THE VOICE OF REASON... to the doubters, why won't this work?

^^ It works for me. I think having a moderator would be a bigger distraction than the trolls.

GMD said he would be moderator. Personally I think he would go nuts after a week if he had to pay attention to every post.

^^^ Are you not capable of following some simple rules regarding posting that a moderator? Why would it be a distraction Sir? Or do you wish the ability to attack someone if the mood strikes you?

zipman68, members like Dougster and his aliases and other members who behave the same way have NOT shown a willingness to "Back Off". They simple keep attacking & mocking viciously.

@Mikey: yep, anyone impartial enough and qualified for the job would not want it.

I still have an open truce offer with anyone who wants it. Several have taken me up on it now and it all stands. Other who don't I conclude like the flame wars. Fine, I can live with either and there is fun to be had in both worlds. I deal with people according to the rules they choose, providing those rules are symmetrical.

I think a moderator would just making it more fun for those trolls who have a "hacker" or slightly anti-social mindset. More of challenge to test their "skills" against. They would push the grey areas and force the moderator to become heavy handed and start harming innocents which the troll and rest if the board would then condemn. I've seen it all before. People who think it would be a panacea, or easy to distinguish since all is black and white need to consider the matter a bit more deeply.

But, hey, I'm on some moderated list. It's not the end of the world that way either.

Why won't it work?

Because every time you log on you'll have the 3 newest aliases clogging up the board with worthless shit. Then you'll have the actual topics clogged up by people who respond to the aliases but who are otherwise legitimate posters. In turn this derails good topics.

I shouldn't have to wade through a river of crap each day because some people have nothing better to do than make up a 19th fake name.

Going to "last comment" doesn't work, because you get a few of the same assholes pulling up month/year old posts just to prove they can be assholes.

It's gotten out of hand.

Drac, eventhough you are ignoring me, I will still respond to your idiocy. To whit, I spar with doogie, call him names, and call him on some of his shit but I don't ignore him 'cause he is fun. I assume he returns the "favor" for the same reason. We don't need no frickin moderator. You wouldn't need one either if you were not so psycho and paranoid. Besides, if we had a moderator, over half of your posts would be deleted, e.g that dumbass list that keeps going on and on and on, that no one but you understand. Also, this is the DISCUSSION section of TUSCL. If you don't want your thoughts discussed, don't put them out there. BTW, I don't ignore your crazy ass crap because I think it is funnier than anything juice and his ilk put out.

I juice have been on stripper web for 3 years now....their is your proof that moderation and ip would work cause its not....im deep in their systems....

Zip- I don't have you on ignore. I think jester made some good points.

Another thing you folks need to understand as that although the recent spamming looks like merely an attempt to annoy, it is actually a philosophical battle going on at stake. If a moderation system is put in place that will be proof that even a relative small "community" such as this with, really, nothing at stake can "govern itself". Some "policing" is required. It's a blow against anarchism for sure, and those who are near anarchists. For if such a small community requires some central authority to keep things on track, surely larger communities or nation do as well.

So once the moderator is in place, the person behind the recent spamming will get to say "... WINS AGAIN!" and may just step up the sophistication of his evasion tactics.

LOW!

To clarify the above, I'm saying this because the predominant political philosophy on this board seems to be Libertarian/borderline anarchist.

Coo-el discussion bros...no real insults (well not yet...and hopefully it will stay this way). I'll share my perspective on the issues raised. Let's assume for a moment that a moderator could be practical. I'd like to make the case that it would be a bad idea. With that in mind, here are my thoughts about the discussion above:

@Alucard - it isn't clear to me what the rules would be. If it was literally "don't engage in personal attacks" then what constitutes a personal attack? We all have different tolerance for things said and I'd rather adjust my behavior to individuals. I agree with you that there are behaviors that are clearly over the line, but even then there is the question of whether what was said was intended as a joke. Obviously, a moderator could simply take a zero tolerance policy -- but the libertarian/social liberal in me really dislikes zero tolerance policies. I'm not really interested in reading a board that implements one, even if it is well-intentioned.

