Think there would be a lot less conflict on this forum if we all could be assured that everyone has an equal voice. I propose we have a yearly retainment vote for the mods on the board. A way in which everyone can anonymously cast their vote as to retaining or removing board moderators. I would guess that it was be like a 99.9 vote to retain in most years. But it would help prevent personal bias from influencing moderation.

(04-17-2015 10:26 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  Think there would be a lot less conflict on this forum if we all could be assured that everyone has an equal voice. I propose we have a yearly retainment vote for the mods on the board. A way in which everyone can anonymously cast their vote as to retaining or removing board moderators. I would guess that it was be like a 99.9 vote to retain in most years. But it would help prevent personal bias from influencing moderation.

And here we go ...

3 ... 2... 1.... poof

Be careful what you ask for. More likely is a vote to retain or remove posters, not moderators.

(04-17-2015 10:30 PM)SFB Tiger Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 10:26 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  Think there would be a lot less conflict on this forum if we all could be assured that everyone has an equal voice. I propose we have a yearly retainment vote for the mods on the board. A way in which everyone can anonymously cast their vote as to retaining or removing board moderators. I would guess that it was be like a 99.9 vote to retain in most years. But it would help prevent personal bias from influencing moderation.

And here we go ...

3 ... 2... 1.... poof

Personally, I think they're out of their minds for doing it at all.

I don't hate this. Governance should come with the consent of the governed within reason. I don't have an issue with term limits (mods only, admins have to stick) or voting on moderators.

The only issue with this in in practice. Every moderator was pretty much universally respected... until they decided to moderate the board. Then, when you have to actually take time to do the duties, people will regard you far less positively.

So then you would have a situation where you would have a poster well known for being a pretty reasonable person who then has to make 1-3 judgement calls a day, often where there really isn't a right answer, and then risk the wrath of every poster here over time. (Quick: one group thinks a coach is underachiving and over paid in a <20 win season and the other thinks criticism of said coach is treason... and you figure out equilibrium! GO!)

For example, my PM box is a fairly steady stream of criticism (some admittedly justified, I'm certainly not perfect), but it goes both ways ("you protect negative posters", "you only represent the sunshine types"). At least once every couple of weeks, two posters will argue about something, take extremely different views and then both think I am on the other person's side (I usually am not even aware the conversation is even happening).

But the moderation team should be accountable to the board. I'm not sure retention votes would be the way to do it, but I've heard a lot dumber ideas.

(please, please, please, please let me lose mine. I've tried to quit so, so, so many times )

I know a poster on here who was banned for life for being "antagonistic" that was the reason given anyway.. I happen to know said poster and he is one of the nicest guys you could ever meet.. He is no worse than 75% of the people on this board, me included.. What bothers me is that whomever banned him didn't even tell him whom it was that did the banning.. I personally think the Mod that banned him just didn't like him, his post, or just didn't agree with him so they banned him for those reasons.. Banning for being antagonistic would wipe out a bunch of posters!! This particular person has even PM'd a couple of Mod's on here and can't even get an answer or response from them.. That's just not right in my book!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(04-17-2015 11:36 PM)tigergg Wrote:  I know a poster on here who was banned for life for being "antagonistic" that was the reason given anyway.. I happen to know said poster and he is one of the nicest guys you could ever meet.. He is no worse than 75% of the people on this board, me included.. What bothers me is that whomever banned him didn't even tell him whom it was that did the banning.. I personally think the Mod that banned him just didn't like him, his post, or just didn't agree with him so they banned him for those reasons.. Banning for being antagonistic would wipe out a bunch of posters!! This particular person has even PM'd a couple of Mod's on here and can't even get an answer or response from them.. That's just not right in my book!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well stated.

(04-17-2015 11:04 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  I don't hate this. Governance should come with the consent of the governed within reason. I don't have an issue with term limits (mods only, admins have to stick) or voting on moderators.

The only issue with this in in practice. Every moderator was pretty much universally respected... until they decided to moderate the board. Then, when you have to actually take time to do the duties, people will regard you far less positively.

So then you would have a situation where you would have a poster well known for being a pretty reasonable person who then has to make 1-3 judgement calls a day, often where there really isn't a right answer, and then risk the wrath of every poster here over time. (Quick: one group thinks a coach is underachiving and over paid in a <20 win season and the other thinks criticism of said coach is treason... and you figure out equilibrium! GO!)

For example, my PM box is a fairly steady stream of criticism (some admittedly justified, I'm certainly not perfect), but it goes both ways ("you protect negative posters", "you only represent the sunshine types"). At least once every couple of weeks, two posters will argue about something, take extremely different views and then both think I am on the other person's side (I usually am not even aware the conversation is even happening).

But the moderation team should be accountable to the board. I'm not sure retention votes would be the way to do it, but I've heard a lot dumber ideas.

(please, please, please, please let me lose mine. I've tried to quit so, so, so many times )

DOWN WITH Sundanceuiuc THAT UT LOVER!

The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know.

