TouchY? I like being a called a wanker. Being a Tex Mex country boy. It is better than being called wedo to me.

You right though. The dude is a tool and should be banned as a disruptive influence on a forum setting.
If ya can't be polite?
Who needs ya?

Ar cynwulf, that's the reason the "Report" button is there for, to allow mod's/Jeremy to review the post(s) and if they decide no action needs to be taken, then that's fine by me. Which they did. I have ZERO interest in being a mod myself and I would promptly refuse outright any such offer - not that I think it's going to be forthcoming, mind you. And I'm **not** trying to say you were suggesting that I was asking to be a mod either. I'm just saying that to be clear on where I stand on that.

It's not about a "timely manner", I'm talking about what I clearly stated before this post - in that: if there is only one mod logged in, but their not modding the forum where the post in question is... they can only give a warning and report it themselves. I'm asking if there can be at least one of them that CAN step in, IF required and only IF required. I can't be much plainer than that. Others have already given more examples of the sort of things I'm talking about - eg. spam for one (but not limited to) - which actually is probably a bigger issue than Kali questions really.

Right fair enough - that's why I started this thread - to see what people here think about the idea. You are a member as much as anyone here, so I disagree that "it does not matter what you think". Jeremy I'm sure will review this thread and will give his thoughts about it - that's all I'm asking for, so let's not jump the gun and at least let him speak for himself, perhaps?

I agree that it's far from unique to LQ. I'm NOT asking for that to be changed in any way. I'm just asking if at least one of the mods can be given some extra power to use only when needed, otherwise they stick to their "section".

I don't think it's just one "section", I think it's coverage issue, not a performance issue. I actually for the record think the mod's here do a bloody good job all things considered. I can't speak for anyone else, but all credit to them - even if they do tell me off from time to time, I still like em'.

You and Urban Dictionary have both just contributed to my lingual education. Cheers.

In some forums the first 5-10 posts of new members are moderated just to make sure they aren't spammers, are asking appropriate questions, etc.

Since this is a tech site that could be a burden on a new poster who genuinely had a problem, depending on how long it took to post, and place an even bigger burden on mods.

I had not made any such assumption.

That's kind of what I meant by a "timely manner" - i.e. if the moderators for that section are not around, then presumably whatever has been going on to prompt someone to hit the report button, will have to wait until they log in next.

I understand, full well, what you're proposing and I'm almost certain this has been brought up before.

I've seen the system you propose in practice in the past and it's often the case that the "floater" can and often does, tread on the section moderator's toes, when they are forced to take action (or see an opening). It can result in a "too many cooks" scenario and cause friction, with people working at cross purposes. In my opinion this approach only works if it's carried out by additional admins - and this site only has one.

It may be that dedicated staff, with lower privileges than mods could be assigned specifically to deal with spam. Though I've not seen much spam on this site if I'm honest?

Have you seen the Whirlpool Forums? Have a look under "Moderator Types".

I don't see a lot of in-fighting there - don't think you're giving enough credit to the mod's here by saying things like that. Have to therefore disagree.

Totally agree, but my point was leave everything as is. UNLESS the newbies posts get reported too many times.

In an ideal scenario: Newbie posts a great, well thought out question. Nobody reports it. He goes on to become a senior member.

Another case: Newbie posts some spam. jsbjsb001, Trihexagonal, and me report that post. His posting ability becomes suspended until reviewed by a mod. The mod can either reestablish his posting ability or ban him.

In my way of thinking that would reduce the mods work, since the spammer can't go on to create 10 or 20 posts which have to be deleted.

1 members found this post helpful.

I was not referring to "in-fighting", just that people can get in each others' way with that kind of setup.

Do you think that such a facility could possibly be open to abuse?

If that did happen then I would imagine that those who raised the false alarm would be privately warned not to do it again. I imagine that's how it already works if a poster frequently makes unjustified complaints (although the poster probably considers them justified). It wouldn't be any different. Personally, I'm always waiting for that admonishing PM regarding the reports I make concerning inappropriate language.

However, the current system ensures that the reports are looked at and then action taken. The proposed solution here is to ban first, then a moderator has to check it and unban... guilty until proven innocent?

My concern is that "controversial" posters, could be the collateral here and constantly getting their account locked because someone doesn't like what they have to say...

While we can argue over which words we use, I think that's just pointless - you get my point all the same.

Also, and similar to what I was saying before; It could be a setup where by the action taken by any "Global mod" would only be temporary UNTIL, either the relevant forum mod and/or Jeremy (for said forum/sub-forum) would still need to "sign off" on any action to remain in place that the "Global mod" has taken. Therefore in that case I can't see an issue with one mod "stepping on another mod's toes" even happening, if the relevant "section" mod still gets the final say on any action remaining in place.

If anything, it helps the relevant "section" mod out, because they can just pick up where the "Global mod" left off - if you know what I mean.

So where's the conflict there?

Yes, I thought about this awhile already, it would possibly help to make it to where reporter's with less then a certain amount of posts wouldn't count in suspending an account.

I hope you realize this is just me dreaming......

It wouldn't just be "someone" though, it would have to be several someones. And, if it were deemed by the mods/admins that those someones were wrong about reporting the post, then they could be privately spoken to.

In saying that, however, any automated suspension of a poster's rights would need a modification of the forum software. If the suspension of the poster were to be manual then that would require any of the mods or admins who receive the message that multiple reports had been made to take action accordingly. Which takes us back to mods/admins having cross-forum capabilities.

1 members found this post helpful.

Down the bottom of the main forums page you see a link titled, View Forum Leaders.

This shows you all of the mods and gives you links to send PMs or Email, if either or both are allowed.

If you make a report and wish to know the outcome/decision about it, I'd recommend you consider using this as a tool to query further.

Please note that some reports are left open for some period of time to assess whether or not a situation merits consideration, or further consideration. Don't get angry that your report is dismissed, it happens.

Please also note that the geographical location of every mod is shown here and you can also click on their profiles to learn the last time they have been logged in. Noting that they could regularly visit and only log in if they need to perform actual moderator actions by the way. Meanwhile I believe I'm logged in 100% of the time.

It's not a perfect world people. In spite of jsbjsb001's desire to not be a mod, I'm still thinking that you all should have a turn for a month, and including a holiday or 3-day weekend to boot. Meanwhile, this site is not so bad. I feel that you're over-pressing to improve too much for too little real return.

2 members found this post helpful.