Interesting and Humour - page 3028

 
Andrey Dik:

taboo on coders' bans? - throw out these prehistoric prejudices.

quitting is a sign of weakness. taboos are a sign of fear. holidays are an excuse to drink.

So don't quit, don't taboo, and don't drink. You're the moderator. :)

The thing is, forum users can be conventionally divided into two parts:

  • silent users who just read (they're the majority everywhere);
  • User who open threads and take part in discussions (they are in minority everywhere).

Among the second category especially those users with resonant thinking, whose posts are always read, with whom one wants to argue, etc. And they are like a kind of engines for the popularity of any forum (there is a concept - "hidden leaders"). And they are the first candidates for a ban. If you ban them, then it becomes boring, I'll start posting cats in threads again, no one will open new threads, and there will be no discussion on the forum.

 
There is no such thing as taste or colour. You can't leave everyone behind.
 
Andrey Dik:

quitting is a sign of weakness. taboo is a sign of fear. holidays are an excuse to drink.

A moderator's power is not to be the "big boss of the forum that everyone fears". The power of a moderator is to ensure that the forum is promoted and popular everywhere, and if that offends the moderator himself - it does not matter if the main task is promoted well, even at such a price. The forum users develop the forum and make content on the forum. Why should they be banned, especially if they are high-profile popular personalities who benefit the forum and services...
 
All, happy Paratrooper's Day Freelancer's Day :)
 
I used to post kitties ... also complained ... :)
I haven't posted dogs yet... They say dog people don't like cat people...
 
Sergey Golubev:
I posted kitties ... also complained ... :)
I haven't posted the dogs yet... They say dog people don't like cat people...

So we'll post jam:

Birthday party

 

A little fantasy...

On the one hand, the moderator is a living person. On the other hand, he is required to react in the same situations, which is impossible in principle due to his (the moderator's) human nature.

Moreover, the forum should be lively. This means that the information should be relevant and interesting (there should be a stimulus for it), and therefore the communication of participants should be in real time. But you can only know the reaction of forum members with a lag. Posts that cause a sharp resonance may be because of their great importance or necessity, or because of the strong negative reaction of the majority (most likely a violation of forum rules) ...

What to do?

What I would do is this. Introduce a system of likes and dislikes. The likes and dislikes to posts should not be displayed. Organize a kind of "moderator control panel" in the personal cabinet of moderators and admins. The board should display messages sorted by likes and dislikes, with a possibility of filtering by parameter. A moderator would not have to roam incessantly through the branches and monitor the situation, an alert came to his smartphone - reacted. For example, a post with 10 or more dislikes appears, so they need to respond, the first free moderator will go there and clean it up if necessary.

Some posts will accumulate dislikes slowly over time, but may not carry much negativity. So there should be an estimate of the "speed" of the dislikes over time. Posts with a high such negative rate will get an adequate response from moderators faster, posts with a low rate can be disregarded altogether.

Thus will get exactly a live communication with a kind of lag, depending on the urgency of the topic. And moderators will not be able to be blamed, because the forum will in fact be moderated by participants themselves.

And yes, actively liking should be encouraged in the same way as actively posting.

 
Andrey Dik:

A little fantasy...

On the one hand, the moderator is a living person. On the other hand, he/she is expected to react in the same situations, which is impossible in principle due to his/her (the moderator's) human nature.

Plus, the forum needs to be alive. ...

A forum is defined by a) members and b) moderators.

Our forum is tedious and boring. Its idiosyncrasies:

-- no more than 50 regular contributors who post anything at all

-- only programming subjects

-- all the entertaining sections are crammed into a single branch called "Humour and fun", or more precisely "Boring humour and only interesting for me".

Newbies don't stand a chance here:

-- questions about programmers are either answered belatedly (because there are too few participants), or there are arrogant and dismissive answers, or answers in the "you are a fool" style

-- threads that do not fit the forum format are torn down or moved to other threads without explanation


A typical scenario for a programmer-related question

-- A newbie topicstarter: "Help me solve a bug," puts the code

-- Moderator or contributor reply: "Put the code in correctly"

Who needs such a forum?

 

Jam and Carlson:

Jam and Carlson

 
Andrey F. Zelinsky:

A forum is defined by a) members and b) moderators.

Our forum is tedious and boring. Its specifics:

-- no more than 50 regular contributors who post anything

-- programmer stuff -- all the entertaining sections are crammed into one branch called "Humor" or, to be more precise, "Boring humor".

Newbies don't stand a chance here:

-- questions about programmers are either answered belatedly (because there are too few participants) or with arrogant, dismissive answers, or "you are a fool" style

-- threads that do not fit the forum format are torn down or moved to other threads without explanation


A typical scenario for a programmer-related question

-- A newbie topicstarter: "Help me solve a bug," puts the code

-- Moderator or contributor reply: "Put the code in correctly"

Who needs such a forum?

Exactly! The system I am proposing would stimulate good answers from the savvy and prevent inadequates from appearing. Readers and writers will get exactly what they want - for that they need to be able to control the system of likes/dislikes. Readers will get bonuses even without writing anything, and writers will get bonuses only in case of "necessary" posts. Also, the way some people spam and/or rank is gone.