I have seen how the site has changed over the years and it has become much more of a place to socialize rather than to come for support.
I was reading Briley 07's topic earlier and I agree that this site is slowly going down the pan and a lot of changes need to be made.
I don't have half the answers but one thing I would like to debate is the unquestionable authority of the Moderators.
This site is being run by the Moderators. They have a very important job to do keeping this site in order; they do most of the maintenance work for the front of house on this site - making sure topics are in the right places and troll's, spammers are kept out.
I would like to express a few thoughts regarding the roles of moderators on this site.
Censorship, to start, is an issue that I hold dear to my heart. An internet correspondent of mine, a friend who I had been in contact with for a number of years has recently been executed in China for posting controversial blog posts which apposed the government. I therefore understand the importance of fighting censorship.
I don't like how the Moderators have the ability to censor topics, opinions or people that they dislike or disagree with. It's not so much their power that I appose but their totalitarian way of managing the site.
Posting a moderator error report is pretty much like asking a dictator to reconsider his actions. Most of the time as they justified the action in the first place they are unwilling to reconsider. Useless!
I think something should be put in place to counter balance the Moderators rule on this site.
This site has blossomed because it is a community driven social site.. the first real social site on the net (before myspace)... and I think it would be a shame for David, and the Moderators to ignore the community right now.
I understand there is an oversight board in place where disgruntled members can go with their complaints to get previous decisions overturned but I don't think this is enough.
I propose a diplomatically elected member (or small group of members) who can stick up for the other side. Members with the powers to appose a Moderators decisions because lets face it, they don't usually appose each other. In politics there are usually two main parties, in the UK there is the government and the opposition; in the states its the republicans and the democrats. I think there should be a similar sort of system on here.
That was a bit rushed so there might be a few holes in my arguments but my general thoughts are clear.
I would be interested to hear what people have to say about this.
some retards delete shit they dont like though
and AR seems kinda pretentious and annoying anyway
branflakes, its usually more subtle, i.e. harmless spam versus malignant spam, n00bs usually cant tell the difference
i don't care what you think because that's definitely not what AR was referring to
did you read the OP? it compares the mod squad to communist china on the basis of censoring conflicting viewpoints. he makes it sound like we delete anything that goes against the views of the moderation team (topics against a moderator's actions, changes in site regulations, or overall dissatisfaction with the site) which is clearly a baseless accusation.
but the solution to all of this isn't really democracy, its just to have the idiots gtfo
i have been a mod here for only about 3 months and i can say with a straight face that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about
please find me one.. ONE example of censorship for the sake of censorship happening mods DO NOT trash topics because the views held within the topic are different from their own -- they might trash them because they're sexually explicit or promoting self-harm but that's it.
i can say too that i really promote free speech -- i'm a libertarian for christ's sake. if i see ONE example of mod abuse, i point it out right away and make sure that the mistake is corrected. and this RARELY happens (to put it into perspective, i disagree with maybe one out of every couple HUNDRED actions and only a tenth of those i disagree with are actual mistakes).
members like to think that the mod squad is out there to get them but we really aren't. we were all regular members of this site at one point or another and i think being a mod does not change members at all -- they generally look at things the same way and use the same logic. we all want to make this site a better place, regardless of what you think.
beyond that, we all greatly discuss the issues of this site and are working to make it a better place. just because you can't see us always talking doesn't mean discussion isn't happening.
I'm rather certain that if that were to occur, things would improve drastically in short notice.
Site moderation is not and should never be "democratic," that is a joke. You have no idea how many times I've went against nearly the entire mod team, pardoned a member, and then justified it after the fact. The same goes with showing posts, re-adding topics, and unwarning members.
Pretending there is an issue where there is non, or a need for something for which there is no need will get you nowhere, August Rush. You're proposing adding even more bureaucracy to the site than there already is. We already have mod error reports, the oversight board, David Jones (who you are always free to appeal to personally via PM, believe it or not members who were banned by the mod team, have, in the past, been pardoned by david and the mod team basically told to stfu, it happens), and personal appeals to moderators (specifically myself if something of yours is removed and was legit or you are banned for a gay reason etc, ask any mod, i raise hell any time i see it happen).
Myspace isn't "democratic" as far as moderation goes, no legitimate support site is, that would be absolutely stupid to be honest. You have no idea how many members would have been screwed over unreasonably if it were up to democratic decision.
Quasi-moderation power assigned based on popularity rather than any sort of objective merit doesn't strike me as a very good idea at all. I don't trust the unwashed masses of LiveWire to tie their collective shoe without burning the place down, I sure as hell don't trust them not to vote in some popular half-literate fucknuts who have the maturity of a manic toddler.
It would be good for the moderators to be able to veto certain applications, though, if we felt we would be unable to work with that person.
Or, people could just agree to have all the notes and misconduct reports on their profiles shown to the rest of LiveWire when they applied. That ought to provide enough background information.
However, the biggest problem with voting systems on the internet is that they can be so easily gamed, measures would need to be taken to ensure that people do not register many accounts to vote for themselves or someone they liked or against someone they didn't like.
TheOtherHorseman- I respect your opinion.
I think you have good intentions, and I respect that, but I don't think your system would work for all the reasons I stated.
I don't respect The Professionals because i know that even if it has stance, it has no direction. In this kind of argument he is very very predictable. (About the nazi thing: just a comparison not correlation with naziism )
The Professional gets a lot of hate fired at him, and that might be coloring your reaction here. He's made some good points.
Quote: from The Professional at 3:51 pm on July 19, 2008 Again, no points of TOH's addressed. Again running away because you cannot prove my observation of you is incorrect. I refuse to waste my time with someone when I know they are too arrogant to alter their opinions in the least. Like i said before. I have watched how you answer these kinds of topics, and its like talking to a brainwashed nazi. He will always say the same thing no matter how you try to convince him. He will still always believe he is elitist and the best.
Again, no points of TOH's addressed.
Again running away because you cannot prove my observation of you is incorrect.
I refuse to waste my time with someone when I know they are too arrogant to alter their opinions in the least.
Like i said before. I have watched how you answer these kinds of topics, and its like talking to a brainwashed nazi. He will always say the same thing no matter how you try to convince him. He will still always believe he is elitist and the best.
I've done my best to address your points. If you feel that my judgment is incorrect, feel free to explain how. If you feel I misunderstood something about your position, then feel free to clarify, because perhaps a misunderstanding on my part made me react more viciously than I should have given an accurate understanding of what you meant to say.
Also, you don't get to take the moral high ground just because you want to alter the status quo. It doesn't matter if you see yourself on the side of the rag-tag rebels. You're just as capable of being stuck up your own ass and holier-than-thou as your opposition.
Quote: from carracer at 6:50 pm on July 19, 2008 Ask members around. Im far from a spammer. Despite any appearances to the contrary, I made that sentence a conditional because I wasn't accusing you of being a spammer. I was making a general statement saying that unless someone is a spammer, they have rights. They even have some as a spammer, assuming they aren't haven't screwed up royally enough to be ban-on-sight.
Ask members around. Im far from a spammer.
Despite any appearances to the contrary, I made that sentence a conditional because I wasn't accusing you of being a spammer. I was making a general statement saying that unless someone is a spammer, they have rights. They even have some as a spammer, assuming they aren't haven't screwed up royally enough to be ban-on-sight.
Fair enough. i misunderstood.
635 users online 
225339 members 1120 active today Advertise Here
635 users online 225339 members 1120 active today Advertise Here
You have 1 new message.
