|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 522
Under 18 Player
|
|
Under 18 Player
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 522 |
i'm not the moderator you need, but the moderator you deserve.
for what it's worth i'll vote Stanley Park.
Last edited by Solar; 24/04/12 08:24 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 11,128
1st Team Regular
|
|
1st Team Regular
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 11,128 |
Bar and Stanley Park for me.
I can't believe Growler isn't already a moderator.
Does this mean he has been handing out coconuts without a licence.
Growler for me also.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628 |
IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
|
|
|
|
|
|
aldo
Unregistered
|
|
aldo
Unregistered
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,163
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,163 |
What does it mean to be a moderator. What are this site's policies on moderation? Until that is understood I don't think it's fair to allow nominations for moderators.
My own veiw (which may be completely dissimilar to Dunk's for all I know) is that moderators should be fair, impartial, even-handed, and not overly corrective or power-hungry. I am a big advocate of free speech as long as it doesn't infringe on peoples rights, demean them by race/religion/gender/sexual preference etc., or include libel or slander. I don't think heated conversations or debates need to be excessively moderated unless there is an element of undue malice, personal threat, or discrimination. Excessive censorship is therefore not a good thing.
A moderator should have a good disposition but not necessarily be an automaton or a fence-rider. Sometimes moderators exacerbate problems by trying to be too middle-of-the-road or wishy-washy. But I don't think you can choose moderators who are excessively negative and controversial either. I just witnessed the demise of what was a very rigorous Liverpool MB - myself and E(SSO) came over from that site. Poor moderation was one of the factors behind its demise.
These comments aren't an attempt to gain nomination for the position - I know I would never be considered. But some of the people being nominated will spell trouble if they are given the role. I am genuinely interested in Kop Talk's stance on the issue of moderation and censorship. I have witnessed instances where one person got banned in a trade of insults between two posters, which I think was the wrong action to take. I have also noted a couple of decent posters not come back after receiving a short ban. There have also been instances where people have survived despite committing worse verbal offenses of those that were banned. I think I have some good recommendations for moderators but it all depends on Kop Talk's policy. Do you not think you are taking this a bit too seriously?????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 17,444
1st Team Regular
|
|
1st Team Regular
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 17,444 |
thanks all for the vote of confidence !!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,163
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,163 |
I actually agree with some of what you said, especially regarding censorship, feedom of expression/speech etc. In an earlier post I suggested a moderator-free weekend as an experiment. We're all adults - what's the worst that could happen? In many ways, too much moderation is worse than none. To a certain degree, nasty insults need to be cut out of course, but are we that fragile that we need prefects around telling us off just for calling someone a 'd1ck', for example?
|
|
|
|
|
|
thundyr
Unregistered
|
|
thundyr
Unregistered
|
I could do the mod thing if nominated. I'm online most days, even when I'd rather not read endless threads b1tching about the same things as the previous week.
For my money, Stanley Park is a good shout. Seems to know a good deal about things in Liverpool (the city) as well, which brings a different perspective to the "reality" of the club to OOTs like myself who don't even live in England.
Rafarendum is also a good call given his regular presence on the forum and his much better than average grasp of tactics. I realize that a mod is mainly there to stop idiocy getting out of hand, but it helps if the guy (or gal!) knows a thing or two about football. But, for instance, blindly supporting Kevin Doyle doesn't help forum n00bs gain respect for a mod.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 101
Under 16 Player
|
|
Under 16 Player
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 101 |
Ta be fair I don't think the current moderators are doin that bad of a job. Everyones gonna have an opinion and there no different. Honestly havin seen them (maybe I'm wrong) dealin with anyone in an unfair manner.
But from followin Koptalk for the past few months I think (for what its worth) the people most suited to become moderators due to general cop on and actual good football knowledge would be Thundyr and/or Stanley Park. . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
thundyr
Unregistered
|
|
thundyr
Unregistered
|
I actually agree with some of what you said, especially regarding censorship, feedom of expression/speech etc. In an earlier post I suggested a moderator-free weekend as an experiment. We're all adults - what's the worst that could happen? In many ways, too much moderation is worse than none. To a certain degree, nasty insults need to be cut out of course, but are we that fragile that we need prefects around telling us off just for calling someone a 'd1ck', for example? I don't know that we're "fragile" but I believe there always needs to be a sense of decency. Resorting to gutter talk (as I've seen quite regularly on this forum) is not the way to go about making or arguing a point. Though one may know the recipient is thick skinned, that's no excuse to behave poorly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
