Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes...

Would you like to see changes in the moderation of LPSG?

  • I would like to see changes in the moderation of LPSG.

    Votes: 42 67.7%
  • I would NOT like to see changes in the moderation of LPSG.

    Votes: 20 32.3%

  • Total voters
    62

lucky8

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Posts
3,623
Media
0
Likes
193
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I'm not sure you were around for the last time that was brought up so I'll give you a pass but I'm tempted to spank the next person who suggests being a paid member makes any difference in your value to the site.

This is the Large Penis Support Group.

Large Penis / Support Group

These are the two most important things members offer.

Pics of your large penis are a major draw of the site,being as they are in fact the central theme.

Support - this comes in the form of support for other members or support for the site (female galleries help to draw more male members, etc.)

Yes, money is needed to keep the site afloat but it does not determine the importance of one's voice in discussion.

Sorry, I worded that poorly. I just kind of figured that the site would be more inclined to take action if financially contributing members were making suggestions too. I just kind of figured that the site would be more concerned about fiscal matters than social ones to keep the site going, I guess I'm wrong though; I should have worded that better, I didn't intend to imply that paying members are more important than nonpaying members, I just assumed that paying members would have a little more say as to what goes down since without them, the site would run out of money, thats all
 

Gillette

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Posts
6,214
Media
4
Likes
95
Points
268
Age
53
Location
Halifax (Nova Scotia, Canada)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Sorry, I worded that poorly. I just kind of figured that the site would be more inclined to take action if financially contributing members were making suggestions too. I just kind of figured that the site would be more concerned about fiscal matters than social ones to keep the site going, I guess I'm wrong though; I should have worded that better, I didn't intend to imply that paying members are more important than nonpaying members, I just assumed that paying members would have a little more say as to what goes down since without them, the site would run out of money, thats all

No problem. We're good.

While it's true that without financing the site would evaporate it's also true that without members contributing content by way of pics or posts there would be no site worth financing.

Both rely equally on the other, so both are equally important.
 

ManlyBanisters

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Posts
12,253
Media
0
Likes
58
Points
183
(...and I had hoped to avoid getting into this particular fray...)

The way we operate now, these two desires are in conflict with one another. The more moderators there are, the more that are required to constitute a majority. As it is, it can be sometimes a full day before we get just four moderators to agree on an issue. Raising that number slows us down.

Consider these two extreme cases: In which scenario are decisions made more quickly: a family meeting, or a session of the U.S. House of Representatives? Personally, I'd rather see us more able to intervene early before things get out of hand.

Maybe if there were a clearer set of policies (amongst yourselves) governing intervention a lower quorum could be agreed upon.

With all due respect MB would you go into a resturant and ask them to change recipes on menu items?

If I was a regular there and I thought something was amiss with the gazpacho I may well suggest a change in the tomato supplier, yes, absolutely.
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
(...and I had hoped to avoid getting into this particular fray...)

The way we operate now, these two desires are in conflict with one another. The more moderators there are, the more that are required to constitute a majority. As it is, it can be sometimes a full day before we get just four moderators to agree on an issue. Raising that number slows us down.

Consider these two extreme cases: In which scenario are decisions made more quickly: a family meeting, or a session of the U.S. House of Representatives? Personally, I'd rather see us more able to intervene early before things get out of hand.

This one got out of hand anyway. Stomping trolls as early as possible is important because if you don't, then the regular members will take it into their hands to do so and we get results like this one where DC_DEEP was banned. I completely recognize that he left before the ban was put into effect and that the ban was temporary and that the ban itself was rescinded when it was realized DC_DEEP had been warned and that he was abiding by that warning. It still represents a deficiency in the process that needs to be corrected.

The trolls won this round. 1BIGG1 managed to stir the pot and get people to respond in the way he wanted. He had been doing this for far too long and when some members saw nothing was going to be apparently done about it, they tried to bash the troll on their own. As a result, LPSG has lost several valuable members who chose to leave because they felt the incident, along with some previous incidents, had been improperly handled.

I think the banning of DC_DEEP, whether temporary or even mistaken, was completely unfair. LPSG has rules and because it has rules it has to act to maintain them. This situation reminds me of a parent who watches one child picks a fight with another and then does nothing as the fighting escalates until it gets into a physical brawl that violates the rules and then both are punished. As the rules are made by LPSG, they have to be enforced by LPSG. You cannot, on one hand, state that they're adults and so you can't control them only to have a set of rules which are designed to do precisely that. What disturbs me the most is that DC_DEEP was banned for defending himself against a troll because the moderators did not act soon enough. I am also disturbed that banning DC_DEEP appears to have been discussed and approved without evidence of a warning arriving until too late. Clearly one had did not know what the other was doing. A warning should have been the first thing issued before a ban was even considered. Why? Because you know DC_DEEP and know he's not a troll. You go back over 1BIGG1's posts and you know he's a bully looking only to inflame threads and incense others. I do not understand why it took so long to realize just what 1BIGG1 is.

No moderation system is perfect and, as I've said before, it's a thankless job. It is more difficult still when many of the moderation team are not regular and involved posters. It is much like the situation with cops on the beat today. The neighborhood cop who used to walk the beat was known by everyone. The cops driving slowly passed your house are unknown quantities and appear distant and threatening because there is no interaction beyond when you've done something wrong. It creates a tense us vs. them situation where many people are eager to jump to conclusions.

As to changes, yes I think there need to be more mods if the reason it took so long for 1BIGG1 and ItalAndy to be caught was because the moderators were busy with other things. Ineffective and inequitable policing is worse than no policing at all.

I think closed threads and temp bans should be accompanied by an immediate message was to why action was taken so as to prevent the endless speculation that not only encourages various theories but makes the site look bad to both old and new members.

I think trolls should be judged on the simple duck test. If it looks like a troll, acts like a troll, and quacks like a troll, then it's a troll.

If there's a point system, as there currently appears to be, then members should be aware of it.

The board should operate on the principle that openness fosters trust and dialog. The more members understand about how things operate, the more they will understand when unpleasant things happen.

What's done is done and I can't turn back the clock. DC_DEEP will not be returning and I can't blame him. He was treated very poorly despite the apology. What I fervently hope for is that wiser and cooler heads will prevail in the future to prevent this situation from happening again. There is some anger here and it stems right back to BD's banning. This incident just gave it an excuse to resurface. It's useless to ignore the 800 lb. gorilla in the room. The secrecy, guessing, inconsistent use of bans, warnings, and suspensions, and the moderating errors that led to DC_DEEP being warned, banned, then unbanned even after he stated he was leaving makes people wonder just where the consistency is. Couple that with uninvolved moderators, lots of site changes, and all the regular issues that come from running a BBS, and it makes for a lot of confusion that many members are more than willing to invent their own theories for. You know as well as I do there's an entire forum elsewhere devoted to problems over here. There should not have to be.

Think before you alienate because the criticism will just get shifted somewhere else when members, former and current, feel they can't speak openly here. The other place is filled with bright and intelligent people who are whom they appear to be. I know because I've met many of them. :smile: They're people who have largely fled or banned from LPSG because of trolls and inconsistent moderating policies that have left them feeling disenfranchised from a place they believe they've helped to make as successful as it is. If you want to keep those ranks from growing, then act and make some drastic changes. I would even go so far as to make an account and go over there with the sincerest apology I can muster and invite every one of them back once LPSG has in place a clear policy on trolling, banning, warning, and then actively works to keep those trolls at bay. That may mean changes in moderator staffing and qualifications but I don't really see any other way. They may not all take you up on the offer, but it's a gesture that will ultimately help LPSG.

Until you drain the boil, clean the wound, and allow it to heal, it will fester.
The usernames may change with time, but the pattern will continue.
 
