---

I dont think its a case of to what extent do you stop it but I think a more important decision to be made is whether the moderators should get involved in that sort of thing in the first place.

---

One of our jobs is to stop spam. Do you not consider 30+ topics that have to do with the same thing spam?

I can't talk about it to a full extent, because I was sandal shopping, but from what I saw in the mod logs it looked like a handful.

What makes you think it would have died down soon? What happens to all of those people that were looking for support during that topic? Some sad lil teen didn't get the support they were seeking because everyone was infatuating with 'ask a gangstaaaa' topics...or whatever those topic titles were.

Post edited at 2:25 pm on July 19, 2008 by MariJani

-------
:)

---

In all honesty I would have allowed all the topics to continue because they would have died down eventually and maybe some members would be annoyed but then some members were asking some rather interesting questions.

---

You would've allowed the fresh topics list to be completely dominated by "Ask a ___" topics?  Most of which were completely stupid and only created to participate in a spam fest?

So where WOULD you draw the line?  When it goes on for an hour?  When it goes on for two hours?  When they are dead baby jokes instead of pointless "Ask a bacon!" topics?  

---

I dont think its a case of to what extent do you stop it but I think a more important decision to be made is whether the moderators should get involved in that sort of thing in the first place.

---

That's something we should always ask ourselves.  Is this doing anything harmful?  In this case, yes, it was.  Right decision was made.

---

This site is packed full of spam, troll topics etc. these topics were individual and were being posted by people who were interested in sharing their culture.  

---

Yes, and for the most part, those topics remain.  The problem was the magnitude, which you apparently don't understand.

---

I did not se any evidence of people taking it too far, or posting a thread which they could not maintain themselves.

---

You're right.  Ask a Bacon is a good discussion.

---

Quote: from August Rush at 2:18 pm on July 19, 2008

---

I dont think its a case of to what extent do you stop it but I think a more important decision to be made is whether the moderators should get involved in that sort of thing in the first place.

---

One of our jobs is to stop spam.  Do you not consider 30+ topics that have to do with the same thing spam?

I can't talk about it to a full extent, because I was sandal shopping, but from what I saw in the mod logs it looked like a handful.

What makes you think it would have died down soon?  What happens to all of those people that were looking for support during that topic?  Some sad lil teen didn't get the support they were seeking because everyone was infatuating with 'ask a gangstaaaa' topics...or whatever those topic titles were.

---

Which is why we need to have customizable Fresh Topic bars, so we can choose between Support Topics and "Social" Topics, for lack of a better word. It would cut down the amount of work mods have to do, too, since much more "spam" could be tolerated.

-------
cuz i'm feelin for him what he's feelin for me

---

Which is why we need to have customizable Fresh Topic bars, so we can choose between Support Topics and "Social" Topics, for lack of a better word. It would cut down the amount of work mods have to do, too, since much more "spam" could be tolerated.

---

That's a preference setting, not the standard we moderate by.  Or should moderate by, for that matter.

---

Quote: from August Rush at 4:07 pm on July 19, 2008

---

Ok, maybe it was a bit unfair of me to compare the moderators on this site to a dictatorship but I still believe that once huddled together the moderators on this site can squash freedom of speech and learning.

---

You're right. If the mods wanted to 'huddle' together and completely destroy freedom of speech and learning here, we could do it. But it won't happen, and it'll never happen. So your argument pretty much completely falls apart here. You can't insist on a new position that needs to be added when there is no reason for it to be added because something of the magnitude that would require the position has never happened.

 

---

Let me give the Ask a Brit "spamfest" as an example.  
 I believe that had that continued it would have been a great opportunity for people to learn a little bit more about different cultures and societies. And it would be impossible to have the same sort of thing in a single topic. Just imagine one person from each country around the world sitting in a room... then they all start to talk to each other at the same time.. Chaos.

