Thank you very much for Watchuseek, Ernie. I wish you best of luck and good health in the future.
On the WUS fora where I regularly hang out, the moderators were almost always well-liked and respected members ... before they were asked to be mods. But, while every member is obligated to obey the forum rules, the mods must ensure that rules are followed. That might mean making unpopular rulings from time to time, but for the good of the entire community (which is why the forum has rules in the first place). You could have a Nobel laureate posting exceptional content, but if that person violated the rules of the community, the community would not be "sustainable" if that person was not required to conform. Regardless of the ownership of WUS, the mods do a pretty darn good job of maintaining an even keel (and Lex knows I have had my differences with some mods in the past). Of course, I am not talking about sponsored fora, where content - especially unflattering about the sponsoring brand - might not be well tolerated. I'm referring to the public fora where most traffic exists. Frankly, it's the main thing I hope doesn't change with the new ownership.You can't call something a community if its leadership isn't accountable to it. Even senior management have KPI's in my workplace. If we were regularly losing good workers to other places it would soon be addressed. This might be looked at under VS. Losing the people who post good content regularly isn't a sustainable message board business model. Without these posters there won't be a business. I don't know about ideas like elected moderators, but some review is clearly required. Perhaps this is the dawning of a new era Lex!
I don't know about the Canadian copyright legislation, but in the EU it would be worthless - it's not possible to lose your copyrights just by posting on the website, without an explicit and individual contract.Would appreciate a little clarification here please, see excerpt from new Terms of Use and Notices below:
Preservation of Intellectual Property Rights .
Reported to Admin. Thank you.Maybe this is the thread to bring it up, we have a problem with the new search function, its been mentioned by others in other threads, example if you type 'ecozilla or eco-zilla in it only 3 matches come up, it used to have hundreds of matches coming up, now there is spam and no matches.
Type in 'sawtooth' into the search function, no matches come up, you used to get hundreds a week ago, the word sawtooth has been used thousands of times on here but no matches show up any more.
Type in 007, only 7 results are coming up when there used to be literally thousands, the 7 matches are all official WUS posts from sponsors and WUS, we have lost our search function.
The same can be done with plenty of searches, so in the last few days something has been done to the search function, the matches are also coming up in a red headline, that has never happened before, so i gather something has changed, can we have somebody look into this please, cheers
Thankyou Jeannie, appreciate it.Reported to Admin. Thank you.
Jeannie
On the WUS fora where I regularly hang out, the moderators were almost always well-liked and respected members ... before they were asked to be mods. But, while every member is obligated to obey the forum rules, the mods must ensure that rules are followed. That might mean making unpopular rulings from time to time, but for the good of the entire community (which is why the forum has rules in the first place). You could have a Nobel laureate posting exceptional content, but if that person violated the rules of the community, the community would not be "sustainable" if that person was not required to conform. Regardless of the ownership of WUS, the mods do a pretty darn good job of maintaining an even keel (and Lex knows I have had my differences with some mods in the past). Of course, I am not talking about sponsored fora, where content - especially unflattering about the sponsoring brand - might not be well tolerated. I'm referring to the public fora where most traffic exists. Frankly, it's the main thing I hope doesn't change with the new ownership.
Now, I would agree with that. The rules state emphatically that the decisions of moderators are final (in fact, this simple discussion of moderation violates the rules). Having a moderator tell you that he's dealing with you harshly because he's had a terrible day and you just were the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back does not do much to engender respect for the fairness of the system. However, I have learned over the last several years that this is very much the exception, not the rule ... most of the mods are as much fun to know and interact with as anyone else I've met here. But for those rare occasions when a moderator decision does more harm than good to the community, some sort of appeals process would make sense. It might not be practical, given the size of the WUS community, but it makes sense.What I would like to see is an appeal process for some in the past who have been wronged by some of those in power, this simple change would go a long way.
There is an appeals process. It's the admin button at the bottom of this page. Just because the appeal didn't get the ban overturned didn't mean it wasn't reviewed.
This discussion ends now. The next question about moderation needs to go directly to admin via the button. Period.
Jeannie
I guess over the years we see so many sites with meaningless "contact us" details that the eye filters them out? ;-)Thanks, I guess I missed that it says contact "us" and who "us" is.
Just use the Report Post icon (small triangle with exclamation point.) That'll send a report to the appropriate place.