Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 14, 2005, at 11:25:23
In reply to Lou's reply to Minnie and Phillipa » Minnie-Haha, posted by Lou Pilder on June 14, 2005, at 6:45:49
> Thank you for requesting that I answer your concerns for the record and Minnie for lifting her prohibition for us to have this dialog.
You are welcome. If it will lead to a significant decrease in the requests, or to guideline changes that most find agreeable, I am all for it.
> I will start with your first concern which is why do I make {so many} requests to Dr. Hsiung
> Well, if the moderation was when the board was in session, then I do not think that there would be so many… Could not immediate moderation have some reducing effect to the number of my requests? That is why I suggested that no more than 5 minuets elaps for a post to be addressed...So to paraphrase (correct me if I'm wrong), the reason you post so many requests to Admin is because there aren’t moderators here 24/7 and posts go more than 5 minutes without being read by a moderator? If there were moderators here 24/7 (or the forum operated only when moderators were present), and no post was allowed to go more than 5 minutes without being read by a moderator, that would significantly reduce your requests?
Follow-up questions: If a poster disagreed with a moderator’s call, would there be a grievance procedure, and how would it work? Or would the guidelines say that once a moderator made a ruling that would be the end of it? And if a person continued to disagree with a ruling, or push for a reversal, what would happen to that person?
> This could be done, IMO, if Dr. Hsiung has a "buddy" to help him moderate when he can not...
Since there are 20 boards, and every post should be read within 5 minutes, do you think only one "buddy" at a time could be a moderator when Dr. Bob is unable to moderate? (Just out of curiosity, would you want to be a buddy?)
> It is not an either or type of suggestion , for there are other alternatives to this situation such as allowing posters to halt a thread untill the moderator addresses a post...
So any poster could halt a thread that he/she wants to have reviewed? Could even a poster who is not actively involved in a thread halt the post? Could a person who is not the subject of (or what he/she has said is not the subject of) a post halt a thread?
> ...and another alternative is to allow a poster to put aside a post so that no one can respond to it but the thread continues…
This alternative I don’t understand.
> Another alternative is to have a large group of deputies with the idea that they can immediatly address a post without waiting for other circumstances to happen…
By other circumstances do you mean escalation? And how would deputies be chosen?
> and there are others....continued
I will read them as you post them.
In the meantime, how do you feel about a rule that says:
1) that a person can only make unlimited (so to speak) requests for determinations on posts that are either A) in response to a post he/she has made, B) is about him/her or something he/she has posted, or C) is in a thread that he/she has been actively involved in? (“Actively” in this case to be defined by Dr. Bob, or a vote, or whatever: perhaps it might mean has posted to the thread within the prior week (or 72-hours or whatever) preceding the questioned post.)
2) That a person can only make limited requests for determinations on posts that are A) not in response to something he/she has posted, B) not about him/her or something he/she has posted, and C) not in a thread that he/she has been actively involved in? (“Limited” to be defined by Dr. Bob, or a vote, or whatever: perhaps once a week?)
Finally, how do you feel about making it a requirement that when someone’s post is being questioned, they receive a notice, so that they may, if they choose, defend what they’ve said?
poster:Minnie-Haha
thread:512087
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/512555.html