Originally Posted by andrew22

No online communities get better over time, that is a fact of the internet. Some of us try and fight the inevitable though, call us dreamers, call us heroes. But, less mods is something we can do as a community, the community makes the forum aftrall.

Online communities can get better over time if the community is actually good. Maybe what you are providing isn't what drives it that direction

Rule 1: Never feed the trolls.

Originally Posted by BenDover

What you are basically saying is that regardless of whether or not the mods here are doing a decent job, it would take to much time to train new moderators.

What I'm saying is that starting over from scratch is impossible. I can go over it again if it confuses you.

Originally Posted by BenDover

Therefore you are saying that you can continue on being a detriment to MI with your over-moderating of posts and threads, with no threat of losing your job as a result?

I don't recall deleting any of your posts recently. Honestly, I don't even know you all that well. If you'd like to provide these posts in question, I'd be glad to clear up the issue.

Originally Posted by andrew22

try one month no mods. gooby pls. This is viable, there is only one way to find out if it is anyway.

In your hypothetical scenario, all it would take is one questionable piece of content to linger long enough, and boom, you've got a school-wide incident. Even the most unfiltered yet widely popular message boards online (e.g., 4chan) still have moderators, Andrew.

you goobers

Originally Posted by Grover

What I'm saying is that starting over from scratch is impossible. I can go over it again if it confuses you.



I don't recall deleting any of your posts recently. Honestly, I don't even know you all that well. If you'd like to provide these posts in question, I'd be glad to clear up the issue.



In your hypothetical scenario, all it would take is one questionable piece of content to linger long enough, and boom, you've got a school-wide incident. Even the most unfiltered yet widely popular message boards online (e.g., 4chan) still have moderators, Andrew.

First, i dont support or advocate Andrew's ideas.
Secondly, I was speaking of the moderators as a collective group when it comes to deleting posts.

Let me ask you this. If two people report a post, does that represent the collective opinion of the MI community? I think in all fairness a majority of the community would need to report a post in order for it to be taken down. So unless there are only 3 users on MI, 2 reports should in no way advocate removing a post. There needs to be a better system for when it comes to removing posts on here.
Ex, reddit you can see posts that are downvoted 50 times, but those posts arent removed, and i know you are just going to come back and say why dont you stick to reddit then, but what im trying to say is having a couple of people not like a post does not justify its removal. I honestly look forward to your opinion on this moderators.

None are deleted. They're just "blocked" because of how the current report post function is. We just have to go through every single report. We only edit which we rarely do if it's that blatently offensive. Posts are only deleted like spam threads.

Originally Posted by Leeoku

None are deleted. They're just "blocked" because of how the current report post function is. We just have to go through every single report. We only edit which we rarely do if it's that blatently offensive. Posts are only deleted like spam threads.

Blocked and deleted to me are very similar. Either way you dont allow the MI community to view them. You still did not address my question tho. Do you really believe that "blocking" a post is justifiable if only 2 or 3 people report the post? How is that in any way the opinion of the collective MI community? Its not even a percent of the community.