As a lot of you suggested, I think it's time the Forum needs additional moderators. But I want everybody to have a chance to become a moderator. So this is what I have in mind:

• Moderators will be elected by the members, not me
  
• There will be two moderators per section
  
• After three months (or whatever period you think is best), new moderators will be elected. Current moderators can be re-elected. So if a moderator makes a mess of things the members can elect someone else. But if he does a good job, chances are he will be re-elected
  
• Moderators will only be able to close threads, not delete them
  
• Every section except for The Mall and Club Announcements will have its own moderators
  

I will start a new thread where people can vote for someone (or themselves).

How does this sound?

I think it's a great idea, Cliff.

If you need any help, I'm available.

[This message has been edited by Jaygee79 (edited 07-06-2001).]

Great idea Cliff!

One suggestion... Should you ask for volunteers or nominations first, then vote on a specific ballot? It wouldn't do much good to elect someone that doesn't want the job. It wouldn't really be fair to move on to the next choice either since people might vote differently if they knew a particular person was not available.

Count me in
IMO Giving them power to close threads could be disasterous. I think only you should do that at the behest of the moderator Cliff.

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 07-05-2001).]

I bet the people who run other forums must be scratching their heads wondering how you have run this one all this time by yourself! Part of the answer to that is that the vast majority of the members here are wonderful people, who are incredibly devoted to the preservation and enjoyment of Fieros.

My guess is the moderators will have an easy job. The administration (Cliff's job) will continue to be the hard part. The moderators will rarely have to take any action and only occassionally would have to bring something to Cliff's attention.

quote Originally posted by DRH: Great idea Cliff! One suggestion... Should you ask for volunteers or nominations first, then vote on a specific ballot? It wouldn't do much good to elect someone that doesn't want the job. It wouldn't really be fair to move on to the next choice either since people might vote differently if they knew a particular person was not available.

I think that's probably the best thing. That way it can be more amomymous too. Maybe we can set up a free poll somewhere.

Great Idea.

I want moderators to have the ability to close threads without having to ask my permission first. If a thread is totally out of control, I can always delete it afterwards. If a thread got closed wrongfully in the opinion of the majority, I can always reopen it.

That's why I want to change moderators every three months or so, so that moderators will actually try their best if they want to get re-elected.

I think it's a good idea if people nominated themselves first, than I can put up a vote page on a voting site somewhere.

Sounds reasonable I'll take O/T for a while if thats ok.

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 07-05-2001).]

Sounds like a good idea. I'll take on whatever forum is lacking moderators.

[Added] Will you (Cliff) draw up some guidlines for closing a topic?

[This message has been edited by Steve Normington (edited 07-05-2001).]

I'd be more than willing to help out, Cliff as a moderator or otherwise.

I agree here. Makin guidelines on closing is a good idea too.

how would yo do the voting so that people dont vote more than one time?

------------------
JOEJOE Aol:SSFiero

88FORMULA
SSFiero@Aol.com

"Kids in the backseat cause accidents, accidents in the backseat caused me!!"

I'd like to try being a monitor. Especially in General Chat since that's where I spend most of my time. I never tried it before, but it sounds cool. Thanks

This probably should go to people who have had some experience moderating before or have a ton of posts on here just to see what Cliff does and does not allow. The last thing we need is someone who thinks they have power to shut anyone down just because they can. Let's get a nomination list going

Cliff, good idea. A few suggestions...

1. Requirements, like the amount of time you have been here.
2. If you give them ability to close a thread, have some type of appeals process by members. I fear some people would seriously abuse that power if able.
3. People who want to be moderator should have good reasons. Not the people who say "I just want to be moderator of any availible forum", but people like "theogre" for technical section because he posts a lot there and is experienced.

Just my 2 cents.

Ya know, I was going to come on here and be a wisea$$ and nominate myself, but then I read Black88GT's post and realize he's probably the most reasonable, objective person in this forum. He's the first to suggest an appeals process, as bias will play a part in the closure of posts. The word, 'objective' is just a concept that is really never achieved, but with an appeals process we could come close. Maybe throw in a caveat that states if a moderator loses three appeals, he is immediately removed from that role and a Pro Tem moderator be appointed by Cliff? You guys have always liked my ideas in the past, right? Why change now? Actually this is Black88GT's idea and I nominate him. I hope this doesn't hurt his chances, honestly. Ed.

Well maybe I am not one to talk, or ask for a nomination, BUT....

1) I was the NC (National Co-ordinator) for FIDONet Canada (If you know what that is you know it was a big deal), I handled over 15,000 nodes for over 10,000 "newsgroups" or Fido feeds as well as the FileBone areas.

2) I was in charge of the local hosts as well, organized meetings, conducted those meetings and on various occasions (more than I liked) I had to deal with situations of abuse, system problems, fraud, and other issues

3) On the scale I have dealt with in the past PFF is small for me, I have the skills, ability and the resume for the job.

4) NO I don't have the technical knowledge to moderate (Fiero Wise Tech Knowledge) But in my mind this should not be a deciding factor

5) I am a accredited MCSE+I not that this means anything anymore! (But not an english scholar as you know!)

Let me know if interested, I will take on any group Cliff feels I would be most useful in.

[This message has been edited by grinthock (edited 07-05-2001).]

Ed: You haven't said anything inflammatory or inciting here. You still have your membership here, so you are as entitled to moderate as anyone else here, whatever anyone else says. As I have said before, Your views and opinions were valid in the past, and somewhat aligned with my own, but you did cross the line. Whatever, let's just get on with life. Peace?

I agree with the nomination idea. Wholeheartedly.

Oh, and I'd do it. I don't have much experience with bbs/forum moderation, however I was a voted channel op for a largish IRC channel for 1 year. I am liberal in my views, but I know a troll when I see one

[This message has been edited by Mach10 (edited 07-05-2001).]

I'd have to take myself out. Though I am objective, hehe. I"ve been here for over a year and I'll add my irc experince, I've been a channel op on 3-4(at one time 6) large channels for over 3 years. I am a cruel and mercyfuless tyrant. Who cares not what ppl think of me, but of how well something is run. Therefore I'd be bad moderater

------------------

"To whom it may concern, The preceeding message was the opinion of this person and not of this forum. If you do not like it. Oh well"

quote Originally posted by KissMySSFiero: how would yo do the voting so that people dont vote more than one time?

There are voting sites that only allow you to vote once. They either go by your IP address or you have to register for their site.

I would be more then happy to assist in the O/T section since lately that is where I have been spending most of my time.

Let me start by stating my feelings on my qualifications for this position on which threads I would close down.

1) Any threads started for the sole purpose and opinions regarding the use and/or non use of seatbelts.
2) Any thread advocating the use of any illegal substance as seen by USA definition, laws or standards
3) Any thread that becomes riddled with sexual overtones, statements, direct or indirect towards another PFF individual which in itself would not be permitted in a work environment without the chances of legal recourse.
4) Any thread to which an individual is being singled out for the sole purpose of "bashing, belittling, name calling, calling out" or for the sole purpose of starting a "flame war".
5) Any thread that is out of control based on communication with Cliff himself on things he wishes us to consider or the policies he would like to see enforced, even if it includes 30 page threads if idle banter, unless authorized by Cliff that if it brings cheer and laughter that it may continue and/or has a limit (this may effect the FieroLisa thread ... But we can't have our cake and eat it to).
6) Any thread that I may subsequently post in to alert any individuals that if things are not cooled down and/or the tone is not changed respectively to the opinion of the moderator as a common goal expected by Cliff as a pre-warning should they wish the thread to continue.
7) Any pornagraphic jokes, pictures, links involving adults, children, hamsters, chanchillas, etc.
8) Any thread advocating violence in any matter, shape and/or form.
9) Any thread advocating Taco Bell as the place to meet for a Fiero run...else it could end up being the "runs".
10) Any thread advocating the misuse of a Fiero (Sorry Aus! ).

I am at your complete disposal Cliff and would be willing to talk with you regarding ground rules and/or policies you wish to see enforced.

