Appointment of public moderators

[Hide]

The disadvantage of the quad forum is the lack of a clear moderator policy. It's understandable, the forum has grown so there's no way to keep track of everything, especially at weekends. We need to recruit a team (volunteers) who can at least smooth over the problem. Of course, such moderators should have a secret place where they can discuss something secret amongst themselves.

[VonDo Mix]

HideYourRichess :

Word and deed

[Renat Fatkhullin]

Yes, as soon as we stabilise the forum and get a sufficiently active user base, we will immediately raise the issue of public moderators.

[Hide]

Sorento :

Word and deed

I don't know what that meant, but it's very right, by the way.

Have a button on every post (or thread), like - complain to moderators about rule violations.

[Hide]

Renat :
Yes, as soon as we stabilise the forum and get a reasonably active user base, we'll raise the issue of public moderators straight away.

good!

[Alex]

Strongly against public "democracy". Otherwise, in the end - there will be one clan of public moderators left to dominate their backlash. Such nauseating forums with dwindling attendance are up to X........ on the internet. The decision to remove text and ban should only be made by meta-quotes, and by no one else.

And the public can be used, in principle, to make the job easier for the actual moderators from MQ. Let them send them links to violations. And that just might be done with a button: "forum rules violation!" for each user.

[Stanislav Korotky]

I have long had the idea of establishing a relative order on the forms. However, it may seem a bit complicated to implement, as it requires some social networking elements to be coded. The main point of the idea is not to smother an opportunity to say something nasty or to unravel a flame, but that it will be possible to do this not in every thread. Anyway, here's the idea.

Each user's rights are set by the site for each topic separately.

When a user creates a topic, they become a sort of semi-moderator for that topic, gaining rights to add other users to that topic's whitelist.

Whitelisted users can always post in their own thread.

When a user replies to a topic (other than their own) at least once, they may flag any other member (other than the author or whitelist member) for inclusion in the 'blacklist' of that topic.

If a user has accumulated more than N 'blacklists' from other users in any thread, the user shall be banned in that thread.

If the author of the topic considers that the ban was made incorrectly, he or she will add such a user to the "white list" and thereby allow the user to post in the topic again.

That's about it. If you've missed anything, add it up to your liking.

[VonDo Mix]

I support marketeer.

I have spoken out many times on this issue.

And also here.

[Hide]

The forum should not be a "public platform", it is a private shop with quite specific aims and objectives. A healthy form of "totalitarianism" is welcome. Otherwise, how else to get rid of idiots and grail merchants.

[Alex]

HideYourRichess :
The forum should not be a "public platform", it is a private shop with quite specific aims and objectives. A healthy form of "totalitarianism" is welcome. Otherwise, how else to get rid of idiots and grail merchants.

Idiocy, like dissent and madness, has a relative measure. All individuals have the right to exist, as long as they do not violate the rules. For vendors, a separate section can be created: let them hang out there, and whether or not to look there: it's up to you to decide. For the "private shop" there is the private section.

[Hide]

Idiocy is an absolute measure. Encouraging aberrations is doubly idiotic. Trading all sorts of junk on a manufacturer's website by - using the manufacturer's authority for fraudulent purposes. An influx of idiots hungry for million-dollar grails is a dilution of what is good to the average.