K so I don't understand.

[CypherToorima]

There is a thread with an interesting topic that's getting interesting and semi-serious replies. Then a few trolls join in and then the topic either gets moved or locked. So...where's the moderation? I mean, can't one just delete the offending posts? Or is that just too hard? I always thought moderators existed to moderate but I never equated moderating to locking on sight.

So basically if anyone just wants a to stop a thread, they just need to troll and instead of getting their posts deleted, the thread gets locked.

Wait, you're right, I see nothing wrong with that.

[xealix]

Re: K so I don't understand.

ROFL interesting way of looking at. I never thought of it that way before.

[Mythix]

Re: K so I don't understand.

xealix


nice toilet

[Afrobean]

Re: K so I don't understand.

Cypher, this is a problem that has been around FFR forever. Most of the time when there is a problem with a topic, rather than cutting the crap out of the thread, it'll be locked. Rather than merging two similar topics, one will be locked.

It's kind of annoying, but when FFR has become a shell of its former self, do you really expect the moderation to be MORE proactive? I'd say we should be counting our lucky stars there's any control at all. If the last of the staff took off, we'd be left with nothing, and frankly, heavy-handed locking is much better than NOTHING.

[Ghakimx]

Re: K so I don't understand.

The 'Cut the crap' thing still does happen. I had Master Chief 1594 gayin' up a thread and next thing you know, *poof* he's gone.

[MrGiggles]

Re: K so I don't understand.

There is a thread with an interesting topic that's getting interesting and semi-serious replies. Then a few trolls join in and then the topic either gets moved or locked. So...where's the moderation? I mean, can't one just delete the offending posts? Or is that just too hard? I always thought moderators existed to moderate but I never equated moderating to locking on sight.

So basically if anyone just wants a to stop a thread, they just need to troll and instead of getting their posts deleted, the thread gets locked.

Wait, you're right, I see nothing wrong with that.

If you're talking about the XYZZ(?) thread, everything that needed to be said had been said really.

If you're talking about the UFO threads, lol.

If you're talking about all recent threads in general then yeah it's annoying and unnecessary

[richyrich55]

Re: K so I don't understand.

Bottom line: Mods can't be bothered to DO their jobs or just have so much sh*t going on that they can't delete the posts.

Solution: Mods, do your jobs. You have the powers to delete posts. Amirite?

[Patricoo]

Re: K so I don't understand.

Bottom line: Mods can't be bothered to DO their jobs or just have so much sh*t going on that they can't delete the posts.

Solution: Mods, do your jobs. You have the powers to delete posts. Amirite?

Maybe delete this post?

Or, I got it, maybe ban the guys that constantly roll through here and use the word 'Fail' in their posts.

[foilman8805]

Re: K so I don't understand.

There is a thread with an interesting topic that's getting interesting and semi-serious replies. Then a few trolls join in and then the topic either gets moved or locked. So...where's the moderation? I mean, can't one just delete the offending posts? Or is that just too hard? I always thought moderators existed to moderate but I never equated moderating to locking on sight.

So basically if anyone just wants a to stop a thread, they just need to troll and instead of getting their posts deleted, the thread gets locked.

Wait, you're right, I see nothing wrong with that.

definitely a sad truth, but with the lack of staff and administration, simply locking threads and maybe handing out a ban or two is the easiest way to "moderate" the boards. i realized this awhile back and now i use it to my advantage if i see a thread i dislike. ffr is ez 2 troll.

[Dr Tran]

Re: K so I don't understand.

My work hours and lack of connection at work prevents me from browsing the forums so I don't know if things have gotten even worse but I agree just locking threads isn't really the answer

[Kibblre]

Re: K so I don't understand.

definitely a sad truth, but with the lack of staff and administration, simply locking threads and maybe handing out a ban or two is the easiest way to "moderate" the boards. i realized this awhile back and now i use it to my advantage if i see a thread i dislike. ffr is ez 2 troll.

What happened to your sig, man? Too many hoes left un-slamhumped.

[foilman8805]

Re: K so I don't understand.

idk i have sigs off, let me see what happened

edit: uhh, it's there...i'm not sure i know what you're trying to say

[poochieCREAM]

Re: K so I don't understand.

Can't they just recruit new people to become mods..? I thought that was how it worked?
Pretty sure I've come across a lot of people who seem capable of doing a very decent job at it.

[Izzy]

Re: K so I don't understand.

There are like 20 mods. They just don't moderate. There is also like 20 admins and they don't administrate.

[Afrobean]

Re: K so I don't understand.

Can't they just recruit new people to become mods..? I thought that was how it worked?

The administration is far from active. Tass did a good job of keeping things flowing, but he vanished and now we're left with... what, LD and Synth? Both used to be active on the forums, but you'd be lucky to see either of them browsing these days, let alone posting, let alone adding more mods who will consistently do the right thing and also stick around for an extended period of time.

edit: for mods, there's obviously a little more (dev, mal, squeek maybe I dont know who else is still hanging around to be honest), but they're not constantly vigilant, and there's no way so few active mods could be on the scale which would be necessary.