------------------

Would the moderators of a perticular forum be able to move a thread to another forum if someone posted it in the wrong place? We've been having way too many O/T threads in the Tech section.

I have to agree, the ability to move threads would be ideal. Also, the reason/reasons for closing a thread should be both

A) Documented

b) Based on Cliff's guidlines alone.

Ed, I get my ideas from the founding fathers of this great country (true genius's), but thanks for the compliments anyway. I agree with the 3 limit rule too, thats a good way to do it, then you won't have repeated closing/opening/closing/opening of threads. Possibly even direct impeachment/removal process.

It's all up in the air right now but I am anxious to see what Cliff thinks.

[This message has been edited by Black88GT (edited 07-05-2001).]

quote Originally posted by Black88GT: Ed, I get my ideas from the founding fathers of this great country (true genius's), but thanks for the compliments anyway. I agree with the 3 limit rule too, thats a good way to do it, then you won't have repeated closing/opening/closing/opening of threads. Possibly even direct impeachment/removal process. It's all up in the air right now but I am anxious to see what Cliff thinks. [This message has been edited by Black88GT (edited 07-05-2001).]

I know, I should have thought of the appeal thing, good job. But unfortunately, our country isn't modeled after our forefathers anymore. I guess it's neccessary though, times change and so do the rules. Right, there must be an immediate process to close some posts, but I agree, the repeated opening and closing of posts would be arduous and distracting. I hope my endorsement of you (if you want the job) won't harm your chances, but might. (Scratch, scratch, scratch)I know, from now on, I endorse Archie. Could you imagine if Archie was one of the moderators? It would be like Poland in 1939 all over again.

This country still has the basis of what the founding fathers wanted. While we might have strayed away with tax policies and political parties we have atleast kept the basic form/principles intended.

I don't mind my endorsement, I could care less if people hate me for not hating you. I just wanted to stay neutral anyway since the matters in question didn't concern me, but if people think I am picking sides, oh well. And yes, Archie being moderator, well lets just say we might as well start discussing the basic principles of Communism rather then Democracy.

Actually, it's not totally a bad thing that we've strayed from the original writings of the Constitution. It (Bill of Rights) was written in 1787 and adopted in 1789. Think of what was going on back then; legalized slavery for another 75 years, informal slavery for another 40 or more past that. Women could not vote for more than 130 years past the adoption. Generally, only landowners were realistically allowed to vote. The idea of a 'fair trial' was so far away it's not funny, in fact, many people could successfully argue that we still don't have provisions for them. They did a good job though, considering what they had to work with. The one thing lacking then was the wording, 'privacy.' Remember, Miranda wasn't here till like 1967, and cops would use creative techniques when interrogating. Anyway, this is all a little too deep, thanks for not hating me! See ya, Ed.

Cliff I think it is great, and I cast my vote now for THEOGRE.

stimpy, theogre and Oreif could buy -I mean- would get my votes. Certain others too, but that's a start.

quote Originally posted by Black88GT: Possibly even direct impeachment/removal process.

My opinion is that that would not be a good idea. It seems likely that that would cause more problems that it would solve. Any user with a complaint about a moderator could send it to Cliff instead.

I agree Cheever2. Come on guys throw your hats in the ring. Batboy too if you're still around. I'll put my name in for Tech. I really like reading that one anyway. My main qualifications are that I don't get mad very easily and I am usually polite. I wouldn't touch O/T with a ten foot keyboard though.

Not to be biased or anything, but grinthock is a very skillful person to have around. I think he would make a great moderator (just as long as it doesnt cut too much into his personal life!!).

I have been an Op on IRC for a major and a couple of minor chat rooms on the Undernet. I was a Residence Advisor on my dorm for a year in College, and I can be a very objective person. However, being a moderator in the tech section would drown me (for I have no stinkin clue how to do most things with a fiero...) but being a part of the O/T section would be right up my alley. If ya need to use me Cliff, just let me know!

