4-GOM

Thanks to Christian for taking the Stuff last night seriously and staying up to deal with it. I am utterly pissed at losing susannah, and part of me can't help feeling that this reaction is a day too late.

But I have to say that I don't really give a monkey's fart what the trolls say about this, this is entirely good news for the board. The resignation post I have been drafting will be put on hold. Niceness and liberality have to have their limits: and we reached them.

I especially liked:

Yes, it does. In fact, the first draft of this rule simply read "Members who piss off the Trek Nation Administration by coming to the BBS to cause trouble will have their accounts locked."

Been saying the same things forever.

------------------
"If toast always lands butter-side down, and cats always land on their feet, what happen if you strap toast on the back of a cat and drop it? "

May I recommend LL as a possible susannah replacement if she would consider it - doubtful .... but ...

Note: I don't even want to see susannah go - I am praying she just sees this as a break from the board and will resume her duties. If not then I intend to warn her for leaving the forum.

just to repeat:
i'm a little concerned that in the long term we could end up w/ another TLEesque situation... a good way to make sure you 2 really are banning the right people and leaving the wrong people alone, a quick BR discussion every time you want to make use of this clause would be very helpful

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cirrus:
just to repeat:
i'm a little concerned that in the long term we could end up w/ another TLEesque situation... a good way to make sure you 2 really are banning the right people and leaving the wrong people alone, a quick BR discussion every time you want to make use of this clause would be very helpful

---

A very wise suggestion I think....it will go a ways to ensure good communication and make sure at least the staff is on the same page.....or we could just keep doing what we're doing and lose more Admins and Mods.

------------------
"If toast always lands butter-side down, and cats always land on their feet, what happen if you strap toast on the back of a cat and drop it? "

I wouldn't blame susannah for not returning - but why wasn't this line taken when Rob, Tamek, LL and myself decided to call a time out ? Hummmmmmmm.

That's the best piece of news I've seen in Announcements since they made me a moderator!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jammer:
*likes seeing C put the smack down*

---

I'll second that.

Gotta say man, never thought you'd do it. Kudos.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jammer:
*likes seeing [b]C put the smack down*[/B]

---

Not as much as I did!

Whoo hoo!!

As you can well imagine, I sure as hell liked the changes!

Nice surprise.

I think, that if you think Christian is going to turn into TLE, and if you think these bans are being done without disucssion and a serious amount of surety on both our parts, you'd be mistaken. They're not done because we hate someone, they're done because someone has proven that their point of existance on the board is to disrupt it. A lot are dual usernames too, and we're trying to cut down on the options these lovable trolls have to disrupt the place. If there's any kind of question about whether a ban should be given - BobbyT10 - it isnt.

but then, it was true w/ TLE for a long time as well... eventually it just got easier to ban people than to listen to them

ever heard the term "absolute power corrupts absolutly"? you guys have the very best intentions with this, and i applaud you for it... but with 2 people making unnanounced decisions that can't be accounted for by anyone else, what possible reason do you have not to go down the proverbial wrong road

alls i'm saying is that in the long term it's better for you if there is some little bit of discussion amongst a larger group than 2 people... if posters the membership likes but you dont start disapearing, people are going to stop liking you again mightly quickly, and the only way to know if others are in agreement with you about a permaban is to ask them!

like i said, keep the final decision to yourselfs. say "we'll solicit the staffs input in the BR but the final decision rests with lisa and christian". that's fine. but why wouldnt you want to at least tell us? the only possible reason you'd have to not tell the staff about a ban is if you thought it would anger us... and if it would anger us, then isn't that a sign that maybe, perhaps it's not such a good idea?

lastly, let's think of the message this is sending to your staff... a while ago the policy changed from "there are 5 admins with equal power" to "there are 2 admins with equal power and the others are more like ubermods" we all liked that because of 2 reasons:
1) it was already working that way
2) you promised to make more of an effort to listen to your staff, even if the final decision was in your hands

number 2 is very important. it's the main reason why most people are so happy with those changes... now you're not only saying that you dont want our input, you're flat out saying that you're not even going to tell us when a decision is made... you're going back into the shell of privacy thing that got everyone so upset with you not too long ago. have you already forgotten that? is your memory that short?

------------------
Blonde Borgs have the same fun.

He tolerated a lot more than I would have in his place.

Yet I still have to agree with the idea of letting the staff in on the reasons why such-and-such was banned. It wouldn't require divulging precisely HOW you determined they needed to be banned, especially if that involved the double-secret technologies at your disposal.

There's a difference between critism and flat out trying to cause trouble. ANd he's right, it doesn't help, and it probably in the long run what leads to high moderator burnout.

Good job, C. I must say. It's about time the trolls learned that this kind of crap is just plain childish.

The only wording I think we should change is "We reserve the right to refuse service to Red Whacker."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barcode:
Well why not just create a hidden forum and give out the password to the admins/mods. Then there's some consistency with the discussion and what is going on.

---

but let's use starman as an example here... starman was at one point a great addition to the board. in fact, IIRC, you yourself said something along the lines of "he's one of the more eloquent posters we have"... since then he's become more troll like. i should think that the banning of someone in that situation would warrent a bit of open discussion, at least amongst the staff... at the very least it would warrant letting us know about it

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barcode:
^ Yeah, the webmasters forum. It's a little dull with only 3 or 4 people as you can imagine. The tenth forum ( other hidden one ) got converted to Moderator Actions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by where'sSaavik?:
^ I thought there already was a hidden forum, except only like 3 or 4 people know the way in. Kind of like a hidden room in Super Mario Bros.

---

quote:

---

^ I mean something that isn't on the main page, that they can't see.

---

What would the use of that be? The Briefing Room isn't and has never been insecure because it can be hacked into - it cannot be hacked into. The Briefing Room's security stands or falls with all of us.

Cirrus:

quote:

---

but let's use starman as an example here... starman was at one point a great addition to the board. in fact, IIRC, you yourself said something along the lines of "he's one of the more eloquent posters we have"... since then he's become more troll like. i should think that the banning of someone in that situation would warrent a bit of open discussion, at least amongst the staff... at the very least it would warrant letting us know about it

---