Clarification on 'Religious discussion' rule.

[Scutter01]

Also this is the way it would work.

-Member reports post
-Mods PM jury with post content
-Jury send back decision
-Mods take appropriate action

That sounds like it would take weeks to get even a single decision. I can't imagine the chaos that kind of bureaucracy would create on a forum as busy as INGO. Basically, what you're proposing is two whole sets of moderators, one of which is a rotating group. You're adding an entire layer onto the whole process. You understand that the mods here already sometimes spend days discussing a decision amongst themselves before acting? And that's just eight people and just the first layer of your proposal. Multiply that by the DOZENS of reported posts they get every day.

 

[Mosinowner]

That sounds like it would take weeks to get even a single decision. I can't imagine the chaos that kind of bureaucracy would create on a forum as busy as INGO. Basically, what you're proposing is two whole sets of moderators, one of which is a rotating group. You're adding an entire layer onto the whole process. You understand that the mods here already sometimes spend days discussing a decision amongst themselves before acting? And that's just eight people and just the first layer of your proposal. Multiply that by the DOZENS of reported posts they get every day.

Dictatorship is way simpler

 

[Scutter01]

Dictatorship is way simpler

Yes, it is. It works pretty well, too. Remember that we're discussing a web forum, not a system of government, so even though you use a word like "dictatorship" as though it's a four-letter word, it's the most appropriate way to run a privately-owned web discussion forum.

 

[Classic Liberal]

Yes, you've planted an interesting framework, but no details about how it's actually supposed to work. I can tell you that moderation by popular vote is a losing proposition. It does not work. That's why you won't ever find a forum that uses it. Furthermore, you're operating under the assumption that INGO is a democracy. It is not. It's a benevolent dictatorship and the rules are defined by the site owner. I can virtually guarantee that the site owner is not going to hand over enforcement of the rules to the membership at large. There is literally no benefit for him to do that.



As long as Fenway owns INGO, he's free to operate it in any fashion he chooses. Why should it be otherwise?

There are many "employee owned" businesses that flourish, so why wouldn't a portion of that responsibility work for a simple forum?

 

[Mosinowner]

Yes, it is. It works pretty well, too. Remember that we're discussing a web forum, not a system of government, so even though you use a word like "dictatorship" as though it's a four-letter word, it's the most appropriate way to run a privately-owned web discussion forum.

The mods do a great job anyways

 

[Scutter01]

There are many "employee owned" businesses that flourish, so why wouldn't a portion of that responsibility work for a simple forum?

Find me a web forum that runs that way and maybe I'll be convinced. It's a moot point anyway as I can already tell you that Fenway tuned this thread out completely when the name-calling started. Ultimately, he's the only one that can change how the site is run and he's the one you have to convince.

 

[Classic Liberal]

Find me a web forum that runs that way and maybe I'll be convinced. It's a moot point anyway as I can already tell you that Fenway tuned this thread out completely when the name-calling started. Ultimately, he's the only one that can change how the site is run and he's the one you have to convince.

Like there's a ballpark chance of that.

 

[Mosinowner]

Like there's a ballpark chance of that.

That you won't find a forum or convince fenway

 

[Colts]

Just Saying, the fact that over 1,000 members viewed this thread in 2 days indicates there is some interest in the discussion of religion (well, at least the rules regarding its discussion).

My guess is if the topic was not banned there would be less interest in it (I realize this is not true for all though).

I suppose its OK, guns are cool too!

Has anyone had any success going to a religious forum to discuss guns?

 

[Mosinowner]

Just Saying, the fact that over 1,000 members viewed this thread in 2 days indicates there is some interest in the discussion of religion (well, at least the rules regarding its discussion).

My guess is if the topic was not banned there would be less interest in it (I realize this is not true for all though).

I suppose its OK, guns are cool too!

Has anyone had any success going to a religious forum to discuss guns?

Taboo subjects usually make people want to talk about them more

 

[GBuck]