Last edited:

marleyisalegend

Loved Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Posts
6,126
Media
1
Likes
616
Points
333
Age
38
Location
charlotte
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Perhaps the mods need to pay closer attention to post reports. I had a problem with 1Bigg and another member trolling one of my threads and both were reported several times but I never heard from anyone about it. I know the Mods probably have their hands fun but it's been quite a few days and I still hadn't received a response.
 

Mem

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Posts
7,912
Media
0
Likes
54
Points
183
Location
FL
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Looks like 8 Mods voted in the Poll so far. (just Kidding) :biggrin1:
 

SyddyKitty

Admired Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Posts
2,432
Media
0
Likes
857
Points
333
Age
37
Location
Washington (United States)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Just a question.

Mention has been made for moderators dedicated to specific forums. I think as you discuss such things you should be very clear on what you mean.

Do you mean one moderator responsible for just merges, deletions, and closures?

Or would you mean that that moderator would have sole decision in handling any issues that arose in said forum? (I don't think that wise.)
Usually on forums like the one I mentioned, the group of mods on each subforum consult each other for deletions, bannings, warnings, closures.

Some of those mods are also moderating other subforums, but with different groups ( I assume this prevents cliques among the mods?). Usually the longer a mod is around, the more subforums they take on.

Each subforum tends to have an amount of mods relative to the bussiness of the subforum. For instance, Et Cetera could be 10 people whereas Verification requests could be 4.

As mentioned before, things could slow down in the way they are handled.. but they can also speed up quite a bit. The forums I visit are gaming forums, things are usually handled pretty quickly with them.
 

Sklar

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2006
Posts
1,647
Media
25
Likes
3,618
Points
368
Location
Everett, Washington, US
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I'm a little confused here - who's calling for the mods / admins to resign? Could you link, please?


Um, how about the poll questions you asked?

I realise that you didn't specifically ask if the mods should be replaced but that's what I inferred from your poll.

If I was mistaken in that, I apologize but that's the underlying tone I got from this thread and the poll when I first read through it this morning.

Thanks for listening,


Sklar
 

ManlyBanisters

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Posts
12,253
Media
0
Likes
58
Points
183
Um, how about the poll questions you asked?

I realise that you didn't specifically ask if the mods should be replaced but that's what I inferred from your poll.

If I was mistaken in that, I apologize but that's the underlying tone I got from this thread and the poll when I first read through it this morning.

Thanks for listening,


Sklar

Well, there's no actual need to apologize - but you did infer wrong.

I don't personally favour a complete overhaul - I would like to see some new moderators on the team. Since this time last year there are 3 less moderators and I have yet to understand why replacements were never sought.

I'd like to see at least 3 new mods - possibly a change to the moderating structure (e.g. different named mods taking responsibility for different areas) and I'd like to see a little more communication when a high profile banning / trolling situation is going on.

An overhaul / clarification of the ToS wouldn't be a bad thing either.

I can actually see how you might get what you did from the post if you started out with the assumption I was mod bashing. I wasn't and I think most people seem to have taken that as intended.

What I'm actually surprised at is the very low 'voter turnout'. I wasn't expecting the whole site to vote, but I was expecting more than 35. I guess I should have included an 'I don't care' option, shouldn't I. It's a shame - because I have always found apathy tends to make things worse for everybody.

Oh well.
 

SyddyKitty

Admired Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Posts
2,432
Media
0
Likes
857
Points
333
Age
37
Location
Washington (United States)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I'd also like to add that, in the system I stated, the Admin (or Highest level mod) chooses who becomes moderator based on their standing within the community and their posts interacting with other members. Not something chosen by the members.
 

mindseye

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Posts
3,399
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Maybe if there were a clearer set of policies (amongst yourselves) governing intervention a lower quorum could be agreed upon.

Fair enough.

Then again, maybe if people would just find better ways of expressing their disagreement than ganging up in a vigilante squad to call the same member a "stupid cunt" several times in a row, we wouldn't have to worry about quorums and interventions in the first place.

Given a choice between the need for earlier interventions and the need for fewer interventions, I think the latter would please a lot more people.