posted April 22, 2011 10:56 PM            

(Am I overdoing the voting thing? lol)

posted April 22, 2011 11:07 PM            

quote:

---

If we think we have troubles now, Add another dozen to the mix and we just increase the trouble/tensions

---

Well my idea wasn't so much to add extra mods.

The mods have their own job to do which is to make sure people abide by the rules of LL.
Most of the time this is very obvious and straight forward ^
There are knowflakes who behave in a manner that is obviously unacceptable - and requires 'warning' - and ultimately 'banning' if it reaches that stage. For example - knowflakes who intentionally *spam*.

But there are also situations/threads/words that are controversial. When a situation is extremely controversial - we don't seem to have a way of dealing with it on LL. So we end up arguing about it which goes on and on over several threads.

My idea was to have a democratically elected committee to deal with such matters.
If there are a group of people dealing with the controversy - each can express their opinion about it and they can come to an agreement as to what should happen (whether anyone needs to be banned/thread deleted etc.). I think this would be fairer.
Obviously if they cannot reach an agreement at all - they can always vote.

(^This could only work if people agreed to stand by the final decision whatever it is & to leave it at that.)

At least this way - people won't be able to blame Randall for his decisions --- because it would be a *joint* decision.

And questions such as Coffee's - i.e. "What is considered bullying?" would have an answer!
Whatever the committee jointly agrees was bullying behaviour ^

posted April 22, 2011 11:59 PM            

There are much bigger problems in the world. Ultimately we all live the consequences of our actions.

The only thing I can think of is making sure that Mods are active and doing their 'jobs' correctly and upholding the conduct they are supposed to be enforcing. Also misconduct should probably be pointed out in a thread with 'evidence' (past posts/behavior) that has led to warning/banning of said user.

posted April 23, 2011 12:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Betty Boop:
Should we just have a vote string for who is in favour of having a committee?
Everyone can simply reply "yes" or "no".
And if the majority here like the idea - We'll go with it. If not, things can stay the same.

(Am I overdoing the voting thing? lol)

Thanks for taking my idea into consideration Randall

---

Good Idea!
Yes from my personal experience what i have seen happening here is...that when a situation arises such that it needs a calming down effect- a state of peace keeping...but instead what happens is that most of the time most of the moderators get together against a knowflake or Most of the moderators get together in support of a knowflake.
Moderators keep slandering each other or they get more stronger resisting or supporting and empowering a knowflakes idea..Instead of adressing the topic in question.
Which is what has to be addressed..From my own point of view Knowflakes feel threatened most of the time...Now just considering an example...After reading a Few threads..I hope Everybody can voice their opinion regardless of whether a moderator or a knowflake as long as personal insults are not entertained. Blaming coffee for intentionally starting a sensitive topic is something I dont understand..Coffee was insulted and then inturn was blamed for provoking!If we can cannot address sensitive topics then there is no way of learning.. which is probably an important aspect of a debate.How very silly to judge a person by merely a topic he has posted..?
Yes Rouge and ami also addressed the topic in way that was just and rational..but Why were not they lifted up ona pedestal and Only T had all the support from most of the moderators even after she went on to say she will do whatever she wants to do..Why?
Untill one man randall interevened and pointed out the flaws.
Mothering issues is no less an example..There are so many people who have had a very unfortunate childhood which had to do to with having had an unloving mother.
Here again just one mothers example has been takin then why are people voicing out their opinions about having unloving pearents?
So does that mean that most of the mothers are good so talking about a bad mother is conteroversial??I dont think so.
So the only valid solution that I think is
There is no objectionable debate topics other than porn..but what has to be addressed is Personally Abusing Others..and for which I heard GU is an exception.

posted April 23, 2011 12:24 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by littlecloud:
For some reason I feel like it's not worth it. Like there's too much energy going into something for no reason...making a mountain out of a molehill. By the time a decision is made, much of the anger/disagreement would've dissipated.