---

You must be kidding? I count 18 deleted topics that were part of the "Ask a ____" spamfest. No valid discussion was coming out of "Ask a Bacon," August. It was repetitive topic spam that sometimes happens on forums, and rightfully so, it was all trashed. A simple solution, "Ask a ____ a question!" topic - that might have some actual discussion in it, but a bunch of spammed topics do nothing for no one. Talk about chaotic - 18 topics about "ask a ___"? Really? lol.

---

I know that each moderator is different and I can imagine there is a lot of debate within the ranks but i'm simply saying that all this decision making and elitist management all huddled together doesn't really offer much chance of change or flexibility.

---

You don't see the fallacy in your argument though. You're claiming this elitist management, but you can't give me any examples of it, even though I've asked. When I did ask, you backtracked your original statement. So where is this elitist management? Where do moderators blend their personal opinions into moderation? How is your idea different that the oversight board?

[QUOTE]Im not suggesting a group of middlemen with full moderator powers because as you say the consequences could be catastrophic.. but someone with the power to throw a spanner in the works.

---

A position that isn't needed. A position to prevent moderator abuse that doesn't happen, and when it does, it's overturned by the mod team itself.

The oversight board has no power.. I still believe that small group of people with real power could do a much better job.

I claim the Moderators stick together because in my experience no decision that a member has questioned has ever been taken seriously or overturned.

I did not say moderator abuse, by spanner in the works I mean to suggest a purposely apposing force to fight for the other side.

...

Sorry my concentration is diminishing as im rather sleep deprived, I don't think I can continue and you have successfully driven my argument into its grave.

I think it was a noble idea but I can se its not going to be possible.

I appreciate you getting involved in this topic and I have enjoyed reading your feedback and responses.

-------
From the UK? - Join the group!

Please Give Me Points :-)

---

Quote: from Praise the Lard at 4:29 pm on July 19, 2008

---

Which is why we need to have customizable Fresh Topic bars, so we can choose between Support Topics and "Social" Topics, for lack of a better word. It would cut down the amount of work mods have to do, too, since much more "spam" could be tolerated.

---

That's a preference setting, not the standard we moderate by. Or should moderate by, for that matter.

---

Is it not the primary rationale of removing "spam" topics on this site to make support topics easier to read and reply to?

-------
cuz i'm feelin for him what he's feelin for me

---

Is it not the primary rationale of removing "spam" topics on this site to make support topics easier to read and reply to?

---

Perhaps one of them, I'm sure, but not the primary.

The primary would be to simply keep the forums clean of such things, or allow it in small amounts of moderation (I.E. DTRM).

---

The oversight board has no power.. I still believe that small group of people with real power could do a much better job.

---

Not true at all.  As I previously said, the OB can remove a moderators power completely if they believe abuse to be occurring, and they have the means to check.

---

I claim the Moderators stick together because in my experience no decision that a member has questioned has ever been taken seriously or overturned.

---

Also not true.  I can quote one that was overturned just last night in member's favor.

---

I did not say moderator abuse, by spanner in the works I mean to suggest a purposely apposing force to fight for the other side.

---

So how is that different than the OB, again?

---

Sorry my concentration is diminishing as im rather sleep deprived, I don't think I can continue and you have successfully driven my argument into its grave.

---

It's fine.  I don't dislike these types of topics, and they give a chance for moderators to openly discuss with members why the system isn't as full of fail as they think.

---

Perhaps one of them, I'm sure, but not the primary.

The primary would be to simply keep the forums clean of such things, or allow it in small amounts of moderation (I.E. DTRM).

---

I suppose that was a bit of a tangent question in the end; with a customizable Fresh Topics bar you mods could still go to town on "spam" topics, but it would still be much easier for Support Topics to be seen/replied to. Thus, a customizable Fresh Topics bar would help to keep LiveWire as supportive as possible.

-------
cuz i'm feelin for him what he's feelin for me

---

Quote: from Praise the Lard at 4:29 pm on July 19, 2008

---

Which is why we need to have customizable Fresh Topic bars, so we can choose between Support Topics and "Social" Topics, for lack of a better word. It would cut down the amount of work mods have to do, too, since much more "spam" could be tolerated.