~Heather

Guys/Gals you are missing the point You don't need to understand the content of the technical discussions or the O/T that's not what a moderator does....

grinthock,

The main reason I said what I did is I think O/T would be the hardest one to moderate. There is a lot more gray area there. Technical should be a lot more cut and dried as too what is appropriate. Much easier for someone like myself that has never done this but really wants to help if I can.

David.

Well, I guess I've been nominated. Interesting. While I certainly spend enough time here, and I'd like to see the pure banality of the O/T section cleared up, I am surely not "one who is without sin" as far as stirring the occaisional contraversy. Plus, due to my WebTV handicap, a lot of these wordy threads don't fit into my memory cache past about 20 or so threads.

(BTW Cliff, any chance we might re-table the idea we might shorten pages from 40 posts each? That's a lot of scrolling, especially if I have to read the lyrics to black85GT's favorite song again and again and again...)

Anyhow, while I am certainly not lobbying for this, I thank Cheever2 and DRH for the vote of confidence and would be willing to give it a go as O/T moderator.

I like this idea. Hopefully it'll work out well. As for people who I would vote for or nominate. Everyone who has been mentioned so far seems like a good choice. Although I don't know much about black88gt yet. I will have to look into his posts.

As for other people I would recommend. Ken Wittlief, trigger, and Old Lar. All these people have seemed very professional and helpful to me. There are probably a couple more people I could think of, but this is a good start.

The only thing I'm worried about is how this will all start. I don't want to see a big flurry of posts closing in the 1st days this come forth.

And the job of a moderator is a very serious one, and being the O/T moderator will be the most difficult. Seeing as it is a public forum, I feel that we should be able to discuss anything openly in that place. Things like abortion, the legalization of drugs and other controversial topics are things that should be talked about and discussed, whether you oppose them or not. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and I don't think a thread should be closed just because they have a different opinion than someone else. (I know it's not really a public forum, and it's actually Cliff's, so he can close whatever he wants. I have no problem with that)

My solutions to this. Let people post controversial topics. Maybe we can discuss things like human beings, but yes, most likely they will erupt into flame wars, and that's when they should be shut down. I think if you close something because it is turning into a flamewar, people will be alot more understanding about it. But if you close something because you don't like the topic, i think you will find alot of people complaining about their "rights" and crap like that.

The type of threads that I think should be closed immediately are threads that are intentionally flaming another member of the forum, and things to that effect. Things like that can be done through e-mail. the entire forum does not need to see that.

These are just some possible ideas. I hope they have helped a little.

------------------

I'd like to moderate, or at least help out. Don't have any real moderating experience, but I believe I'd be able to pick up the skills pretty quick, plus I've been here awhile and have a pretty good feel for the place. And a cable modem too

------------------

1988 Quad 4 Coupe 5 speed (soon!!)
1986 GT 5 speed, 1984 SC Auto

AOL: LastMinuteBastrd AIM: SavedbyJebus

quote Originally posted by AkursedX: My solutions to this. Let people post controversial topics. Maybe we can discuss things like human beings, but yes, most likely they will erupt into flame wars, and that's when they should be shut down. I think if you close something because it is turning into a flamewar, people will be alot more understanding about it. But if you close something because you don't like the topic, i think you will find alot of people complaining about their "rights" and crap like that. The type of threads that I think should be closed immediately are threads that are intentionally flaming another member of the forum, and things to that effect. Things like that can be done through e-mail. the entire forum does not need to see that.

I feel the moderator should follow a "3-out" rule. Three warnings in a particular thread informing the individuals to either take it off-line via email, tone it down or what ever else is necessary (and/or based on Cliff's guidelines he wishes the moderators to follow in a particular area of the forum).

If they do not follow/heed the warnings after the 3rd time, the moderator should shut it down. At least the moderator would give them a chance and see that he is viewing both sides in as fair a method as possible if they see it as either degrading someone, flaming and/or not going anywhere constructive and/or positive.

Good Idea Cliff, I will help out anywhere if you don't have enough already. I also like the idea of moving threads because I see lots in the incorrect forums sometimes. I also 2nd a vote for trigger.