There are much bigger problems in the world. Ultimately we all live the consequences of our actions.
That is the one and only plausible solution and I think Randall should incude this on the welcome board..To contact him in case of grieviances.

The only thing I can think of is making sure that Mods are active and doing their 'jobs' correctly and upholding the conduct they are supposed to be enforcing. Also misconduct should probably be pointed out in a thread with 'evidence' (past posts/behavior) that has led to warning/banning of said user.

Yes? No?

---

Ur right absolutely littlecloud...What I would suggest ...If somebody feels attacked then please email Randall instaed of taking it further here.

posted April 23, 2011 12:50 AM            

quote:

---

That is the one and only plausible solution and I think Randall should incude this on the welcome board..To contact him in case of grieviances.

---

posted April 23, 2011 12:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by littlecloud:
rajji you misquoted me. I did not say this

Just pointing it out in case someone skims through later without actually reading the entire thread.

---

posted April 23, 2011 01:53 AM            

quote:

---

For some reason I feel like it's not worth it. Like there's too much energy going into something for no reason...making a mountain out of a molehill. By the time a decision is made, much of the anger/disagreement would've dissipated.

There are much bigger problems in the world. Ultimately we all live the consequences of our actions.

The only thing I can think of is making sure that Mods are active and doing their 'jobs' correctly and upholding the conduct they are supposed to be enforcing. Also misconduct should probably be pointed out in a thread with 'evidence' (past posts/behavior) that has led to warning/banning of said user.

Yes? No?

---

There is a chance it could make more mess. Maybe if we all just breathe a little and don't get so excited and invest so much into the small stuff. I think we need to reduce the amount of time spent on something as stupid as that thread that started it all. Look at what it's done! I say what Coffee said was not tasteful, but he had a right to have an opinion, what I don't get is the surge of emotion it caused to fly off the handle or backtalk him, my RL needs that kind of attention, not him and people are still remembering things wrong, they seem to recall him calling people evil, he said 'there was evil running through them'... so it's a little different. I would have closed the thread once it lost it's purpose* very early, which if I was a mod of this forum I would have just closed it and it would have been kind of obvious for those with common sense as to WHY! right??? Probably hardly needed an explanation. But it did bring out interesting personalities though, we see how certain people handle things, not with the smallest amount of equanimity. Very surprising. I'm just sitting in my chair now with the power to switch off ~ I have nothing to gain in contention here, I only want to make friends and have spiritual discussions. I realise I'm bunching in so many points as fast as I can, cos truthfully I spend more time here reacting to problems than having time for meaningful discussions. I am totally neglected my favorite thread in Universal codes because my limited internet time is being used here. I know it's a choice but it's like I want to be involved in the maintenance of a place I call home. Can we simplify this?

posted April 23, 2011 03:00 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by juniperb:
This is a "quick" opinion and the gut is my basis.

If we think we have troubles now, Add another dozen to the mix and we just increase the trouble/tensions.

We can`t, at this juncture, get the few to meet in the middle and adding more is creating a smaller "middle"??

I simply see getting the current mods on board and knowing the boundries is a large enough chunk to bite off for now.

`course, just my onion :

---

posted April 23, 2011 04:33 AM            

A committee should consist of three men, two of whom are absent. - Herbert Beerbohm Tree

***

I have just a few reminders to say to people who are open to hearing them:

Learn to co-exist with others in harmony.

In case of disharmony ... say, you disagree with another person's viewpoint, the best thing to do is present your position on the topic and move on. You don't have to keep beating your drum if you've expressed your side well the first time. Otherwise you run the risk of looking like an idiot who talks too much and listen too little.

Do not try to convert others to your way of thinking. People don't see the world through the same eyes so don't expect everybody to feel the same way and do things the same way. Respect diversity, for without it we live in a world of sameness and boring uniformity all around.

Do not tell the other person that he/she is WRONG or BAD for thinking the way he/she does. Express your view and why you don't agree. But always be aware that your goal is to present your viewpoint and not to convert the other person to your camp.

