I was wondering what people think about having a "Global mod", as in: a mod that can close threads and moderate in any LQ forum.

As I've noticed that because mod's are limited to certain forums, they can't close threads or take much action, other than give warnings and wait for that particular forum's mod to intervene.

I say that because I've noticed at least a few threads in the technical forums that were closed in the end, but it took hours before the relevant mod logged in to take action.

Not to pick on michaelk, but I've noticed that he's logged in more often than not and particularly when there's been no other mod's logged in to take action (other than just give warnings). I think it would be good to have someone (if not michaelk) that can take action a LOT sooner. As, I've reported the same OP just in the last 24 hours and their threads are still open - I'm sure their asking for help with cracking/hacking.

I was wondering what LQ and members think of this idea?

Have two mods per forum. One for each opposite time zone.

Unlike me, not everyone can be everywhere at once.

I just disregarded his post.

I don't think I was clear enough.

I'm NOT talking about a "Global mod" as in someone who moderates all forums per say. I'll give an example:

Let's say I posted one of the most vile posts you've ever seen and let's say you reported it. And let's say that Michael saw the report and there were NO mod's for the forum in question logged in to deal with it. He (or someone else) could at least close the thread/delete/edit the post at least temporary until the mod for that forum (or Jeremy) made a final decision about it.

Once again, ONLY if Michael (or someone else) saw the report would he intervene (unless it's one of the forums he DOES mod of course). I'm NOT talking about Michael (or anyone else) going though every thread at LQ to make sure it comply's with the rules - that would still be up to the relevant mod/Jeremy to do - same as it is now. That's just one way it could work - there's a number of other ways it could too.

Also, most of the mod's I see here ain't logged in during the daytime where I live. So if I report something during daytime where I am, it's probably not going to get attention from the mod's until hours later.

Hope that's more clear.

I would imagine that Jeremy is the "Global mod".

Personally I believe that all mods should have mod capabilities for all forums, even if it is decided for organisational reasons that each concentrates on a specific forum or forums. If a mod is to be trusted for one forum, they can be trusted for all.

I actually find the situation that a mod can only make changes to a particular forum or forums as being rather peculiar.

You can't expect mods to be around every day, and for all their waking hours at that. As it is, some mods are much more active than others. Restricting mods to a forum or forums greatly increases the chances that a mod for a specific forum will not be available when an issue occurs, imo.

1 members found this post helpful.

***Humour alert*** Happens frequently, jsb. You ought to tone it down a bit.

I don't think that will ever be the case, and it shouldn't be. A fire-fighting approach of reacting to reported posts should be more than sufficient as long as we the users provide these reports.

You cheeky devil. But I forgive ya

I should clarify what I meant: I meant that a "Global mod" would not mod outside of their own forum(s) UNLESS for example someone made a report and it's a situation that required attention from mod's/Jeremy.

The problem with the reported thread is that the OP claims to be following an "ethical hacking course" and may well be just penetration testing his own hardware? I understand that some find the Kali threads annoying, especially ill researched threads where an OP has just copied and pasted some commands they don't really understand and looks to others for a "walkthrough", but it doesn't seem like it warrants "moderator action", whether in the form of thread closing or otherwise.

If someone were really "hacking/cracking", they could just state that they're penetration testing and get assistance from others here... so where to draw the line?

They didn't mention in their first post that they where doing an "ethical hacking course", and it wasn't until Mara did respond that they said that - which highlights my point about having a (or more - up to LQ) "Global mod". Either way, that's not what I started this thread to debate. There's other far more serious examples apart from that - a search if you look hard enough will tell you that. And I'm not talking just about 'Kali related' threads either.

May I politely ask that we not turn this into a 'Kali debate' please. With all respect.

On partly the same line as the OP:

The other night there were no mods on and this stupid shoe salesman starting spamming. Luckily he quit after about 8-10 threads. These were cleaned up by the next morning.

I think it would be great if LQ would implement something to where if a Newbie(potential spammer) gets post/threads reported too many times in a certain short period of time, it would temporarily suspend his posting abilities until reviewed and restored by a mod.

I'm not sure if its possible to add such a system but it might be something worth looking into.

2 members found this post helpful.

I'm a 'mod' on a couple of forums I frequent, I'm usually in the 'other time zone', so we have most of the day covered.

Some forums are easier to moderate than others, owing to the software used, but I am a little surprised to hear that the 'mods' on here are limited to only some forum threads, (somewhat unusual in my experience).

Regarding which 'mod' is online at any given time, that is down to their personal circumstances, as we are doing it in our own spare time, nobody is paid to moderate forums.

1 members found this post helpful.

Two of the moderators for that section responded (the first likely due to your report) and neither have closed the thread thus far. While it's true that the OP didn't mention about the course initially, they had also not lead anyone to believe that they were doing anything wrong per se. The tools in question are available in most Linux distributions - e.g. Debian to name just one.

In my humble opinion, reporting "hacking/cracking", solely on the basis of such tools being discussed, is akin to reporting threads about Tor - on the automatic assumption that it is being used for criminal activity.

Fair enough, though perhaps you should have given a few examples of the offending threads which are not being dealt with in a timely manner by moderation staff?

As to the global moderator idea, I'm not averse to the idea (not that it matters what I think), but I'm pretty sure that's not how Jeremy does things (or it would already be set up like that).

As to other forums, I've seen both types, so the "moderator per section" approach is not unique to this site. It may be about responsibilities/accountability and workload and how Jeremy wants to manage those. I can understand why such a system is implemented here.

Maybe if you can identify which sections are suffering the most from this problem and put it to Jeremy (along with the example threads), then he could review it and consider if there is the need for extra coverage on those sections?

My pardner in crime.

Here's an example of a current thread that any mod should be able to delete. The OP has used inappropriate language as well as editing their original post to remove the original question, thus rendering the whole thread effectively useless. Personally, I would delete the thread and say goodbye to the user. It shouldn't need a mod who is assigned to the Ubuntu sub-forum to do this.

https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest....php?p=5854057