So I guess having two absentee moderators is pretty much worthless. I'm taking nominations to add another couple to the list. I apologize for all but abandoning LJ.
Do you think it is just about being able to consistently 'best him', to call him out on his con? I take it you don't buy into the theory that the club is for those who attack him and his family personally.
You already know it's not "the club for those who attack him and his family personally." The only person he routinely ignores who he's accused of doing so is Farchivist, who for her part has denied it, so without direct evidence you're forced to choose whom to believe. He's also said that's not the reason he ignores me.
I don't buy into Farchivist's theory that it's about ignoring people who can "best him," but I think it's quite plain that he has an agenda in the way that he engages this community.
At the very least, there needs to be someone who is around a lot of the time and is able to delete spam.
I volunteer to take up the job - I strongly suspect I wouldn't be most people's first choice for non-spam moderation, and I'm okay with that, and I'm also okay with agreeing in advance that my job would be "delete spam, ban spammer, no non-spam moderation" - but there needs to be at least one person, preferably two or three people, around for big chunks of the day who can be pinged to do that.
There need to be a bunch of people who can handle spam posts and spam comments. Even if it's made explicit that their *only* job is to handle spam, there should be at least two, preferably more, active people who are often available who can handle spam.
At least two posts and a couple of comments in the last week, that I found and reported. Some of them survived for more than a day. And I don't see ones that other people report, although I know at least a few got through.
We've had spam, and I find it really annoying, and I suspect that's the impetus that's leading Our Host here to ask for more mods.
And to be clear, I don't think there's so many that it would take two or more people. I think there should be two or more people so it gets cleaned up ASAP even if one mod is busy or unavailable.
I agree that it needs to be cleaned up, but I fail to see the need for such urgency unless it's truly to the point where the community breaks down without immediate attention. The sticky spam post that was just removed didn't seriously derail the community, and the odd comment every now and then seems easily ignored.
Can we try NOT to choose people who won't hesitate to give people the boot if they disagree with them? Malasadas thinks I'm sick for being glad Joan Rivers is dead so I can imagine I'll be booted out of this community the minute she's on board. I vote for Yes Justice and Oslo.
I don't want to suggest that there's really much of "history." Hardblue's nice enough. I'm just not sure I'd trust him with the reins like I would the others you mentioned.
The question, in my view, isn't whether spam should be left sitting around indefinitely, but whether it's to the point in this community that its sitting unattended for a few hours or even - gasp! - a day or two seriously interrupts this community's operations. The post that sat here for a couple of days didn't stop other people from posting or commenting to other threads, and it even garnered a few (not particularly substantive) comments of its own.
That, to my mind, doesn't necessitate a serious re-vamp of this community's moderation, much less one that could introduce changes to the way non-spam conversations are conducted. (Weaselking's offer to weed out spam, for instance, would come with the real risk that he'd use his authority to police racist, sexist, or homophobic language, to which he's shown an unusually negative reaction in the past, despite his promises to the contrary.) My appreciation and enjoyment of this community hasn't been meaningfully impacted by the amount of spam I've seen.
I'm open to arguments to the contrary, but for some reason, no one seems to be offering any.
I don't think oslo was suggesting anything other than a zero-tolerance policy for spam. I think he was suggesting that spam cleanup was not an urgent need, which is something that reasonably people can disagree with and that he is wrong about.
To wit: I think he's saying that spam cleanup here is adequate (I disagree, since Wes' recent absence) and that he fears that making additional moderators may lead to unpleasant changes (and here I agree with him).
no subject
Date: 2014-09-06 10:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-09-06 10:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-09-06 10:41 pm (UTC)I don't buy into Farchivist's theory that it's about ignoring people who can "best him," but I think it's quite plain that he has an agenda in the way that he engages this community.
no subject
Date: 2014-09-06 10:47 pm (UTC)no one fears you. ;)
no subject
Date: 2014-09-06 11:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-09-06 11:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-09-06 11:47 pm (UTC)I volunteer to take up the job - I strongly suspect I wouldn't be most people's first choice for non-spam moderation, and I'm okay with that, and I'm also okay with agreeing in advance that my job would be "delete spam, ban spammer, no non-spam moderation" - but there needs to be at least one person, preferably two or three people, around for big chunks of the day who can be pinged to do that.
For a full-on real moderator I think I'll third
no subject
Date: 2014-09-06 11:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-09-06 11:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-09-06 11:58 pm (UTC)We've had spam, and I find it really annoying, and I suspect that's the impetus that's leading Our Host here to ask for more mods.
no subject
Date: 2014-09-07 12:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-09-07 12:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-09-07 12:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-09-07 12:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-09-07 12:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-09-07 12:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-09-07 01:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-09-07 01:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-09-07 01:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-09-07 01:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-09-07 01:39 am (UTC)Sorry.
no subject
Date: 2014-09-07 01:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-09-07 01:51 am (UTC)That, to my mind, doesn't necessitate a serious re-vamp of this community's moderation, much less one that could introduce changes to the way non-spam conversations are conducted. (Weaselking's offer to weed out spam, for instance, would come with the real risk that he'd use his authority to police racist, sexist, or homophobic language, to which he's shown an unusually negative reaction in the past, despite his promises to the contrary.) My appreciation and enjoyment of this community hasn't been meaningfully impacted by the amount of spam I've seen.
I'm open to arguments to the contrary, but for some reason, no one seems to be offering any.
no subject
Date: 2014-09-07 01:53 am (UTC)To wit: I think he's saying that spam cleanup here is adequate (I disagree, since Wes' recent absence) and that he fears that making additional moderators may lead to unpleasant changes (and here I agree with him).
no subject
Date: 2014-09-07 01:54 am (UTC)