Discussions about improving the forum

Fair point Monty, but I think if the moderating was more active instead of reactive (waiting until it blew up) it would keep a lot of the threads under control. As for the moderating ourselves factor... it should be an additional point to our list.
I don't think there should be more moderators but I don't think the position of moderator should be permanent. If, because of other commitments you cannot moderate, you should not be a moderator. Like I said, it's a job/role in the forum, it's not supposed to be anything else.
Obviously the Admin never changes, that's the only thing that should never change.

Added points:
- Moderator rotation system (not a permanent position)
- Need to moderate ourselves (related to giving others the benefit of the doubt).
 
This thread sounds like the inmates are running the nut house or they want to anyway. I can only speak for myself here but, I don't post anywhere near as often as I could because it seems that no matter what I say, I get jumped on and it's always from the so called "veteran" posters in this forum. I don't complain to the staff or anything, I just shy away from posting my opinions more and more.
I think that the staff here does a pretty good job of enforcing the rules as they exist. How can you ask them to be involved in threads and then criticize them for being biased when they have to enforce a rule or two? Don't say you don't do that because it's already been done in this thread.
I like it that they don't allow much in the way of cursing and the ban on double posting is a good rule as well. Who the heck wants to come here and read someone talking to himself just to try to keep his lame thread alive? Not me.
Policing ourselves is insane. There are tons of forums out there that let you get into a ***** slapping contest to your heart's content. Go there and flame away if you like.
The problem here isn't the people who post once and go away. It's more like the reason those who post once, take a look at the wolf pack like activity here and don't want to waste their time dealing with those who are able to give another opinion a chance.
My comments are not directed to anyone in particular and maybe I'm the only one who feels this way but I kinda doubt it. Go on - flame away if it'll make any of you feel better.
 
- Moderators don't take active part in threads enough.
- Threads are too easily closed.
- It's not clear whether the mods are being referees or unit commanders.
- The focus of the board... is it really being a military forum?
- Civilians who piss off military personnel (apparently intentionally).
- Trolling that is forgiven due to the person's political stance (Phoenix lasted a LONG time, probably for being conservative because I can't imagine any leftist with his sort of trolling lasting anywhere near 2 years)
- The fact that moderators never change regardless of commitment or lack thereof (for whatever reason).
- The moderator's political stance that interferes too much with their decision making.
- Left, right or center? Are we neutral or does a certain political stance come first? We should make it clear and stick to it
- Want of more privacy.
- Civilians unsure of what is appropriate and what is not while trying to be respectful.
- Not international enough, especially in terms of choice of moderators.
- Double posts are a neusance.
- The suspensions and temporary bans are far too sudden and far too heavy.
New Ones:
- Servicemembers should give civilians the benefit of the doubt.
- Moderator rotation system (not a permanent position)
- Need to moderate ourselves (related to giving others the benefit of the doubt).


I think that helps.

As for Mighty Mouse, that's why I think that service members and ex service members should give civilians the benefit of the doubt.
 
Last edited:
Mighty Mouse said:
This thread sounds like the inmates are running the nut house or they want to anyway. I can only speak for myself here but, I don't post anywhere near as often as I could because it seems that no matter what I say, I get jumped on and it's always from the so called "veteran" posters in this forum. I don't complain to the staff or anything, I just shy away from posting my opinions more and more.
I think that the staff here does a pretty good job of enforcing the rules as they exist. How can you ask them to be involved in threads and then criticize them for being biased when they have to enforce a rule or two? Don't say you don't do that because it's already been done in this thread.
I like it that they don't allow much in the way of cursing and the ban on double posting is a good rule as well. Who the heck wants to come here and read someone talking to himself just to try to keep his lame thread alive? Not me.
Policing ourselves is insane. There are tons of forums out there that let you get into a ***** slapping contest to your heart's content. Go there and flame away if you like.
The problem here isn't the people who post once and go away. It's more like the reason those who post once, take a look at the wolf pack like activity here and don't want to waste their time dealing with those who are able to give another opinion a chance.
My comments are not directed to anyone in particular and maybe I'm the only one who feels this way but I kinda doubt it. Go on - flame away if it'll make any of you feel better.
Click to expand...


