Russia Forums Community


Go Back   Russia.com Discussion Forum > Open Board > Open Board
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 12th December 2005, 07:45
Voyager13b Voyager13b is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,467
C Force....

Soviet coagulated blood has been deleted more times than many members have posted. I have been busy for a few Months, and might have missed some changes here, but can you tell me why he has not been banned from the site? In the past, just a week of spamming the board would grant a 'member' a ticket to oblivion. Why not now?

Voyager
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 13th December 2005, 06:15
C-Force C-Force is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,906
Probably because no one has told Mark about Coagula. I haven't. Have you? I really don't care to complain to admin about every other little idiot.

I find that if you delete his posts, he gets discouraged pretty quickly and goes away.



.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 14th December 2005, 09:15
Voyager13b Voyager13b is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,467
C-Force,

I dumped on Mark both here, and in another thread and probably worded my posts too strongly, but the Admin is in charge when all is said and done. In the past, the Admin was at least active enough to browse the board, identify problem areas, and take a stab at them. I don't think it's proper to have Moderators send emails to inform an Admin of any but the most recent and pressing problems on a forum. The current Admin should have a pretty good mental snapshot of each board at any one time, and be aware of negative trends.

As I'm sure you know, my main beef with Mark is that he instituted a Monthly newsletter to the Moderator pool that lasted for one or two issues. After that, all communication was reduced to sending him an email with your concerns. That was way wrong. A newsletter with the expectation of open dialogue was a grand idea, as the future health of this forum could have been discussed in an open and inclusive format. The idea withered on the vine, and even at that, the participation of the Admin in the Feedback forum went from sporadic to almost not at all. In other words, the Moderators had no power to sideline whacky people like Winston, and had no regular communication with the only person who held the timeout key in their pocket.

I wouldn't care if there were only one or two hours set aside each Month where all the Moderators could get together with Admin to discuss trends, problems, and suggestions that pertain to a particular board. At least we would all be on the same page, and be armed to respond to community threats.

The fact that Winston, Coagulated Blood, Mikeaverko, and a few others have set up a spam shop here over time, and driven off passers by who might have been interested in discussing Russian issues to the point that very few serious people bother to post at all any more is not a good reason to applaud them for their relative activity here.

They should have been kicked out long ago. If Admin scanned the posts from time to time, and kept his promise to maintain a regular and open dialogue with the Moderator team, the site wreckers would never have had a chance to gain a foothold here, and drive off potential members who were interestd in discussing Russia.

That's my entire gripe. A paid internet Admin offloads some day to day chores by enlisting volunteer Moderators, but since he (or she) still holds most of the executive power, the Admin is ultimately responsible for keeping a close eye on every sponsored board in an effort to sniff out negative trends, and absolutely must be held to structural promises made to his (or her) volunteer Moderator corps. No matter the excuse offered, the promise of regular and open dialog between Admin and the Moderators seems to have been abandoned here almost as soon as it was announced. I'm sorry if it seems OK to you, but in my view, it is a basic violation of trust, and a figurative knife in the back to the entire community.

Everyone is given space to slack off on their promises from time to time, but when the neglected promise is the first one offered at introduction to a group of subordinates, I suspect it is all downhill from there. Considering the current state of Ru.com, I have no evidence that my view is in error.

Morons who would spam a site to death with serial nonsense should not have to be censored by the Moderators for months, or even a year. The site Admin should either have a clue from direct observation, or keep in close enough contact with the Moderators that he is well aware of the state of his forums at any time.

Voyager
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 17th December 2005, 00:27
HATALbR HATALbR is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,946
Happy Holidays C-force:

I'm glad to find that you have not abandoned us!

Natash
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +3. The time now is 10:49.

All Rights Reserved © 1995 - | NewMedia Holdings, Inc. The Russia Channel is operated under license to Paley Media, Inc. which is solely responsible for its content. All trademarks and web sites that appear throughout this site are the property of their respective owners. No part of this site shall be reproduced, copied, or otherwise distributed without the express, written consent of Paley Media, Inc. This site is not affiliated with any government entity associated with a name similar to the site domain name.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC4 © 2006, Crawlability, Inc.