Moderators

Post by **Horatio Felacio** » Wed Sep 25, 2002 6:32 pm

i think you should make it impossible except for site admin, to moderate the you suck board. that way, no mature, power-hungry sack of s*** can take control. also, when someone is moderated, the moderator who edited the post should have their name available.

Post by **Horatio Felacio** » Wed Sep 25, 2002 6:34 pm

hey jb, you really think i started out well at climbkentucky? i would have thought just the opposite of that actually. i thought i toned it down pretty dramatically.

ray · Post by **ray** » Wed Sep 25, 2002 7:02 pm

Actually there's no moderation at all in the flame board.

Post by **Winterstorm** » Wed Sep 25, 2002 7:07 pm

The ~You suck board~ should'nt really need moderating, since it's for getting out of control.

Post by **deleted username** » Wed Sep 25, 2002 7:41 pm

Hoe, you did start out bad, but when i asked nicely, you did keep it to the flame board for the most part... until the final days that is.

I wouldn't suggest any forum be COMPLETELY unmoderated. The last thing you want is somebody coming into the "you suck" board and posting sladerous our libelous information about an individual, causing damage to a person and possibly involving you in a law suit. There's lots of stuff to think about here. Take your time before you let the rest of the world in on it.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Sep 25, 2002 7:51 pm

Actually, I noticed a dramatic difference in Horatio's posts for at least a month on ClimbKentucky. I can't be sure exactly who was posting under SCIN's name in the last days, but I don't believe he was posting much if any.

As to moderation on the Flame Board, I say it should be no holds barred, unless of course there is something that could put individuals at risk of bodily harm or lawsuits. I don't remember seeing anything like that at ClimbKentucky, so it really never would have occured to me as a possibility.

I do like the idea of voting to ban people, Ray. Excellent.

Post by **Gretchen** » Wed Sep 25, 2002 7:55 pm

I don't know if I agree with that one. Things can get a bit clicky!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Sep 25, 2002 8:25 pm

good point, Gretchen. But if the criteria for being put up for a banishment vote were well laid out, then cliques wouldn't even come into it.

Then we could take it a step farther... bribes for access. Yeah!

(My vote can be bought!!)

Post by **Gretchen** » Thu Sep 26, 2002 2:18 pm

Who do I contact about abusive and/or legal matters related to this board?
You should contact the administrator of this board. If you cannot find who this you should first contact one of the forum moderators and ask them who you should in turn contact. If still get no response you should contact the owner of the domain (do a whois lookup) or, if this is running on a free service (e.g. yahoo, free.fr, f2s.com, etc.), the management or abuse department of that service. Please note that phpBB Group has absolutely no control and cannot in any way be held liable over how, where or by whom this board is used. It is absolutely pointless contacting phpBB Group in relation to any legal (cease and desist, liable, defamatory comment, etc.) matter not directly related to the phpbb.com website or the discrete software of phpBB itself. If you do email phpBB Group about any third party use of this software then you should expect a terse response or no response at all.

Post by **Horatio Felacio** » Thu Sep 26, 2002 3:35 pm

i think the "vote to ban" idea is bad. if this were to go public, i'd be outta here the first day. i'd actually be kinda proud of that, but i still got some time left here in the lab, so i need some escape from my personal hell for a little while at least

RRC Archives

Moderators

Interesting!