I've stayed out of this until now, but you've hit on several of the reasons that I left. Being attacked for my opinion, for just being myself, and being chastised for being friends with certain members are the main reasons that I can't stand this place anymore. That and too many members who seem to think this is a popularity contest, as well as several who seem to think they're superior to everyone else for whatever reason. I just got really tired of it. So now I drop in, but rarely post unless its to welcome new members. You can try your best to "fix" the forum, but you can't change the personalities of the members. There will always be someone who has a quick temper, someone who gets offended very easily, someone who thinks they're God's gift to the forum.......*shrug* I wish you all the best, though, in your efforts to get the forum back to what it used to be.
 
Sevens said:
I've stayed out of this until now, but you've hit on several of the reasons that I left. Being attacked for my opinion, for just being myself, and being chastised for being friends with certain members are the main reasons that I can't stand this place anymore. That and too many members who seem to think this is a popularity contest, as well as several who seem to think they're superior to everyone else for whatever reason. I just got really tired of it. So now I drop in, but rarely post unless its to welcome new members. You can try your best to "fix" the forum, but you can't change the personalities of the members. There will always be someone who has a quick temper, someone who gets offended very easily, someone who thinks they're God's gift to the forum.......*shrug* I wish you all the best, though, in your efforts to get the forum back to what it used to be.
Click to expand...
I have to say that I never saw any direct evidence of this happening to you in particular, but I'm sure it did happen, else I know there's little reason you would have left.

I've been in several arguments, and have been insulted multiple times, and I daresay I've done the same to others, and for the most part it's just water off a duck's back; no real issues. But my biggest hang-up stemmed from this, a moderator's response to a post I reported.
I would love to see TOG on his way out with a foot in his butt. I personally despise the little Ba....d! Everything I know of him is concerning his abuse toward any and everyone on the forum. He is an air thief.
Click to expand...
Shortly thereafter I stopped reporting posts. I felt it was evident I wasn't going to get a fair shake, so I decided to stop trying. Mind you, I generally have a rather non-confrontational and civil time with mods, but that really ticked me off. I nearly left right then and there, but in the end I decided I wouldn't let the opinion of one run me off.

Which I guess brings me to my next point, that there should be some checks and balances or something for moderators. I've seen what I consider in a couple of cases what I consider to be abuse of power, I've contacted Redleg, who told me to take it up with the other moderators, who told me to take it up with Redleg. I just want a definite answer, be it in my favor or not.
 
Last edited:
Again, a lot of it falls under giving others the benefit of the doubt.
As for the "superiority" "inferiority" stuff... it'll be a part of the whole civilian-military relationship on this board that needs to be defined.

As for TOG's complaints about being given the run around, that I think is a byproduct of moderators not being involved enough.

Your thoughts?

Despite all the bad that has happened, I see a lot of good that is here or was here. A lot of the junior members who joined came to this forum for advice and guidance and have gone on to sign the dotted line and are now serving. Mmarsh's life had pretty much nothing to do with the military other than interest but now he's considering making it a part of his life and I'd like to think that we had a small role to play in that as well.
So there is good. Which is why I think it's worth the collective effort to improve this forum.
 
Last edited:
I really think that it is time to stop trying to dissect old problems, and just list possible ways that the Forum could be improved, as there are already a lot of suggestions and if they are going to be read, it will make the job a lot easier if those responsible do not have to wade through a ton of minor "he said", "she said" posts"

I'm sure that Redleg will ask for clarification if he feels a suggestion is worth implementing and the details are a bit sketchy.
 
Yeah I think we have enough issues lined up here.

So here are some suggestions I have to some of the issues raised here:

- Moderators don't take active part in threads enough.
The job of moderator should not be permanent. Those who do give the time and effort should continue to stay on moderating but for those who are barely here they should pass the torch onto someone else. Maybe we should have an anonymous vote system. As to what sort of member should be put up for candidacy... that is another topic unto itself.
- Threads are too easily closed.
Moderators facilitating a thread can keep the threads and topics more relevant and under control.
- It's not clear whether the mods are being referees or unit commanders.
Moderating/facilitating is refereeing. I believe all mods have military experience so sometimes the group leader instinct kicks in but as far as leadership goes, Redleg is the boss. Moderating/facilitating should be refereeing.
- The focus of the board... is it really being a military forum?
We should make a conscious effort to post military related stuff. There might be a clever way to use the news manager for this.
- Civilians who piss off military personnel (apparently intentionally).
Just a symptom of the fights that break out on the forum I feel.
- Trolling that is forgiven due to the person's political stance (Phoenix lasted a LONG time, probably for being conservative because I can't imagine any leftist with his sort of trolling lasting anywhere near 2 years)
I think when members voice their complaints about a certain member and the complaints are not about the other person's argument, rather their conduct, it should be taken more seriously.
- The fact that moderators never change regardless of commitment or lack thereof (for whatever reason).
Same as the first one.
- The moderator's political stance that interferes too much with their decision making.
Not sure about how to go about with this one. Any suggestions?
- Left, right or center? Are we neutral or does a certain political stance come first? We should make it clear and stick to it
We need to make this one clear. Being military, I believe that we should be politically neutral as a policy.
- Want of more privacy.
Don't know if this is a big problem right now.
- Civilians unsure of what is appropriate and what is not while trying to be respectful.
I think in terms of military matters, the opinions of the military folks should be respected but for other topics such as sports or politics, everyone's views should be given an equal status. Likewise, if a civilian member works in a certain field and he/she has a say on a certain matter and we are not a part of that line of work, we may not like the answer but we're going to have to take it for what it is.
- Not international enough, especially in terms of choice of moderators.
So the next person to make moderator should be from somewhere other than North America.
- Double posts are a neusance.
I think it should be alright as long as they're not doing it to be annoying.
- The suspensions and temporary bans are far too sudden and far too heavy.
Public suggestions and PMs should be used to try to diffuse the situation first. Then if all else fails, like Spike suggested, a 1 day ban followed by 2 day should suffice. A 1 week ban for a first time offender is a bit heavy. I mean, if it was that bad, might as well permanently ban the person.
- Servicemembers should give civilians the benefit of the doubt.
Again, this is a conscious decision. Civilians don't know the military world as many military folks are unfamiliar with some of the parts of the civilian world. It's mutual. Let's try to explain it a bit better instead of assuming that we're being attacked.

Any other ideas?
 
I just make a quick comment to what TOG+Redneck stated just so that its clear.

If there is a complaint of abuse made about staff members, (and there has been in the past). It is up to the site owner (Redleg) to get involved, not other mods. Its chain of command, and Redlegs the Big Cheese. He might not like it (I certainly understand why), but managing this site includes managing his staff.

Thats my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Yes that too.
If a criticism/complaint about a mod is answered by mods simply ganging up on the person who reported it, the whole regular to moderator trust relationship breaks and the moderator is ineffective in anything except handing out infractions.
 
JFDR:

Myself, I have never received bad or even the slightest bit offensive treatment from staff (I was not content with their answers always? Yes, but that is one thing. In form I was always treated with all respect I would give to others), and actually I see a contradiction in asking - at the same time - for "more mod involvement" and "less moderation".

Mods and admin jobs are ot easy, I trust (until proof to the contrary) that they are selected well and know to wear their user hat w/o conflict with their Mod hat.

While I find some rules need revision and maybe are outdated/not compatible with the situation, I do *not* think that staff behaviour is the reason for what some perceive as forum style decline.

I have made my point before in this respect (scroll way up), just wanted to be clear in this part of the discussion also.

Rattler
 
Last edited:
Well, if you send the Admin a PM, I'm sure he'd address it if he thinks the complaint needs his input. If you complain in the open forums then you're probably going to get a mod or two responding. It's their function. Whether it's "abuse" or not is not your call, it's the staff's + admin's call I would think.
I think mods are there to help the Admin keep the forum from falling into chaos. All this criticism about the mods here is unfounded IMO.
The only trust between regulars and mods should extend to the point of depending on them to enforce the forum rules and not to require them to kiss up to members who don't think the rules apply to them.
You want mods to be more involved in threads and you criticize them for being biased or being too strict. Just go back in this thread and see what's been posted.
Ya, I've done my share of moderating on other sites and it is really unfair when a handful of sensitive users start to gang up on the mods. Nothing good ever comes from bashing the staff.
This is my opinion.
 
