Site is a graveyard - How can boards save itself? [Threadbanned users in 1st post]

Ah but I asked what if multiple or several posters want to start a new thread, since they've been banned from the initial one for disagreeing with and therefore annoying a batch of posters there?

And who is to judge whether anyone has 'lost the argument'? In fact is the whole point of boards not to share views, as opposed to winning arguments as you seem to think??

It is unreasonable for a group to monopolise a thread and shut down reasonable debate by complaining about others who simply disagree with them. Well that is unless you're the sort of poster who like to join in a pile on. And there those, I suppose it's human nature to run with the crowd.

That's why a sensible moderation policy is either to allow people to disagree firmly or when needed to start new threads…

See, here's my exact point being made barely 2 posts after i made it.

Posters complaining about posters and moderators having to over moderate.

You can disagree without illicicing a ban. I actually haven't seen an unjustified ban from a thread - and that includes the few time I have been thread banned.

The point is some people seem to get banned all the time and never seem to question their own behaviour which caused it.

I think it's very important that posters support each other. And it's important, it doesn't matter if it's a mod or another poster, you get support and you can stand up to anyone. In relation to anything that's happening, not in this instance, but nobody has to take any bs on the site, not from anyone.

I commend yourself for answering queries and your commitment to the thread. But that post did seem off to me(and I know you don't have to or can't read everything on the thread). But I'm entitled to point that out. I just said it was bizarre to me.

You've shown more than anyone a willingness to engage. And that's to be celebrated.

I admire Charleigh Tinkling Squadron's recent post too.

Some people are not for changing. That's testament to what they've posted on this thread and by their absence…

While it might seem like a good idea initially to appoint as moderator of a particular forum somebody who has contributed heavily to the forum and who has shown an extensive professional or personal interest in the forum, that reasoning could be flawed. I think it could lead to bias and a control of the narrative, consciously or subconsciously.

Where a poster shows they have the right stuff to be a moderator appoint them ASAP but to a different forum to their hobby forum. This could free them to be more dispassionate in the forum they are charged with and free to post away as always in their usual forums without any restrictions that being a mod brings.

Some forums have had the same mods in place for too long. 10+ years? Far too long. I get the impression some long term mods feel the forum they mod is "their" forum.

Rotate mods between forums. Have a max term, say one or two years, then appoint to a different forum.

The issues above can lead to modding more of content than behaviour. The site needs more modding of behaviour, less of content modding. Not no content modding, less.

Meanwhile, the criminal justice thread is being trolled to bits with new accounts. Oh well.

A web app is just a wrapper for a website so I don't think resources should be put into that idea.

I think using Vanilla was a mistake as the very first thing the owners did was rush to customise it to 'look like' but it could never 'act like' the old design. I mean, colours/logo are fine but the extent of trying to recreate old boards on Vanilla has been a mess.

I'd say this rush to customise it is one of the reasons behind the bad experience on mobile mentioned here - I think DigitalSpy (Vanilla) works fine on mobile (iphone and android) but of course they don't have a gazillion sub-forums which get near zero traction to cater for.

On moderation, I think a simple policy of nothing illegal, be polite, attack the post not the poster should cover most problems.

I'm afraid catering for some posters perceptions of offence, most times not even their own feeling of offence, is not the way.

The idea of not relying on mods to come from forums where they post prolifically (thereby avoiding possibility of bias) is a good one though something that shouldn't be enforced doggedly. My guess is hobby forums etc should be okay for that 'rule' not to be too much enforced. Moving some mods around sounds a good idea but would need to be fleshed out a bit - maybe just the busy forums.

Just stick to the above three guidelines/rules and the other idea of quick, short and 24/48/72 hour threadbans/forum bans and not entering into PM/DRP boredom about those.

Finally, definitely weed out and never empower any 'activist' mods.

I have a controversial opinion. Vanilla is actually ok. I think the timing and the manner of changeover was probably problematic but is it that bad?

Can I ask you two questions? It would be nice if you could, off the cuff, respond to them honestly.

On the soccer forum:

1. Do Mods ever try to employ a level of common sense rather than the letter of the law?
2. In terms of cumulative warnings, do prior warnings from over a year ago, automatically flash up for a mod or does it require an actual trawl back through posts?

No quote - again...