinion which matters on the matter and if they feel a few guys can stick in the team as they contribute to offline discussions, it is fair enough.

[GingerFurball]

It's all related. You've criticised mods for not being active. Then a new mod is appointed who does something you don't agree with, and all of a sudden new mods should take a back seat. That's not consistent.

[Marcuss]

Originally Posted by Pratters

I must say though that given that it is a moderation team, it is their opinion which matters on the matter and if they feel a few guys can stick in the team as they contribute to offline discussions, it is fair enough.

So that's the end of the matter? Don't know about everyone else but discussions about the makeup of the moderating team/the moderating ability of some is starting to get really tedious.

Suggestions about moderating, such as NP's in this thread are fine but at the end of the day if James is happy with the team he has moderating his forum then that should really be it

[Pratters]

It's not related gingerfurball. I have criticised that certain mods are not active. I have not said the moderation team as a whole is not active. There is a clear difference between the two. The moderation team does a fine job on the whole.

[nightprowler10]

Originally Posted by Pratters

Certain moderators are certainly not active enough. Guys like Loony Bob and Pickup don't moderate nearly enough.

I'm not sure how you can make such a statement when you're not involved in the day to day running of the site. Surely the guy who runs the site finds them valuable enough to keep them around. Also its not as if they're taking up spots that could otherwise be filled up by others, there is no limit to how many mods there can be.

[Pratters]

Originally Posted by Marcuss

So that's the end of the matter? Don't know about everyone else but discussions about the makeup of the moderating team/the moderating ability of some is starting to get really tedious.

Suggestions about moderating, such as NP's in this thread are fine but at the end of the day if James is happy with the team he has moderating his forum then that should really be it

I didn't raise the point. GFB did by bringing up that topic again.

[Pratters]

Originally Posted by nightprowler10

I'm not sure how you can make such a statement when you're not involved in the day to day running of the site.

I mean on site moderating which I CAN see. The other argument is they do the off line moderating activities. As Pasag said if some one can't do both, it would be preferable to have some one who does both as there are enough quality people around who could moderate.

[Marcuss]

Originally Posted by Pratters

I didn't raise the point. GFB did by bringing up that topic again. I also believe it is a moot point and not some thing which needs to be discussed if the people who matter are happy with the moderation team.

Then why do this?

Originally Posted by Pratters

I have criticised that certain mods are not active.

You don't see the contributions you make and if they make them at all is of no importance if "the moderating team do a good job on the whole". I'm guessing that, for the moment anyway, James is happy with the makeup of his moderating team so can it really be left there? Issues with the way people moderate can be brought via the appropriate means such as email. Suggestions on improving moderation as a whole (this thread) do no harm IMO
But complaining about the moderation team on the open forum does no good for anything nor anyone.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Pratters

it would be preferable to have some one who does both as there are enough quality people around who could moderate.

But are there really that many around. Especially those who actually have the time to do the job and who want to do it?

I daresay anyone who ticks all those boxes is already doing the job.

[nightprowler10]

Originally Posted by Pratters

I mean on site moderating which I CAN see. The other argument is they do the off line moderating activities. As Pasag said if some one can't do both, it would be preferable to have some one who does both as there are enough quality people around who could moderate.

Again, you make it sound as if the old-not-so-active need to make way for the new by stepping down. Its not a cricket team's first XI. If more mods are needed on the front James will appoint some, as he did with gingy, why would there be a need for the two mentioned to step down?

[Pratters]

Originally Posted by Marcuss

Then why do this?

I had to respond to the query by GFB which said it is all related which it really isn't.

The mod team is doing an excellent job any ways. It is a non issue where I am concerned.