I've just noticed this thread and I can see that a few people have suggested I take a turn at being a moderator. Firstly, I'm flattered that you think I might do a good job - I know people have said it's not a major bit of work but, still, thanks folks!

Secondly, what does it involve? Would I be expected to visit every day and check for posts which break the board rules or is more reactive, mostly just responding to people's complaints? For that matter, what are the board rules?! I'm sure there are some but I've forgotten...

I'm certainly not saying 'No' at this stage but could someone give me a better idea of what's expected? Ta. And happy new year to you all. May it be a good one!

The board rules, as I've been able to ascertain them from tradition and Mig's few explicit statements about them, are the following:

1. Don't spam.
2. Don't flame or personally attack someone.
3. Stay relatively on-topic.
4. Post religious or political messages in the designated threads.
5. Explain links.


As for prevention vs reaction, I think that the team of moderators should strive to read every message as soon after it is posted as possible. Of course, by agreement the moderators can divide the threads so no one has to read everything. (I, however, tend to read it all; by the time I'm done I rarely have any will left to post.) It's necessary to read and react rather than wait for complaints and react because (1) Now and then someone will write something like "CK likes teh boyz" or "You mamma bein' a fishwife, yo," which should not meet the eyes of our delicate child readers; and (2) Letting flaming or other problematic messages stand allows the matter to escalate, and even dealing with the complaints is a bit of a pain.

Every moderator has to make a judgment call about when to delete, edit, or whatever (and here I'm partly answering Krish's point about jumping in only after the retaliation to an infraction). Sometimes I don't feel strongly about deleting something, so I let it stand. If the message proves inflammatory, I'll often go back and prune the thread, as I think the postership-at-large should determine what counts as inflammatory. Sometimes, then, I indeed wait for people to complain before I do anything (in fact, if you complain to me, I'll likely do your bidding as long as you're within reason). In these cases I think it's important, whatever you decide to do, to explain clearly your reasons for acting.

On to the juicy business of picking new moderators. I'm willing to stay on as a sort of mod-emeritus as we've had in the past, but I won't need to if we can get enough new people. Recent history leads me to think two moderators are not enough. Four are needed simply due to the volume of text to read.

Sachbinger and I sent short messages to Mig some weeks ago to get the puck moving. We suggested South Coast Kevin, Sam Hardwick, and niceforkinmove. SCK has strong support, as is evident from this thread. Mig mentioned Sam as a candidate last time. NFM would be a good mod; we'd only need to catch him while he's here and ask if he could hang around for a few months.

I think any former mod would be a good pick. Beyond them, and leaving out those who've already declined, I nominate Josh and Ed Yetman. I can think of many others who'd do a fine job, but I suggest contacting the consensus choices before we go into a popularity free-for-all.

To those who've declined, especially Guy Kerr: You could opt to moderate only those threads with which you're comfortable. Say, everything but off-topic, or even everything but religion and politics.

Moderators' main and sometimes only duty is deleting rondinos*.

--------------------
* Obviously, a rondino** is an accidentally posted message or thread***.

** Musicologically, the term rondino is defunct, until people "compose" accidental works that would formerly have been called rondinos.

*** Yes, he accidentally posted a thread once.

Indeed, there are a number of people here on this Message Board who, (if their lives are anything like what they write in the majority of their posts), are among the very *most* un-happy and bitter people whom I have ever been exposed to in my entire life.

** So, it is a welcome "breath of fresh air" for me to read what ChessOutpost has written in his quote above in the midst of so *very much* anger and bitterness that a number of people here quite obviously live with who post, (both regularly and irregularly), here at ChessNinja.

Thank you, ChessOutpost, for your breathing a bit of *very welcome* fresh air into the dialogue here on this Message Board! **


Chess Fan

In the past there have been many cases where one person disrupted a thread (not always the same person, to be sure), and the response was to close the thread, rather than simply delete the offending posts and try to stop the one guy.



Perhaps, but the bias, if there is one, isn't towards a particular viewpoint, it's towards people who complain the loudest. You remember Gelatinous joking that with a 10,000 post mailbox, he'd never have to delete another complaint from Chess Fan again. Mig's "bias" (if you want to call it that), is to avoid arguments about moderation, period.

Like, if a mod went to you and said "Your post about the Petunia Festival was off topic in the Hari-Kari Thread, so I deleted it", you'd probably accept it without complaint. But if a person is the type to scream bloody murder if his Petunia Festival post is deleted, then mods are more likely to ignore it because Mig doesn't want the hassle. It makes no difference that the poster would be in the wrong, they simply don't want the battle to be fought at all. Unfortunately, this creates a situation where the people who are the biggest pests get held to a lower standard. They know this and how to exploit it.

