A Note Concerning Site Moderation

[Jay Cunningham]

To be fair, Tom and I were both in the Navy. So there's no such thing as too much dick.

[Paul Sharp]

To be fair, Tom and I were both in the Navy. So there's no such thing as too much dick.

There is no success quite like excess, moderation is for cowards and failures.

[Totem Polar]

Mods here are now slightly different shit.

[Aray]

Mods here are now slightly different shit.

It took too long for this to be said.

[Paul Sharp]

...Why are we changing now? Because the membership, while largely excellent, seems to be having difficulty limiting how much of a dick they are willing to be and a different moderation style/approach is now warranted.

Makes sense.

[JHC]

FWIW, one of the first things I did after I assumed the helm at PF was to tell the Staff how I wanted the site to be moderated. My exact words then, were that the entirety of the rules (as reposted by Jay in the OP) could, and should, be interpreted (and enforced) moving forward as "Don't be too much of a dick." I'm not really sure what your question is, but "don't be too much of a dick precedes this thread and the forum's sufficiently solidified reaction (whatever that is) by years.

Why are we changing now? Because the membership, while largely excellent, seems to be having difficulty limiting how much of a dick they are willing to be and a different moderation style/approach is now warranted.

Agree. There is no way IMO the quality of content can be maintained during expansion without the proposed moderation.

And ball busting moderation can be a lot of fun. There was a time, years back that the Lightfighter moderation was BRUTAL. It was hysterical and I was on the receiving end of it once from Pat Rogers himself. It was an epic "GET BACK IN YOUR LANE". He was right. And I did.

[Chance]

There was a time, years back that the Lightfighter moderation was BRUTAL. It was hysterical and I was on the receiving end of it once from Pat Rogers himself. It was an epic "GET BACK IN YOUR LANE". He was right. And I did.

Well, if we're talking about technical forums, and someone starts talking about a subject they're clearing not qualified to discuss, that sort of barking is warranted. Such as people that read a few things off Wikipedia and then start arguing with DocGKR about terminal ballistics: many are well meaning, they just don't understand who they're talking to.

I haven't seen everything the mods are privy to, but it seems like the present issue is more of a sleight-of-hand dickishness problem. But again, I don't see what the mods see, so I could be way off.

I'm not really sure what your question is, but "don't be too much of a dick precedes this thread and the forum's sufficiently solidified reaction (whatever that is) by years.

It was a dick joke. Long day, couldn't quite make the ends meet.

[OldRunner/CSAT Neighbor]

Agree. There is no way IMO the quality of content can be maintained during expansion without the proposed moderation.

And ball busting moderation can be a lot of fun. There was a time, years back that the Lightfighter moderation was BRUTAL. It was hysterical and I was on the receiving end of it once from Pat Rogers himself. It was an epic "GET BACK IN YOUR LANE". He was right. And I did.

Re. LF agreed JHC, still my home & it only took one time in 2009 for Pat (RIP) to *gently* urge me back into my lane.

Learning occurred that day that I still adhere to presently. Reading more & posting less unless I have personal or validated experience to share that is *relevant* to the OP's topic. Long ago a friend in Nac also mentored me re. forums & posting, very sim. to Pat's guidance.

That said, it's time for me to get back into my lane, sorry about the drift.

[Chance]

I'm an idiot. You'd think as a guy that spends the majority of his day annoying his "friends" with fart and dick jokes I would have picked up on that. Sorry.

It was a little obtuse. My first proposal was, "How do we measure that?", and then I was like, "Nah, I could use bigger words than that." At any rate, sorry for the non-RR thread hijack.

ETA: On a different note, I've always been curious about the concept of sort of a "super user" type thing. We still want the forum to be focused on shooting, but we don't want to devolve into hunting for "likes" or rating people on a post count. So, why not dig through the technical forums to see who consistently makes solid contributions there, and designate those folks as "super users." Guys like @HeadHunter, @BehindBlueI's, @John Hearne, @Wayne Dobbs, @Sean M, @Dagga Boy, @Surf, and plenty of others are the ones that bring the technical value to the forum.

If you designate folks like that as "super users," and then when they get pissed off by something, I would opine that should be treated differently than your run of the mill member that just sort of hangs out. And you can keep the designation under wraps, so people don't get butt hurt about not being chosen to be put in that category.

[LittleLebowski]

To be fair, Tom and I were both in the Navy. So there's no such thing as too much dick.