"Modgate"

tiffanywint wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Am I the only one who' seeing this?

I don't know what's going on. If you are seeing that red notice, I don't know why. I just made a post visible to anyone viewing the thread.

A similar red notice appears in one of Python's posts on the previous page too.

Which post of mine? I don't see it. But I do see the red notice on yours. This is weird. :shock:

Weird, suspicious, bewildering to boot.

It doesn't display when I quote it, but this post of yours, on my view at least, displays this bit in red.</FONT>

[Only admins are allowed to see this link] displays in red

It displays at the bottom, right after where you write This post

Python wrote:

Manhunter wrote:

I'd like to speak in favour of keeping Python as a mod, because I am sure no-one else would have made the pics on my recent LAST MOVIE post work. Hardly anyone seems to care in such cases. A mod not only needs to act on his own initiative when posters have problems of any kind, they also need to have the technical proficiency to do so. I doubt that all of the current mods have got these abilities, so I think that Python is one of the most important candidates for a continued service as a mod. :)

Thanks. :)

Largo's Shark wrote:

What pics? :)

This post:

Maybe I used a bad word in the post that Sharky can't see, and the software hid it and flagged it for Admin eyes only.

I did say "bast-ard" but in a friendly way. The only other "bad word" might have been "Ambler" :geek: Kidding Amblers!

Hmm... Let me test this. I'm gonna throw in a link below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hK9PBcRM9c

Okay, can anyone see it? If not, then I guess posting links can only be seen by the poster and admin alone.

Python wrote:

Hmm... Let me test this. I'm gonna throw in a link below:



Okay, can anyone see it? If not, then I guess posting links can only be seen by the poster and admin alone.

No I can't see the link. I can only see the red advisory. But that doesn't explain why Shark couldn't see my post and got red ink instead. I didn't include a link. Can you (python) see the post I made that Shark couldn't see?

It seems that the software is removing and flagging some content for admin eyes only, but its not clear what criteria it's using.

I also see the red line/notice.




Game's afoot.

I'm guessing links can only be seen by the admin and the person who posted it. I can still see my link for sure. I think all that needs to be done is Lazenby adjusting this section's settings to allow links to be seen. Maybe that was the default of setting up a mod-only section, that's just my guess.

But again I didn't post a link, and Sharky can't seem the post in question. Can anyone else see it, or are you all getting the red advisory too?

I see the message in red, but I cannot see the image.

Python wrote:

I'm guessing links can only be seen by the admin and the person who posted it. I can still see my link for sure. I think all that needs to be done is Lazenby adjusting this section's settings to allow links to be seen. Maybe that was the default of setting up a mod-only section, that's just my guess.

It's just links and certain smilies, AFAIK.

It doesn't give me the option to allow non-mods to see images in the thread, that's all. Just checked through it.

Hey, I can see them now. Coolies.

I do believe I also see them. Who'd have though a smoking emoticon and a hat-doffing emoticon were harmful viewing.

Hm. I left before all of this was blown up, I think.

However, all I have to say is that the mods involved in this have taken more heat for this than they deserve. J7 wasn't a fabrication, created by a group of good-for-nothing moderators. The mods didn't put the racial slurs, bold, red font, and half-naked women into his posts. That was his own doing.

But, I'll agree that adding the occasional GIF to his posts was out of line.














I still think it was kind of funny, though.

My 2 cents: the criteria for being made or remaining a mod should be a bit higher than "being a nice chap".

A forum of this size needs no more than 3-5 moderators. Post count shouldn't be the main deciding factor.
Presence on the forum (as in, amount of hours you see the person on daily) should matter a lot more. Select a pool of people who are on regularly, preferably selecting across several time zones and then appoint those who have showed the most responsibility and tact in their dealings on the forum.

Salomé wrote:

My 2 cents: the criteria for being made or remaining a mod should be a bit higher than "being a nice chap".

A forum of this size needs no more than 3-5 moderators. Post count shouldn't be the main deciding factor.
Presence on the forum (as in, amount of hours you see the person on daily) should matter a lot more. Select a pool of people who are on regularly, preferably selecting across several time zones and then appoint those who have showed the most responsibility and tact in their dealings on the forum.

The thing is, there are quite a few times I'll log in here to see only one mod online or even, though very rarely, none at all. Mods hiding their online status helps nobody either. These facts don't justify cutting down the modship.

Control wrote:

Hm. I left before all of this was blown up, I think.

And now you're here, are you planning to stay?

Santa wrote:

Control wrote:

Hm. I left before all of this was blown up, I think.

And now you're here, are you planning to stay?

Yes. I was busy for the past few weeks. And I'll probably be on and off in the coming months.

Lazenby. wrote:

Salomé wrote:

My 2 cents: the criteria for being made or remaining a mod should be a bit higher than "being a nice chap".

A forum of this size needs no more than 3-5 moderators. Post count shouldn't be the main deciding factor.
Presence on the forum (as in, amount of hours you see the person on daily) should matter a lot more. Select a pool of people who are on regularly, preferably selecting across several time zones and then appoint those who have showed the most responsibility and tact in their dealings on the forum.

The thing is, there are quite a few times I'll log in here to see only one mod online or even, though very rarely, none at all. Mods hiding their online status helps nobody either. These facts don't justify cutting down the modship.

People who edit a members posts as some sort of joke are not fit to be moderators imho. I wasn't a big fan of j7 either (probably the worst member this forum ever had), but even to him that was very disrespectful.

Salomé wrote:

Lazenby. wrote:

Salomé wrote:

My 2 cents: the criteria for being made or remaining a mod should be a bit higher than "being a nice chap".

A forum of this size needs no more than 3-5 moderators. Post count shouldn't be the main deciding factor.
Presence on the forum (as in, amount of hours you see the person on daily) should matter a lot more. Select a pool of people who are on regularly, preferably selecting across several time zones and then appoint those who have showed the most responsibility and tact in their dealings on the forum.

The thing is, there are quite a few times I'll log in here to see only one mod online or even, though very rarely, none at all. Mods hiding their online status helps nobody either. These facts don't justify cutting down the modship.

People who edit a members posts as some sort of joke are not fit to be moderators imho.

Everyone who's owned up has already stepped down.

I just realized that FieldsMan is no longer a mod and hasn't posted here since June 20th. Did he jump ship?

Fieldsman stepped down due to personal commitments, but will hopefully still pop in here when he can. His mod resignation was all very amicable, as he knows how much I appreciate all the work he put in here.