When I was modding, I had an incident once where Matt and Russianbear were literally posting obscenities at me ("F*** you, Petrosianic"). I deleted them and they came back with "You can't delete our posts, if you do, we'll just post it again." Since the re-posts were also obscene, I deleted them too. Wrong thing to do. Mig absolutely hates discussions like that, even when the posters are in the wrong. It would have been far better to ignore the obscene posts and let the whole thing die, than to start a deleting war. (That's also why closing a thread is preferable to deleting offending posts; it takes action against nobody in particular.) It's true that the proper thing to do in that case would not be to delete posts, it would be to ban accounts, but Mig almost never does that, no matter how out of line a poster may be. The only time I can remember it happening was in cases where one person had multiple Ninja accounts. Combo Kid once even told Matt that if they lived near each other, he'd drag him out to the parking lot and make him beg for his life, and even then no action was taken.

So, Chess Fan is held to a lower standard than everyone else, not because they like him or his viewpoints, but because he complains. Long and loudly. But someone who operates by a lower standard than everyone else and constantly ignores moderator directives not to post in a certain way certainly isn't fit to be a mod himself.


The solution is to either a) grin and bear it, or b) become just as big a pest yourself. That used to be hard to do, but the new board has a "Notify" button on every post. Use it every time you see a thread hijacked this way. Complain "long and loudly". Maybe it would have some effect. Or at least you'd feel a little better.


Is that what that's about? I thought the Nothing Thread was awfully busy these days, but I assumed it was... well, nothing.

I just broke my policy and had a peek at it, and there's an example of the lower standards he's held to, in a nutshell. I could never call him a cheat for breaking imaginary rules that I'd just made up myself, and get away with it. But he can. Heck, he can tell people they're going to hell for not believing in Hal Lindsey, and get away with it.

But see, the difference is that I never complained about these posts, while he'd be in tears if even one of them was so much as touched. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. So, the solution is to accept the situation, or try to squeak more often. Take your choice. But if I were you, I'd just put him personally on Ignore, and complain long and loud any time the threads got hijacked. It doesn't matter what he says if you don't hear it. It's only a problem when other people get sidetracked too.

Ah, Petrosianic, it really must be quite difficult to live with yourself at times.

I just wonder, do you *truly* get any enjoyment out of life whatsoever; that is, outside of the times that you are running someone down, (be it me or anyone else?)

Petrosianic, seriously now, doesn't your living your life as such a cynical and bitter and quite obviously un-happy person *ever* really weigh you down at times?

Indeed, life must be *quite a drag for you* with the outlook that you have concerning things **that really do NOT matter at all in the long run!!**

Come on Petro, lighten up and smell the roses a bit!


Chess Fan

What exactly is a "Global Mod"? The new board shows colours for both Mods and Global Mods, though no Global Mods in fact exist here. What are they?

The software has the ability to have forum-specific moderators, those are normal "mods". global mods have mod powers over all the forums by default.

In importing the old config it seems like the mods remained "regular" mods but with power over every forum, so there is no distinction in practice.

Oh, okay. But theoretically there could be mods that had mod powers only over "International Events"? Or over "65th Square" and "To the Contrary", but nowhere else? And combinations like that?

What do you mean by "tantrums"? Do you reffer to the little reports CF does about Petrosianic's spam messages that Petrosianic does to stay the top of "Top Posters" list? That is hardly an attack on Petrosianic, that is just CF telling the truth. If you really feel that when CF reports the spam/forum abuse in a joking matter in the 'Nothing thread', it is CF himself that is the guilty party, perhaps you've let your personal dislike of CF get the better of you.

That reminds me, if there is one problem I have with the job the current crew of moderators has done, it is the way the whole Petrosianic spam thing was handled. Spam is one of the bigger offenses on the Internet. Petrosianic's thousands of requests to the server to post messages, then thousands of requests to delete them, - all of that takes up resources. Spam is usually prohibited in a contract between a user and the ISP, and some serious thought had to be put into the possibility of notifying Petrosianic's ISP about Petrosianic's spamming hobby. (I know Mig notified a poster's ISP for a case of an identity theft when an April Fools joke went wrong). Or at least Petrosianic should have been given a warning (which I assume he didn't get as he keeps doing it). But the reaction along the lines of "well, Petrosianic showed how post count doesn't matter" was close to abetting a spammer. No matter how tempting it may be for some to draw parallels between Petrosianic's spam and messages (of certain people) that are supposedly as useless as spam, I am afraid it is not the same.