Posted by Rick on March 17, 1999 at 22:48:03 {MWSZV6.08fSjY}:
Sorry for the delays, including the implementation of Liberal Elder's request for installment of policy files for the new forum to supersede the older version of 'A Christian Association' (see Conference Room B1 in the Tower Library's Conference Division for further details). To Liberal Elder, sorry for this delay. I did get your files over a week ago, and plan on reviewing and implementing these files in the next few days. I'm glad that conference room B1 is being utilized again after sitting empty so many months. May I suggest you post your text as preliminary to the files to be installed, stating the text in this post supersedes or amends the FPP where a conflict exists? This will get you going quickly. I'll get to those files in a few days.
I want to state that the attack against Liberal Elder in his topic to me was most unChristian and stated what amounts to a lie. Certainly I don't want to believe that a brother or sister, one of Jehovah's Witnesses, would engage in such conduct unbecoming of a Christian? Please think carefully about what you have done, because your attack was plain false.
Moving along to the FPP comments, I appreciate your diligence in getting your comments in. Because of the slowness to respond, I'll give it another few days before collating these replies together and discussing them with other administrators and founders. Moderators, don't be shy in commenting. There are over 50 of you and we only have a smattering of replies. Your voices count as well as others who are participants, for you are participants too. The difference is that you have found it in your hearts and forced into your schedules time to help moderate H2O, and I thank you all for that contribution that you can't put a price tag on. Comments from everyone will help shape the FPP.
One suggestion I liked is having tick fields or boxes on the moderator tools form to describe the reasons for each post's removal. This will force moderators to put themselves on the line in addressing real FPP issues for their decisions on each post, rather than vague comments such as the circular "post removed for violating FPP" comment I recall a moderator giving two years ago or so. ;-)
The check boxes could be something like, and I'm just making something up to give you an idea of the format, and each item is carefully defined in FPP:
[ ] Pornography or profanity
[ ] Illegal content
[ ] Exceeded posting size limit
[ ] Personal attack
[ ]
Apostate or objectionable content
[ ] Other reasons I don't wish to define
[ ] I deeply dislike this individual
* Posts not fitting above should remain on board.
The last three items are designed to make your blood boil, and actually meant with humor. ;-D
Disregard the last three items, in other words. I was perhaps interjecting some sarcasm based on what the perceptions are of some moderator decisions.
In any event, you get the picture. Providing the items are clear enough, and the moderator cannot find one that fits, he/she cannot delete the post. This forces the moderator to ask H2O to add another item, and we will run this newly proposed item passed the board for comment.
Example: Moderator can't stand an individual poster, but cannot find an action item that covers this reason. He or she suggests an item is added, "I deeply dislike this individual." Let's guess that the majority of participants reject this item, and it's not added. Now, if the moderator is determined to "get" that individual, he/she could check-off some other item. However, if we define the items carefully enough, the moderator would be forced to admit that no such reason existed in posting.
The idea here is to force moderators to
I'll check back in a few days for comment. I'm also going to fix the problem with the threads indenting too far, for some odd reason. I might have to run the script that rebuilds the board at some point.
Rick