I rarely report anyone, but recently I have reported posts for very similar reasons to your complaint here. I still would not support a change in the rules. To my knowledge my report did no good, but I believed it was appropriate to the situation.Well, if rules were in place, members would know that it was permissible to report it without coming off like a crybaby or troublemaker.
I have no serious complaints about moderation as it is, except that there are too many personal attacks that should not be allowed. Still I must assume that when they are seen, appropriate action is taken. I won't usually report such attacks on a person able to fend for himself. When I see it done to someone who is apparently young in the Lord and trying their best I might try to intervene myself and if it continued unabated I would report it.I dunno. I think the moderation is very well done here. Not too much, and maybe just a hair too little. But without any rules change, it would likely stay exactly as is. The moderation is not a problem. I think the rules could be slightly augmented to make the moderation somewhat better, and I actually don't think it would make that much of an increased demand on the staff we currently have now (the primarily one-man staff, LoL).
Again I have seen too many forums with really poor moderation to complain about this one. This one is good but perhaps at times they may be overworked.
I won't argue this point. I agree that the owners via the moderators must do what they can and I appreciate that. I do not agree with changing any rules. Presently I would not suggest one. Whether I would or would not support someone else's suggestion would be a very definite maybe. I won't vote on a hypothetical.Here we disagree. For one, good people make a good forum, first and foremost. Secondly, good rules maintain a good forum filled with good people from becoming one overrun by bad people. That is my primary concern with this thread, not that HR in particular is "bad," but more that the lack of a policy in place to deal with what I see as a problem could open the door increasingly in the future for the wrong kind of crowd and the wrong kind of behavior. We are already fighting the good fight of faith on a daily basis as it is here.
In extreme cases I might recommend something be done, but we apparently differ in what is extreme enough to change the rules.Yeah, we're seeing it different here. I'm really only suggesting such measures be taken in more extreme cases, such as the one I was mentioning. Boasting and gloating about how no one can refute your doctrinal stance and then turning around and refusing to even reply to those who raise strong arguments against it is, IMO, akin to trolling, so I would ask you if trolling were likewise something you think should be allowed to go on without correction or forum discipline.
I believe a moderator here has the authority to warn a person already and eventually ban the person if they persist after being warned. I suspended or banned very few when I was a moderator. I haven't changed my views much in that respect. I am strongly against banning anyone unless the conditions are extreme to use your word. As I have said we apparently have different definitions of that word.
Well as I at least implied at the first, I would really be surprised to see any real changes made because of this discussion. I certainly could be wrong as I have been before.Certainly, and I'm very grateful for the response. I want dialogue on it from all sides because I think it concerns everyone here, and I certainly wouldn't advise that any decisions be made (if any decisions even do get made) without our most prominent members having a say in it.
Give God the glory!
Last edited: