Freedom and Responsibilities for Threadstarters

[Vito Corleone]

And how about the one who made more than 14 accounts?  No amount of banning it ever made a difference, each time went back and created threads the served no other purpose but to troll...

This my friend is reality. We have to live with them. They may have 14 accounts but if a small army of thread starters helping the mods are around, I think their life in PM will be a little bit (just a little bit) less fun for them. Until they think of something else to exploit.

[guitarwiz02]

This is unnecessary, really. There are already enough Mods on PM and I think they pretty much handle their duties effectively. If you can't stand other folks replying on the thread that you started, or if there are certain members here that get to your nerves everytime they'd post comments on your subject/topic, then think twice before starting a thread/topic , or better yet, don't start one at all.

A threadstarter has no right to filter or choose who he/she wants to see on the thread he/she started. Every member of this community has the liberty and right to post comments and opinions on any topic regardless of who started it. You're taking away that right, otherwise. If someone has gone overboard, let the mods handle it.

I think Van's reply was an indirect answer to your suggestion. You just can't have that privilege. This proposal, should it see the light of day, would only place the threadstarter in a win-win situation. You get to start a topic you love to talk about and you get to choose the people who will participate in the discussion.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, as they say.

[Vito Corleone]

This is unnecessary, really. There are already enough Mods on PM and I think they pretty much handle their duties effectively. If you can't stand other folks replying on the thread that you started, or if there are certain members here that get to your nerves everytime they'd post comments on your subject/topic, then think twice before starting a thread/topic , or better yet, don't start one at all.

Welcome guitarwiz02 to this thread which I started… Are you missing me already like what you said in another thread? Sweet! I hope I made the day of some happy campers today.

Kidding aside, I do respect your opinion and I am not saying that our Mods are not doing excellent work. Why would I intentionally challenge the status quo? Simple answer: CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT. Unless of course you believe everything in PM is utopic or has been conceived due to divine inspiration therefore can no longer be improved or made better.

I hope you are not talking to yourself when you mentioned, “can’t stand other folks,” or “certain members here that get your nerves.” And I certainly hope you are not referring to me because that would be flattering.

Anyhow, this request for additional controls or powers is not mandatory. The Mods are not required to grant my request. If ever they want to test it in a certain forum within a limited amount of time, the thread starters will not be required to use it. It is just an option that is available but not required to be used.

Preventing our members to start a thread, as what you suggested, is not the best option. It’s like saying “Hey <insert any derogatory word>. Yeah you. You with the <insert a word> avatar. Stop starting nonsense threads or replying on topics with your worthless irrelevancies because I just can’t stand your presence and you are getting in my nerves.” THIS is the stuff that dictators are made of.

A threadstarter has no right to filter or choose who he/she wants to see on the thread he/she started.

Please quote where you got this rule or policy. Even if this is an established rule what prevents us to review the relevancy of this rule with our current times? It is like saying, “Nakagawian na yan. Sumunod ka na lang.” THIS is the stuff that dictators want to hear from their subjects.

Every member of this community has the liberty and right to post comments and opinions on any topic regardless of who started it. You're taking away that right, otherwise. If someone has gone overboard, let the mods handle it.

Every member has their rights and I agree and I will fight for these rights. But how about the rights of the thread starters to maintain peace and order in their own thread. Yes, their OWN threads. It’s an issue regarding the rights of another clashing against the rights of the other.

In my proposal, I am not taking away the rights of members to post whatever they want in their own threads.

Someone already hinted what will happen if the TS is granted these additional powers and abuses them.

Between the two of us, you are the one who wants to curtail liberty and freedom. So do not sound like your a freedom fighter. Actually you don't. I sense a very fearful being in you.

I think Van's reply was an indirect answer to your suggestion. You just can't have that privilege. This proposal, should it see the light of day, would only place the threadstarter in a win-win situation. You get to start a topic you love to talk about and you get to choose the people who will participate in the discussion.

You said it already. It’s a win-win situation.

Please note that I am not asking for absolute control and I’m not taking the Mods out of the equation.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, as they say.

Most of the times BUT not all the time.

More importantly, I see that if this request is granted, can make more mature members in the long run.

[guitarwiz02]

Welcome guitarwiz02 to this thread which I started… Are you missing me already like what you said in another thread? Sweet! I hope I made the day of some happy campers today.

Hardly.

Kidding aside, I do respect your opinion and I am not saying that our Mods are not doing excellent work. Why would I intentionally challenge the status quo? Simple answer: CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT. Unless of course you believe everything in PM is utopic or has been conceived due to divine inspiration therefore can no longer be improved or made better.

Why fix somethin' that ain't broken?

I hope you are not talking to yourself when you mentioned, “can’t stand other folks,” or “certain members here that get your nerves.” And I certainly hope you are not referring to me because that would be flattering.

I do hope you realize that I was using "you" in its plural form.

Anyhow, this request for additional controls or powers is not mandatory. The Mods are not required to grant my request. If ever they want to test it in a certain forum within a limited amount of time, the thread starters will not be required to use it. It is just an option that is available but not required to be used.

Preventing our members to start a thread, as what you suggested, is not the best option. It’s like saying “Hey <insert any derogatory word>. Yeah you. You with the <insert a word> avatar. Stop starting nonsense threads or replying on topics with your worthless irrelevancies because I just can’t stand your presence and you are getting in my nerves.” THIS is the stuff that dictators are made of.

I don't remember suggesting that.

Please quote where you got this rule or policy. Even if this is an established rule what prevents us to review the relevancy of this rule with our current times? It is like saying, “Nakagawian na yan. Sumunod ka na lang.” THIS is the stuff that dictators want to hear from their subjects.

There ya go! It is an established rule. Again, why fix somethin' that ain't broken?
 

Every member has their rights and I agree and I will fight for these rights. But how about the rights of the thread starters to maintain peace and order in their own thread. Yes, their OWN threads. It’s an issue regarding the rights of another clashing against the rights of the other.

That's what Mods are for. Let 'em do their job.

In my proposal, I am not taking away the rights of members to post whatever they want in their own threads.

Someone already hinted what will happen if the TS is granted these additional powers and abuses them.

But deleting unwanted posts by the threadstarter suggests otherwise.

Between the two of us, you are the one who wants to curtail liberty and freedom. So do not sound like your a freedom fighter. Actually you don't. I sense a very fearful being in you.

If so, I would've agreed with this proposal, dontchathink? Fearful of what or who? You? C'mon. You see, it's clearly situations like these that you're trying to avoid. You hate it when people get in your face and try to contradict your thoughts and ideas. That's why you came up with such a proposal, you want to control who gets to post on the thread you started. Who's showing fear or anxiety now?

You said it already. It’s a win-win situation.

Yes. A win-win situation for the threadstarter only. This does not benefit everyone.

Please note that I am not asking for absolute control and I’m not taking the Mods out of the equation.

Noted.

Most of the times BUT not all the time.

More importantly, I see that if this request is granted, can make more mature members in the long run.

On the contrary, more members of this community will get rebellious should such suggestion be granted. Thus, giving the Mods more probs to deal with.

[pixelwise]

On the contrary, more members of this community will get rebellious should such suggestion be granted. Thus, giving the Mods more probs to deal with.

this is my main concern .. it might require the mods to further mod the extra-mod'ing that's taking place .. it's a gut feeling but i'm guessing it can easily get out of control.

i agree to having it tested and limited only in AGT though .. if it proves to be do harm than good in here it won't entail much damage i think. besides, it seems its only useful for AGT anyway. ideally what this will produce are parallel threads which are opposing in views. there will be less "debate" threads (now is that a good thing?) ... but then the TS can still choose to turn "his" thread into a debate thread by keeping his hands away from the mod buttons .. i believe a sensible and responsible TS will tolerate as much "challenge" as he gets in his threads to keep them alive. note that nobody's right to post is violated. everyone can still post but now with the knowledge that the TS may delete his post if it's crap.

hmm .. i actually think that this is a healthy evolution in cyberdemocracy ... i'm a heavy plurk.com user and in there these "censorship" functions are in place.   

[matanglawin]

As far as I know, moderating capabilities are global.  You can specify moderator powers per individual per section, and not per thread created.  Regardless, that entails a LOT of work for admins, not moderators, when setting it up.  There are more than a hundred active members here at AGT alone, and the admin would have to tweak each of those individually. 

[KitC]

Back when I was an active member of the Cakewalk forums, they had a board which was the equivalent of AGT. Same scenario happened - religious and political topics would often get out of hand and some threats were uttered. Eventually the Cake mods closed down that specific board.

We are discussing the merits of this and I agree that the Classifieds should NOT have this feature. Maybe we can limit this to the AGT (and maybe the GC forums too) since this is where all the fireworks abound. Still, all the mods are weighing this carefully and once we reach a firm decision, we will all let you know.

Let the discussions continue.

[matanglawin]

Maybe on a case-to-case basis, depending on the member's standing and, er, "popularity?" 

[pixelwise]

As far as I know, moderating capabilities are global.  You can specify moderator powers per individual per section, and not per thread created.  Regardless, that entails a LOT of work for admins, not moderators, when setting it up.  There are more than a hundred active members here at AGT alone, and the admin would have to tweak each of those individually.

not really ... i'm too lazy to check now but i'm quite sure both SMF and phpBB allow "TS-mod" functions per forum. there is no need to give individual members extra permissions.

[Vito Corleone]

Back when I was an active member of the Cakewalk forums, they had a board which was the equivalent of AGT. Same scenario happened - religious and political topics would often get out of hand and some threats were uttered. Eventually the Cake mods closed down that specific board.

We are discussing the merits of this and I agree that the Classifieds should NOT have this feature. Maybe we can limit this to the AGT (and maybe the GC forums too) since this is where all the fireworks abound. Still, all the mods are weighing this carefully and once we reach a firm decision, we will all let you know.

Let the discussions continue.

Just knowing that a Mod is reading this makes me happy already. I was supposed to include GC also but I'm just a lurker there. I'm not hoping and not excited yet. I don't even expect that the Mods would put this in priority.

If this gets turned down, maybe it we are not yet ready for this. I just hope that this thread stays interesting so if anyone needs to refer to this sometime soon or in the distant future, there is already some documentations to start with written by us members.

[matanglawin]

not really ... i'm too lazy to check now but i'm quite sure both SMF and phpBB allow "TS-mod" functions per forum. there is no need to give individual members extra permissions.

Yes, but that COVERS the entire forum section, meaning, it's everybody's ballgame.  What Vito wants is mod powers on an specific thread.

[pixelwise]

^^ hmm ... this document lists this item:

• Ability to allow members to use moderation on just topics they posted

from what i understood so far it's exactly what vito is requesting ... no one suddenly gets elevated to mod status. we only get to become mods for our own threads.

[Vito Corleone]

^^ hmm ... this document lists this item:

• Ability to allow members to use moderation on just topics they posted

from what i understood so far it's exactly what vito is requesting ... no one suddenly gets elevated to mod status. we only get to become mods for our own threads.

Maybe this can be a good way to train and test future mods? Hard sell na ba? I hope not.

[matanglawin]

^^ hmm ... this document lists this item:

• Ability to allow members to use moderation on just topics they posted

from what i understood so far it's exactly what vito is requesting ... no one suddenly gets elevated to mod status. we only get to become mods for our own threads.

Yes, but, if 100 members want to do that, 100 member profiles would have to be edited with a separate mask.  Unless SMF grants it automatically with a simple click in the settings, of course.

There was a period back then when newbies with 0-certain number of posts were disallowed access to AGT, to screen out the trolls who make accounts just to wreak havoc.   I'm not sure if that worked at all.

There were also the "banned from AGT" group, which I was a member of for a while.

[pixelwise]

Yes, but, if 100 members want to do that, 100 member profiles would have to be edited with a separate mask.  Unless SMF grants it automatically with a simple click in the settings, of course.

yes i believe it should be a single checkbox task for the admins.

[matanglawin]

yes i believe it should be a single checkbox task for the admins.

Kewl.

[Vito Corleone]

this is my main concern .. it might require the mods to further mod the extra-mod'ing that's taking place .. it's a gut feeling but i'm guessing it can easily get out of control.

I'm not sure if this proposal has been tried by other sites already and I don't know any outcome. If ever something like this has been implemented elsewhere, there is no guarantee that we will have the same results (good or bad) because of differences in the variables of each site and each member and Mods making up those online communities.

Like a lot of people here, I can only speculate. Should the members become outraged and rebellious when this proposal gets implemented, the Mods can always take over. Besides, don't tell me PM has never tasted its share of outraged and rebellious members. We get this all the time. Why exaggerate?

i agree to having it tested and limited only in AGT though .. if it proves to be do harm than good in here it won't entail much damage i think. besides, it seems its only useful for AGT anyway. ideally what this will produce are parallel threads which are opposing in views. there will be less "debate" threads (now is that a good thing?) ... but then the TS can still choose to turn "his" thread into a debate thread by keeping his hands away from the mod buttons .. i believe a sensible and responsible TS will tolerate as much "challenge" as he gets in his threads to keep them alive. note that nobody's right to post is violated. everyone can still post but now with the knowledge that the TS may delete his post if it's crap.

hmm .. i actually think that this is a healthy evolution in cyberdemocracy ... i'm a heavy plurk.com user and in there these "censorship" functions are in place.

Amen.

[Vito Corleone]

Hardly.

Nagmama-asim pa. Hmp!

Why fix somethin' that ain't broken?

I am just ecstatic that you were born in the 20th century (I’m guessing). Had you been born during the time of the cavemen and you were able to convince some more of our ancestors, chances are were still living in caves.

You go tell that to whoever thought of and/or approved the Karma buttons. Go guitarwiz02 go!

I do hope you realize that I was using "you" in its plural form.

I do hope you realized soon how predictable you are. Hasn't sink in yet, ey?

I don't remember suggesting that.

Don’t push yourself to hard to remember if you can’t. Accept your limitations. You’re only human. Good news is you can always go back to what you wrote.

There ya go! It is an established rule. Again, why fix somethin' that ain't broken?

Quote
Even if this is an established rule what prevents us to review the relevancy of this rule with our current times?
Unquote

I don’t know how you easily ignored the first two words of what I said. Or maybe I know.

Is that how you establish rules? You just say, Even if <insert your rule>. That’s it?

That's what Mods are for. Let 'em do their job.

Again, the Mods are not out. They still have their jobs.

But deleting unwanted posts by the threadstarter suggests otherwise.

Read the subject. Does it say “Freedom and Responsibilities for Posters”

If so, I would've agreed with this proposal, dontchathink? Fearful of what or who? You? C'mon. You see, it's clearly situations like these that you're trying to avoid. You hate it when people get in your face and try to contradict your thoughts and ideas. That's why you came up with such a proposal, you want to control who gets to post on the thread you started. Who's showing fear or anxiety now?

Dontcha? Pussycat dolls? Sexy!

I already moved on and accepted that you will never agree with me. You’re too mighty high for that. You should move on. It will be good for you.

Yes. A win-win situation for the threadstarter only. This does not benefit everyone.

Again, read the subject.

How’d you know that this does not  (or will not) benefit everyone? You got statistics for that?

On the contrary, more members of this community will get rebellious should such suggestion be granted. Thus, giving the Mods more probs to deal with.

Read my recent response to pixelwise.

[Roy Pigdester]

LOL I don't understand why people thinks they own the forum.

And I don't understand why Vanessa still doesn't have a negative one karma.

I say no to this, 100% fcuking no. Ideas like this will turn Philmusic into one helluva sumkinda oligarchy with Hawkeye playing the role of your friendly neighborhood Davao Death Squad.

[Van*]

And I don't understand why Vanessa still doesn't have a negative one karma.

I say no to this, 100% fcuking no. Ideas like this will turn Philmusic into one helluva sumkinda oligarchy with Hawkeye playing the role of your friendly neighborhood Davao Death Squad.

i dont know why you still have that gayass sig when we all knew that you only want attention that your mom never give you. Please, stop trying to be cool.

[Vito Corleone]

I'm thinking about summarizing the opinions of various member and thread starters (with references to you of course).

For those who want to express additional insights, go ahead. If this thread goes inactive for a week, it's my cue to work on the summary.

[guitarwiz02]

I already moved on and accepted that you will never agree with me. You’re too mighty high for that. You should move on. It will be good for you.

I was about to answer these childish remarks with some, obviously not even well-thought of. Until I read this.

Funny how you tell me to move on, when you clearly have not.

[Vito Corleone]

I was about to answer these childish remarks with some, obviously not even well-thought of. Until I read this.

Funny how you tell me to move on, when you clearly have not.

Bhe, tama na tampo mo. Absent ka ba nung natituro ito ni pastor? Hala sige, eto:

Colossians 3:18 NIV
"Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord."

I'm sorry bhe. Sabi ni pastor, "Do not be harsh with your wife."(Colossians 3:19). Sorry na. Napagsabihin na ako ni pastor.

Love is indeed in the air.

[guitarwiz02]

Bhe, tama na tampo mo. Absent ka ba nung natituro ito ni pastor? Hala sige, eto:

Colossians 3:18 NIV
"Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord."

I'm sorry bhe. Sabi ni pastor, "Do not be harsh with your wife."(Colossians 3:19). Sorry na. Napagsabihin na ako ni pastor.

Love is indeed in the air.

'Eto ang TANGANG sagot galing sa isang tunay na [chewbacca]. How were you able to reach and get through your age without knowing the meaning of "relevance"? I pity your children.

[Vito Corleone]

'Eto ang TANGANG sagot galing sa isang tunay na [chewbacca]. How were you able to reach and get through your age without knowing the meaning of "relevance"? I pity your children.

Watch your Christian language sweety.

You're not only predictable, you're also clueless. You're definitely blonde.

You're my bi+ch and you don't know it yet. I am not surprised, but I sure am amused. I had a leash on you weeks ago and you had no idea whatsoever.

Let's sing...
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
We'll make great pets!
- Pets by Porno for Pyros