---

That's a preference setting, not the standard we moderate by.  Or should moderate by, for that matter.

---

I agree. And it'd take a hefty script to even recognise topics that are in fact topics that need support and ones that do not. A lot more of wasted, countless hours would be put into a script that would never be completely flawless as the moderation team will be.

LW goes into shit mode when no mods are on, you even have trolls saying "LOOK NO MODS LET'S GO WILD LOLZZZ" then start to spam the fuck out of the fresh topics page.

The moderation team is fine, even though a lot of people will disagree, that is because they do not understand nor care to find out how it is run.

The Pro: Welcome back.

I concur with everything the moderators have said.. This idea is all in all stupid. I won't go as far as saying retarded. But yes, Neo's website doesn't equal to LW. You see all their members are current LW members, but you do not see those members posting repetitively on that website for the simple fact people do not use it.

It takes a lot of work to get the ball rolling on a project as big as LW, and a lot more work to keep that ball in it's direction and have the project go on for as long as LW has.

This idea of yours was never fully thought out, I think you had a spark in your sleep and figured it was an epiphany brought by the gods to make LW a better and more helpful place. When if theory was put into practice, all hell would break loose in the blink of an eye.

-------
I love you!
Donate me points, please! :(

---

Quasi-moderation power assigned based on popularity rather than any sort of objective merit doesn't strike me as a very good idea at all. I don't trust the unwashed masses of LiveWire to tie their collective shoe without burning the place down, I sure as hell don't trust them not to vote in some popular half-literate fucknuts who have the maturity of a manic toddler.

---

This is a good point too.

Think about it on LiveWire's Level - if a topic was posted and stickied asking who should oversee the mods, what are the odds it would be an upstanding member who would actually perform the duties as intended, compared to the odds that some completely silly member would be elected?

Just look at the topics that ask for your favorite members - you'll get the sad picture.

---

Quasi-moderation power assigned based on popularity rather than any sort of objective merit doesn't strike me as a very good idea at all. I don't trust the unwashed masses of LiveWire to tie their collective shoe without burning the place down, I sure as hell don't trust them not to vote in some popular half-literate fucknuts who have the maturity of a manic toddler.

---

Popular rep = No

Trusted rep with mod like qualities = Yes

-------
From the UK? - Join the group!

Please Give Me Points :-)

---

Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 10:39 pm on July 19, 2008

---

Quasi-moderation power assigned based on popularity rather than any sort of objective merit doesn't strike me as a very good idea at all. I don't trust the unwashed masses of LiveWire to tie their collective shoe without burning the place down, I sure as hell don't trust them not to vote in some popular half-literate fucknuts who have the maturity of a manic toddler.

---

Popular rep = No

Trusted rep with mod like qualities = Yes

---

An election is a popularity contest with a thin veneer of legitimacy crudely painted over it.

-------
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

---

I agree. And it'd take a hefty script to even recognise topics that are in fact topics that need support and ones that do not. A lot more of wasted, countless hours would be put into a script that would never be completely flawless as the moderation team will be.

---

With a customized Fresh Topics bar you would just select the sub-forums you want to read, so for example, the "Support Fresh Topics" bar could be Teen Alcohol & Substance Abuse, Teen Depression & Emotional Imbalance, Teen Eating Disorders, Teen Pregnancy & Parenting Support, and Teen Stress & Anger Management while the "Social Fresh Topics" bar could be DTRM, Food & Cooking, and Religion & Philosophy or whatever you want. I don't know the exact code for LW or even if I can find that somewhere, which would be great, so I don't know how threads are ID'd, but I assume threads from the same subforum have something in common so they could be distinguished.

Additionally, my idea has nothing do to with replacing the moderation team. It would simply make things easier for members to view the specific content they want to view.

-------
cuz i'm feelin for him what he's feelin for me