What is up with moderators deleting posts?

Boissal wrote:^^^^^ Two people on the proj with a sense of humor. Who'd have thought... I'm Old Gregg.

Sorry to hear about your downstairs mix up.

Mike wrote: Excellent post, although channel one was rec.climbing, which became absolutely overrun with bile and negativity.

As did essentially every other unmoderated usenet group. There are very significant lessons to be learned...

swm

Yarp wrote: Sorry to hear about your downstairs mix up.

I heard he has a mangina.

youtube.com/watch?v=Rr6Qgzw…

I wanna be a mod too! I'd be a bad a$$ one. I even got meself an official MP mod tool, see...

i would be an awesome mod. and if i deleted 1/4 of a thread i wouldn't remain anonymous.

Ellenor Stone wrote:My bad posts got deleted! Yey!

Not all of them.

So a guy talks with three women about the possibility of developing a long-term relationship. The first is honest, sincere, has wonderful balance in her life, they talk for hours; the second is outgoing, successful, dedication to what she cares about, they also talk for that hours long date about all the things to accomplish in life; the third is a complete bitch and the date lasts for all of about ten minutes.

Which one does he go for, the third; having the best tits of course.

JLP wrote:I'm not really seeing a consensus on which accounts to delete. Everyone seems to find a connection here, for better or worse. One thing I do see, though, is that I don't think it's fair to other users of this site if one user - no matter how awesome their contributions are - is allowed to dominate any and all threads of discussion. For example, a few clicks through a couple of the profiles above may reveal well over 100 posts so far just this month, and the posts in response possibly well into the 1000's. I think someone needs a break - a forced break. JUST A THOUGHT!!

+1.


Adding posting limits and a voting functionality would solve this. Limits on how much each tier of member (determined usually by time and/or vote count)can post are very common in other forums, and even MP has one for new members. It needs to be stronger, and feature multiple tiers that only allow zillions of successive comments to the most advanced users. This can be beefed up by IP/cookie screens that keep people from trolling on multiple accounts, or even by requiring a valid phone number (text gets sent with code).

A 'vote' functionality like Amazon or any of the newspaper websites have on their comment section gives the community input on the process of up-tiering - lots of negative votes, user doesn't advance, user can't post. Only more-senior members can vote. The community gets to self-select.

Over at Seattle's weekly newspaper(thestranger.com), anons can post, but their comments only show up as links that you click to expand. Something like that for newer users - only showing the first line of their comment - could help, too.

However you do it, the bottom line is accountability. We'd all like this to be a campfire, but it ain't. People flame and troll and spray because they can, consequence-free. That needs to change.

If you all put this much effort into voting we might have a presentable and trustworthy government someday.

(Oh yeah! Page 5 beeatches! Oh. . . wrong thread.)

Ellenor Stone wrote:its fun to throw things in the air on this site but going on and on about how i split posts or misspell words is kinda boring and nobody really cares.

You're wrong, ellenor. It's fun for you. TO EVERYBODY ELSE IT'S ANNOYING.

And that's exactly the point. It's not about what's "fun" for you to "throw in the air". It's about what kind of a community MP'ers - the majority of MP'ers - want.

Under a vote system users that no-one cares about usually get no votes, which under most systems is just neutral. So if people really didn't care, your comments could stay.

But the thing is, just like you have the right to say whatever you want, communities have the right to decide who they want to be a part of them. And if they folks didn't want you or Yarp around - and all your posts got a zillion negative votes - a vote system would pitch you out.

Privately-managed communities have generally have the right to determine who is part of them. Put that power in MPers' hands, and you'd find out if everybody else is happy with what you throw up.

I also agree that a voting system would be an improvement to mp. Let the users have some say in the process.

Oh look I got censored. Ellanor must be an admin. The only time I get deleted is when I point out what BS she post's.

Weak Sauce MP.com, Weak Sauce.

johnL wrote: Still no offer. I would have this place cleaned up in a week. Megagaper, check your inbox, I'm going to burst your bubble.

I'm checking, oilyman.

You did it again! I get it now, you can't insult MP.com. OK ya skanks I'll eff off, pretty sure I made my point.

Back to the good old days of using a guidebook!

Corrected.

Cole Phinney wrote:So what do you all do when you see something on t.v. or read in a book or newspaper that you don't like or offends you... you quit watching or reading. But here on mp it becomes a big deal when someone states their opinion and that upsets someone, and pretty soon they are crying to the admins to have posts deleated. Grow up and change the channel if you don't like what you see.

So true!

I don't usually jump in on things like this, but..... it stinks when people create thread drift and then we have 10 pages of 'discussion' that is unrelated to the original thread.

Ellenor, this happens a lot when you chime in off topic - which you seem to do in every single thread, on every single forum. We could ignore your posts, as you suggest, but when the entire thread is pulled off topic it becomes a bigger issue. People have tried to offer you some constructive criticism, but you have pretty much blown them off and it really does seem like you are just looking for attention. You might just be 'having fun' but seriously, you end up looking pretty unintelligent.

I love the idea that has been suggested of having a tiered system with votes. I feel like the whole tone of MP.com has changed over the past month, and I have to say a lot of that has originated from a single user.

ErikaNW wrote:I love the idea that has been suggested of having a tiered system with votes.

I'm going to agree that I like this idea. Someone mentioned also having people vote on posts, and if enough people ding it hard enough, to remove them completely, or remove it to a "trash/flame" forum. The same could be done for entire threads.

ErikaNW wrote: I feel like the whole tone of MP.com has changed over the past month, and I have to say a lot of that has originated from a single user.

I would agree with the tone comment, but the single user part I vehemently disagree with. There are several folks that are flame-happy on this forum lately... and usually over issues that they are just upscaling to have something to say.

MegaGaper2000 wrote: Only more-senior members can vote. The community gets to self-select. Over at Seattle's weekly newspaper(thestranger.com), anons can post, but their comments only show up as links that you click to expand. Something like that for newer users

Man, that sounds like a bad re-run of "high school popularity contest".

But maybe it's the way to go? How would it start, though? Who would be the initial "third tier"? I've seen some shitass name calling posted by admins (not often, but it happens), so would we trust them to choose?

@JohnL - can you read a hundred and eighty miles per hour?

Here's my idea:

1. Andy L is the first "third tier" member. He picks a handful of people to join him on the third tier. Third tier members are "invite only", and from here on in it takes at least 3 third tier members to invite you in.

2. Second tier folks get there by length of time and contributions. (This is tough, cause so many people post crappy route contributions, post routes w/o posting a photo of it, post routes w/o posting how to get there, or post 50 freakin' variations to essentially the same boulder problem).

3. First tier users are new users, including anyone who regurgitates the word "NOOB" in any of it's variations ever again.

Each tier has its own level of control and forums. Upper tiers can see all forums on equal and lower tier levels, but lower tier members can't see those posted specifically to upper tier levels. Similar to CouchSurfing. "Ambassadors" have their own forums that regular users cannot see.

Or, we can use the old west method: A fast trial and a fair hangin'.