View Full Version : How hard exactly is it for a moderator to zap a message?
04-10-2000, 01:21 AM
Ed Zotti is really depressed about all the fighting and filler on this site. This is understandable.
How hard exactly is it for a moderator to zap a message?
On most boards, when things get rowdy or X-rated, or troll-rambled to death, the moderator just starts dropping messages like swatting flies. Swat, swat, swat. No notice, no explanation, no handwringing or scolding.
Just swat, swat, swat.
If the trailing messages are lost as well, it's no big deal- there's more where they came from.
That would lower Ed's blood pressure in a hurry, and make all the true fact seekers breathe easier as well.
04-10-2000, 11:26 AM
It's more than just swatting.
On the one hand, yeah, this is just a message board and what's the big deal about that? There's a million of 'em in cyberspace.
On the other hand, it's turned into quite a little community here over the years, a place where people have learned stuff and made friends (and more than friends, in some cases); we've laughed and cried and experienced a lot of human interaction.
It's been compared to a party in someone's home, or an evening in your friendly neighborhood tavern, and I think the comparison is fair.
We want people to have a good time here, without feeling stifled by a lot of rules . . . but there's also limits to everything.
Not everybody understands that, or appreciates what we do or why we do it. And some want this to be a radically different sort of place than it is and express that desire in every way they can, hoping to make change.
It's about maintaining some structure and order without being limiting or repressing. It's about removing the negative stuff without having that removal in itself be a negative impact on the relationship we have with our forum members.
Most of all, we want people to have a good time here . . . make a friend, learn something, laugh a little. We're a leisure time activity for a lot of folks and it's in our best interest to make this place as good as we can. That means we try to get as much good as we can and remove the not-so-good when necessary, as we find it.
Just my two cents.
your humble TubaDiva
04-10-2000, 01:09 PM
Wood, your point is?
I don't know who your are, tshirts. But I'm not being condescending.
But see, this is EXACTLY what I've been talking about; how people can take a statement made here and make an issue out of it. Half the time around here, it's not so much what you say but how you say it, or even that you say it.
And I have been "here" for quite some time, going back to the AOL days. The beginning of the AOL days, if you want to be exact about it. If you were the old timer you claim to be, you'd know that.
your humble TubaDiva
04-10-2000, 01:13 PM
And yes, those image files. That's currently an issue before board management.
At the current time we allow the use of images, providing they are small in size and not ripped off from other websites. There has been some abuse of this policy in the past and we are removing images in violation of this policy as we find them.
If it gets to be too much of a pain to deal with, the use of images will be stopped. We're hoping not to get to that place. It's up to the users.
your humble TubaDiva
04-10-2000, 01:43 PM
Tshirts, I rather doubt that your ideas will go over well. I mean, look at people's reactions when Ed says that they're not allowed to mouth off to him.
04-10-2000, 02:00 PM
What you need are more smilies.
If I took a few of Slug's faces and made them roll their eyes would you let me link to them? (It's not a copyright infraction if it's done as satire, is it? If so, I could just donate them to Slug and he could link to them.) :rolleyes:
I like this one from http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/001004.html
Originally posted by NickyLarson:
Image removed by TubaDiva. Do not steal images from other sites.
[Note: This message has been edited by TubaDiva]
04-10-2000, 02:28 PM
1) It wasn't my point. It was Ed's.
2) If you're from the old days, why does it say Registered: Mar 99? Are all the moderators Wally's sock puppets? (No, it was just a joke. :))
I just realized the numbers are being updated after the fact.
Go ahead and laugh at me-that's what newbies are for.
04-10-2000, 02:44 PM
1. Ed said it, but he didn't post it here. You did. Just wondered why.
2. We don't allow the use of unauthorized images; you cannot steal from other people's sites just because you see something cute. I'm removing this smiley. Keep in mind further abuse of our policy re images will only result in management taking that privilege away from all our users.
3. It's Wally's world, we just live in it. You didn't know that?
your humble TubaDiva
04-10-2000, 02:48 PM
Oh, and tshirts? I'd check with Ed before I did any work on Slug's art, even in fun. That's EdZotti@aol.com . Ed and the Reader management have been quite accommodating in the past, but it's always better to ask first.
your humble TubaDiva
04-10-2000, 06:07 PM
Tuba's been here on the UBB Board since March 99, because that's how long there's been a UBB Board. Before that, there was a message board on AOL.
It's what's for dinner.
Brought to you by IATeALeC*
*Indiana Academy Teen Association for the Legalization of Cannibalism.
04-11-2000, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by Ed Zotti:
First warning. See above.
Because periodically I get these little love notes from my bosses suggesting they are none too happy about pouring a lot of money into the SDMB, and I figured you may as well know.
Let me review a few facts. Keeping this board going costs a fair amount of money. I get paid, for starters. The Chicago Reader, owner of the site, has a sizable tech staff that has been devoting a disproportionate amount of its time to the SDMB. We got hacked, as you know, and the hacker got in because of bug in the MB software (since fixed). The board crashes almost every day and has to be restarted. Since the remote restart feature was shut down after we got hacked, the head tech guy has to drive down to the office for restarts after hours. He is getting less and less enthusiastic about this. We have had to rebuild the server twice. Due to the high volume of traffic we have had to order a second T-1 line, which those of you in the business know is an expensive proposition. It is likely we will have to purchase new MB software soon since the package we're using now is clearly not up to the demands placed on it.
Naturally we're not doing this out of the kindness of our hearts. We'd like to make a pile of money on this site someday. But right now we're not. There are some people in management here who think we never will. What's more, they see other newspapers with a lot more money and staff than us shutting down their MBs due to "unruly posters."
My point is that the future of the SDMB is far from assured. This is not a threat, whatever you may think. It won't be me that shuts this board down. It will be a business decision made by my employers over my protests. I don't think they're all that close to making that decision now. But as you can see from my OP, the thought still crosses their minds.
04-11-2000, 12:21 AM
You want to save money with no loss of quality?
1) Drop the filler forums:MPSIMS, The BBQ Pit, Great Debates (replace with a list of topics already beaten to death), and (why not)About This Message Board
2) Don't archive.Pick a life cycle and live with it. Search times must cost you a bundle on computer time.
3) Close a thread when it hits two pages. The long topics just chew bandwidth, and it's easy enough to start a new thread.
Oh, and I was here before you, despite my new username, so your condescention won't help your argument with me.
04-11-2000, 12:30 AM
Oops - waited too long before sending my post and another one got in ahead. My post above was responding to TubeDiva (not Ed, who was obviously here before me). :)
04-11-2000, 12:37 AM
Don't the off-site html image files cost you more than they're worth in bandwidth? You could drop them without losing anything. I'm sure they're a huge drain compared to on-site smilies.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.