@jester214 - what you said seems superficially reasonable, but I'd like point out that one man's crap is another man's treasure. To somebody who likes crazy stories 'bout KFC and strippers but doesn't like stories of 2AMers Shadowcat would be a spammer and Juice the good guy. A moderator might not agree with you regarding which posts are crap.

I'd like to add that my reply to jester wasn't intended to disparage either Shadowcat or Juice. I think the 2AMers could be useful to some (I'm more of a dayshift/early evening guy) and I enjoy many (not all) of Juice's antics.

I'm a firm believer that my ignore policy will work -- as long as folks REALLY IGNORE those they dislike. Yes, you may need to hunt through two pages to find all the threads you like when you visit. But is that really that hard?

"@Alucard - it isn't clear to me what the rules would be. If it was literally "don't engage in personal attacks" then what constitutes a personal attack? We all have different tolerance for things said and I'd rather adjust my behavior to individuals. I agree with you that there are behaviors that are clearly over the line, but even then there is the question of whether what was said was intended as a joke. Obviously, a moderator could simply take a zero tolerance policy -- but the libertarian/social liberal in me really dislikes zero tolerance policies. I'm not really interested in reading a board that implements one, even if it is well-intentioned."

I disagree.

One or two isolated "Personal Attacks" may be seen as a joke by some people with senses of humor I don't agree with. BUT constant attacking & mocking over an extended period of time can IMHO ONLY be seen as a TRUE Personal Attack & should be dealt with severely by a ironfisted moderator!

@zipman, of course you have to have a line but that's what the moderator is for. Ideally they would try to be representative of what the majority of the community feels is crap. You also have to consider what a newcomer to the board sees when they click discussions. They don't know the inside jokes or who have anyone on ignore. Are those (imo) overly repetitive nonsense posts using purposefully bad typing going to encourage them to stay or to go? I doubt it.

The fact that we have to have a "just use the ignore button" post once a month should be pretty telling evidence that it doesn't/won't work.

@jester214... I respectfully disagree that the monthly discussions about "just use the ignore button" indicate anything. Frankly, it is same people are bringing up their issues with ignore every time Juice posts too much or something else they don't like happens.

Besides, I am NOT advocating a "just use the ignore button" policy. I am advocating what I'll call a "holistic ignore" policy.

What I mean by that is take ignoring those you believe to be bad actors seriously. Hit the ignore button, but also act as if the person you are ignoring doesn't exist. I've seen very few people who complain actually do that. I think that will work much better.

BTW, personally, I'd be just as happy if we all dialed back attacks. However, I like some of the silly threads. There were some really funny ones about a year ago. Not so many now. To much pissing on each other...whether it is a joke or not. But I want to stress that I'm not telling folks what to do...just stating what I would like. If others agree that's cool. If not, do what you want. I'm just saying that IF you don't like silliness or insults or whatever the best way to express your dislike is to ignore it....and by that I mean REALLY IGNORE IT!!!

Peace ;-)

^^^ no way, man. jestie's passive-aggressive approach is way better. Claim you have someone on ignore then read and respond to their posts anyway and generally bitch about them.

@Alucard: Look how much heat Yoda is given for moderation on SW. And, that's a completely different board.

Every board I've been on that had moderation had mod drama. Not saying it wouldn't help, but given the nature of the TUSCL beast, it would just create a different set of problems.

Lone_Wolf I am on many forums with moderation. Personal attacks are rare. If they occur beyond a certain point the attackers are told to cool it or be gone. It WORKS well. And those attacks on the other boards are EXTREMELY mild compared to the VICIOUSNESS exhibited here. I still want moderation here to get rid of the constant vicious attacks by many members who seem to only exist here to attack & mock others.