(04-17-2015 11:36 PM)tigergg Wrote:  I know a poster on here who was banned for life for being "antagonistic" that was the reason given anyway.. I happen to know said poster and he is one of the nicest guys you could ever meet.. He is no worse than 75% of the people on this board, me included.. What bothers me is that whomever banned him didn't even tell him whom it was that did the banning.. I personally think the Mod that banned him just didn't like him, his post, or just didn't agree with him so they banned him for those reasons.. Banning for being antagonistic would wipe out a bunch of posters!! This particular person has even PM'd a couple of Mod's on here and can't even get an answer or response from them.. That's just not right in my book!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(04-17-2015 11:36 PM)tigergg Wrote:  I know a poster on here who was banned for life for being "antagonistic" that was the reason given anyway.. I happen to know said poster and he is one of the nicest guys you could ever meet.. He is no worse than 75% of the people on this board, me included.. What bothers me is that whomever banned him didn't even tell him whom it was that did the banning.. I personally think the Mod that banned him just didn't like him, his post, or just didn't agree with him so they banned him for those reasons.. Banning for being antagonistic would wipe out a bunch of posters!! This particular person has even PM'd a couple of Mod's on here and can't even get an answer or response from them.. That's just not right in my book!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When did getting banned stop anyone from posting on this board. They just go to one of their 27 backup logins.

My brain hurts.

Oh by the way. I have never used or wanted to use an alias. Why on earth would anyone feel compelled to?

(04-17-2015 11:04 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  I don't hate this. Governance should come with the consent of the governed within reason. I don't have an issue with term limits (mods only, admins have to stick) or voting on moderators.

The only issue with this in in practice. Every moderator was pretty much universally respected... until they decided to moderate the board. Then, when you have to actually take time to do the duties, people will regard you far less positively.

So then you would have a situation where you would have a poster well known for being a pretty reasonable person who then has to make 1-3 judgement calls a day, often where there really isn't a right answer, and then risk the wrath of every poster here over time. (Quick: one group thinks a coach is underachiving and over paid in a <20 win season and the other thinks criticism of said coach is treason... and you figure out equilibrium! GO!)

For example, my PM box is a fairly steady stream of criticism (some admittedly justified, I'm certainly not perfect), but it goes both ways ("you protect negative posters", "you only represent the sunshine types"). At least once every couple of weeks, two posters will argue about something, take extremely different views and then both think I am on the other person's side (I usually am not even aware the conversation is even happening).

But the moderation team should be accountable to the board. I'm not sure retention votes would be the way to do it, but I've heard a lot dumber ideas.

(please, please, please, please let me lose mine. I've tried to quit so, so, so many times )

Well let's be specific, shall we?

For months, there has been a constant stream of postings that declare Pastner to be "incompetent, clueless, stupid, ignorant, over his head....(completing the adjective list would take a while)"

These instances occur with nauseating persistency with ZERO response from you.

Yet when the SAME adjectives are used to describe Pastner detractors, you have warned me to "be civil or gone"

1st Amendment Free Speech standards should apply equally or not at all.

This is supposed to be a board that enables sharing facts, support and reasoned criticism of the U of M amongst its "supporters".

If your mod work is going to continue as is, consider me gone for lack of civility from the detractors.

This has been under your influence a board held forth for the University's nameless,
faceless snipers. If you and the aforesaid band of detractors have such passion to remove Pastner, show some courage and set in motion a petition asking the U of M to remove Pastner.

And put your names, addresses, email addresses and phone numbers on the petition (this will be a very small list..and maybe zero entries).

For all others, the Rebounders has a May 5 event to be led by Harold Byrd which will be supporting the U of M and Pastner. The list of attendees and their contact data will be available as will their faces.

They will be showing their faces on this list while your band of courage-deficient detractors will continue to show their rears here.

You need to take up a need hobby.

This board is moderated?

I don't have a problem with the moderating or the anti Pastner bunch but do we really need 10 threads a day regurgitating the same crap.

(04-17-2015 10:26 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  Think there would be a lot less conflict on this forum if we all could be assured that everyone has an equal voice. I propose we have a yearly retainment vote for the mods on the board. A way in which everyone can anonymously cast their vote as to retaining or removing board moderators. I would guess that it was be like a 99.9 vote to retain in most years. But it would help prevent personal bias from influencing moderation.

So, you want to kick off moderators that are already unpaid volunteers?

this place needs more moderation, not slapping the wrist of the moderators.

Polls are so boring - I'd rather see a live streamed thunderdome style death match.

(04-17-2015 10:26 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  Think there would be a lot less conflict on this forum if we all could be assured that everyone has an equal voice. I propose we have a yearly retainment vote for the mods on the board. A way in which everyone can anonymously cast their vote as to retaining or removing board moderators. I would guess that it was be like a 99.9 vote to retain in most years. But it would help prevent personal bias from influencing moderation.

The mods do a great job, and this may be one of the most thankless endeavors in human history.

Perhaps we should have a yearly poster retention vote.