Well I can understand Rattler's point of view on this but Mighty Mouse, you've made a total of 75 posts and for the past few months you haven't even been here. It's sort of hard to say whether or not our views are valid or not based on what happened way back when you used to post as opposed to now.
Personally I think the main issue is not really the bad behavior aspect but the fact that the mods seem to be some of the least involved in the bulk of our discussions. It's hard to referee a match by hardly watching while it unfolds and then handing out infractions after the match is over via watching video tape.
Also I don't know why people who don't even come here are still moderators when there are folks here who can easily take up the role.
Obviously us regulars also need to watch ourselves but I think the conflicts arise because we don't know what to expect from one another. Just trying to see if we can turn it around alright?

There really isn't any real contradiction.
We think more moderator involvement via communication.
And we believe that will lead to less infractions and that some of the infractions come without sufficient chance for both parties to cool off and when it comes come, it's a one week ban when a one or two day ban should do just fine.
They don't really contradict each other.

As for the "ganging up on the mods," we addressed that there was a problem on the board because regulars were leaving and new people weren't staying and we were told that there was no problem whatsoever. That's where the conflict arose. Having regulars leave (and not because of the lack of time) and having new people leave because they feel pushed out is a sign that something is wrong. We didn't intend to gang up on anyone. Just that a lot of the regulars felt that something was wrong contrary to what the staff was saying. We just happened to agree at the same time where the moderators disagreed with us at the same time.

Either way I'm not really interested in that.
Let's try to see what changes people would want to see and then submit it to the moderators in an organized manner. That's really the best we can do.
 
Mighty

When someone refers to you as a bastard, or a coward, or another type of insult thats called a flame. Flames are not allowed here. Right off that bat thats abuse. You dont need a staff member's opinion to decide that a flame is or isnt abuse, its pretty much common sense. Name calling is not permitted, PERIOD. No ifs, ands, or buts. Thats Redleg himself who has said so.

Furthermore, I dont think you can fairly say other people's claims are unfounded as you are very rarely here yourself. How often have you had a disagreement with a Mod? Not that often I'd wager. I can tell you for a fact that it has happened to me personally, AND I have witnessed it happen to others. I have heard alot of complaints from users here who have been here a long time, not newbies, learning the ropes.

I agree with Rattler that being a Mod isnt an easy job, which is exactly why some people shouldnt be mods. To be a good mod one must be intelligent, tolerant, and patient, this site isnt the partisan Democratic Underground or FreeRepublic, ALL opinions are welcome that means CONSERVATIVES and LIBERALS. This means people are going to disagree, and if a person cannot disagree in a post without making a personal remark they shouldnt be a mod here, in fact they probably should be here at all.

I agree that it isnt the ONLY problem, but its certainly played its part.

I agree with the conclusions so far. More and Better participation, better self-control, a more diverse staff, I am undecided about whether should be a revolving staff or that staff be elected. There are arguements for and against.
 
Last edited:
Well I don't think a term for a moderator should be limited or anything but I feel that if someone is not here enough to moderate the forum, he should pass the torch onto another person.
We should probably have a rough guideline as to who would be an ideal moderator material.
My criteria (obviously just a musing at this point) is:
- Age should be at least 30 years.
- Middle of the road politically.
- Can think beyond his own country's borders.
We can either have new mods through a vote, or we can submit who we think should be moderator to Redleg during a picking period and he can decide from his own view of the individuals as well what we have to say about potential candidates.
I am not for a completely rotating staff where everyone will get a chance to be moderator.
 
criteria sound good, but do *never* (experience speaking here) have the users vote the mods (have seen it twice, a national election campaign is nothing compared to what you will tread loose in a 5k members forum with that CoA).

suggest to the owner via PM all you want, present yourself to him if you feel fit, but do not have a public vote.

A forum can not be democratically organized (if not everybody shares the cost), same goes for a/c or ships, you *needÜ* chiefs and indians if you want it to prosper.

Designating mods is a forum owner thingy (and like it or not, there is *one* owner who pays it). Designating the *right* mods is proof (or the opposite) of his ability as forum owner.

Think of owner/president, sports director and coach of a soccer team, different AoR´s for all, and it is good that way.

My 2.

Rattler
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top