(In case, you really do want to convert people, maybe you should launch your own website/forum/newsletter/blog or better yet organize your own religion or something ... like a cult perhaps?)

Do not resort to name-calling and hurling insults. Butcher the topic all you want, but not the person whose opinion you don't agree with.

Do not keep grudges and use what happened in the past as fuel for a new disagreement. Contrary to popular opinion, people do change. The person you had a falling out with last year is not the same person you are fighting with now. You only think they're the same because you keep going back to the past ... your grudge is keeping you stuck to the anger you felt for this person last year.

If you want to start a thread and you don't know how to moderate a discussion or you don't want disagreements of any kind, please preface your thread with a note saying something like: "I would like to hear only from people who share my point of view. Those who don't agree with me please do not participate in this thread. I want to attract thoughts and opinions that satisfy, prove and reinforce what I believe, and I can't accept anything that opposes it. My mind is made up and it has no capacity for further expansion." (Note: For maximum effect, threads like this should have a "tunnel vision" icon or something similar. There is no such icon on LL so bring your own.)

***

As for the in group out group whachamacallit, I have nothing to say about the subject because I'm too old to be in high school mode, so will just share this with you all:

posted April 23, 2011 09:05 AM            

A point was mentioned by rajji that fits regarding getting the mods to a place of understanding, commitment and diversity without dividing.

We have all seen what a Mod is not OR should not become

It is not power based playground. Nor is it a safty net to heckle others, inflame, encourage snide remarks, and pit one against the other.

Moderator:
1. One that moderates, as: a. One that arbitrates or mediates. b. One who presides over a meeting, forum, or debate.

It is that simple. Let us be all that we can be . Like it or not we all are Brothers and Sisters under the skin.

It is a holiday week end and I wish all to have a safe and joy filled one.

Do unto others as you desire them to do unto you.

posted April 23, 2011 09:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
"Thank you for the warm invitation ,Jwhop"

You're welcome Ami. Just don't forget your whip and chair.

---

posted April 23, 2011 09:47 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Betty Boop:
hmmm yeah
The more I think about it now, the more I realise it would just waste too much time and it might make things worse *sigh*

---

It was a good idea ,though

posted April 23, 2011 10:33 AM            

My suggestion Randall, is you clean house. Keep the mods that at least try to do their job well, and let them do it, and get rid of the ones that aren't cut out for it. A mod should not have to be moderated by others- that's a good place to start with the determination. Then if necessary bring in new people based on how well you think they can do the job, not on who raises their hand.

Sure some people will run off huffing and puffing but in the long run, you'll have much less turnover because people-new and old- will be happy to be here.

This may sound cold, but if you base on the individual and not on the group as a whole, you have chaos. You have people being attacked. You have people feeling badly. You have people not feeling safe. It's not worth it just so some people can feel good about being able to randomly go off at the bit.

posted April 23, 2011 11:31 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by pisces moon:
For what it's worth, I've been on sites without moderators and it wasn't pretty. This site does have moderators and it's as bad as the ones that don't have them. In some ways worse because the mods are people who are supposed to keep things running smoothly not contributing to the problem and in all honesty, as it is, the posisition is a joke.

My suggestion Randall, is you clean house. Keep the mods that at least try to do their job well, and let them do it, and get rid of the ones that aren't cut out for it. A mod should not have to be moderated by others- that's a good place to start with the determination. Then if necessary bring in new people based on how well you think they can do the job, not on who raises their hand.

Sure some people will run off huffing and puffing but in the long run, you'll have much less turnover because people-new and old- will be happy to be here.

This may sound cold, but if you base on the individual and not on the group as a whole, you have chaos. You have people being attacked. You have people feeling badly. You have people not feeling safe. It's not worth it just so some people can feel good about being able to randomly go off at the bit.

Just my two cents.

---

Randall allows the Mod's to better themselves with each conflict which ,hopefully,we do lol