No mods/admin anymore??

imposter2.0

Is it fair to assume that?

The longer threads like this stay on the forum (despite being reported) the more apparent it becomes, I guess..

viewtopic.php?f=40044&t=13070559
viewtopic.php?f=40044&t=13070559

kingrollo

Number of posters has dropped off as well ...related ?

FishFish

As well as the quality too - have a look at the crudcatcher - it is execrable!

BikeRadarAdmin

Hey, due to change in circumstances beyond my control I am the only active moderator/admin now. Apologies for missing the reports yesterday, they have now been dealt with. Obviously in the past a full team of moderators was more efficient than a single person! However, this is the hand we have been dealt. I appreciate any reports put forward and will endeavour to deal with them as quick as possible. If you have any further questions, please do PM me and we can discuss further!

imposter2.0

Thanks Josh - if it's just you, then I appreciate it can't be easy. Incidentally, why are there no volunteer mods anymore?

markhewitt1978

A forum with this amount of traffic cannot be handled by a single person!

BikeRadarAdmin

Essentially it's down to the legal implications of moderating. Understandably the volunteer mods felt impotent 'moderating' without any edit/delete/admin functions, they were essentially just reporting any errors/spam they found to me.

After their stellar job before, it must've been incredibly frustrating and unfortunately a few individuals have left the community. The decisions were made before I started around a year ago, so here we are!

Again, my door is always open so please contact me with any issues/suggestions/comments re. the forum, I'll do the best I can!

Cheers.

ugo.santalucia

joshjevans wrote:

After their stellar job before, it must've been incredibly frustrating and unfortunately a few individuals have left the community. The decisions were made before I started around a year ago, so here we are!

.

Essentially it's all down to the new owners. Future used to trust the moderating team, while Immediate is more concerned about the implications and lack of accountability of voluteers... in this crazy world it wouldn't be unheard of someone taking a publisher to court because his message has been deleted or changed.
Surprisingly, the amount of trolling and spam hasn't gone up dramatically, it just stays visible for longer.
The only exception is the classified section, which seems to me a bit more of a No-go-area, than it used to be, with many adverts looking very questionable indeed.

imposter2.0

joshjevans wrote:

Essentially it's down to the legal implications of moderating.

Not sure I understand. What are the legal implications of deleting spam? Are they worse than the commercial risks of leaving it in place?

What problem is it that Immediate has identified, that no other forum on the internet (that I am familiar with) seems concerned with?

BikeRadarAdmin

As Ugo mentioned, it's the lack of accountability with volunteers. By allowing mods to delete spam, they would also have the ability to delete all other posts within the forum and therefore there is a possibility of of the legal implications mentioned.

I know it isn't ideal, but it is a decision made above that of BikeRadar and the entire sport division.

imposter2.0

joshjevans wrote:

As Ugo mentioned, it's the lack of accountability with volunteers. By allowing mods to delete spam, they would also have the ability to delete all other posts within the forum and therefore there is a possibility of of the legal implications mentioned.

I know it isn't ideal, but it is a decision made above that of BikeRadar and the entire sport division.

ok - stop me if you think I'm labouring the point here, but...

Surely all of this can be dealt with within the acceptance of Ts&Cs during sign up? Either you accept the notion of your posts being moderated, or you don't sign up?

markhewitt1978

I don't see any legal implications of deleting posts? Whatever their content happens to be.

BikeRadarAdmin

I agree it would make for a better forum if we had more moderators, but this is the cards that have been dealt and I can assure you this isn't going to change anytime soon due to the decision being made from above.

kingrollo

Imposter wrote:

joshjevans wrote:

As Ugo mentioned, it's the lack of accountability with volunteers. By allowing mods to delete spam, they would also have the ability to delete all other posts within the forum and therefore there is a possibility of of the legal implications mentioned.

I know it isn't ideal, but it is a decision made above that of BikeRadar and the entire sport division.

ok - stop me if you think I'm labouring the point here, but...

Surely all of this can be dealt with within the acceptance of Ts&Cs during sign up? Either you accept the notion of your posts being moderated, or you don't sign up?

T+C'S don't mean anything in legal terms. I ve just had my windows done and the company tried to charge me 4% because I wanted to pay by credit card. They reckoned they were covered because it was in there t&c's - Didn't matter - they threatened to take me to court. Until I told them the general principle that they can't charge the customer more than they are being charged. They backed down.
you can't bypass the law by putting a clause in t&c's - although many try. If push comes to shove the law blows t&c's out of the water.

FishFish

OK so the legal part is the unfair contract terms act. It covers coercive T&C. In your case the supplier agreed to charge you less than was in the contract + term charging for cc payment. Both of you believed you were right and it did not go to court.

Good win for you and even better is the fact that if you did pay by CC you are additionally covered in warranty by the finance company which would not be the case if you paid cheque, cash or transfer. Incidentally writing the cheque on a cow would make you liable for additional processing charges as this has been established in tort.

imposter2.0

kingrollo wrote:

T+C'S don't mean anything in legal terms. I ve just had my windows done and the company tried to charge me 4% because I wanted to pay by credit card. They reckoned they were covered because it was in there t&c's - Didn't matter - they threatened to take me to court. Until I told them the general principle that they can't charge the customer more than they are being charged. They backed down.
you can't bypass the law by putting a clause in t&c's - although many try. If push comes to shove the law blows t&c's out of the water.

Obviously Ts&Cs have to be lawful in order to be enforceable, I think that's well understood.

I'm still struggling to see what the legal issue is with moderating unwanted/obscene/libellous/abusive/etc content on a commercial internet forum. Using that logic, you could argue that it may also be illegal to remove spam for the same reason. Maybe one of the spammers could sue, so we can test it in court

FishFish

Imposters argument works because if it does not then presumably you need the Professor of Law to be the Moderator. I think that we lose good sense when we try to become overly legalistic beyond practicality.

imposter2.0

Clearly the spammers have been to court and have successfully established a legal case for spamming on here...

BikeRadarAdmin

Hopefully sorted.

Please report any spam you see if you get a chance!

Cheers.

davesnothere

Couldn't you give volunteer mods a quarantine option?

They could suspend/remove posts from view temporarily until you've had a chance to review them?

davesnothere

Also, shouldn't you rename this section 'Discuss the website with Josh'

tangled_metal

What's the difference between a poster reporting a post to Josh to remove and a half moderator reporting it to Josh?

IMHO it still results in Josh doing all the real moderating?

AFAIK the forum software could prevent new, special rights to be applied to these half moderators preventing them from hiding these posts. At most they could probably only notify Josh of the offending post.

mac9091

Pay me £50k a year and i'll quit my current job and come on board as a Moderator.

Despite taking a small pay cut i think that working from home would make up for the shortfall

secretsqizz

mac9091 wrote:

Pay me £50k a year and i'll quit my current job and come on board as a Moderator.

Despite taking a small pay cut i think that working from home would make up for the shortfall

Because you'd be as useless in that as you are in your 50k a year gravy train.............. nuff said

mac9091

secretsqizz wrote:

mac9091 wrote:

Pay me £50k a year and i'll quit my current job and come on board as a Moderator.

Despite taking a small pay cut i think that working from home would make up for the shortfall

Because you'd be as useless in that as you are in your 50k a year gravy train.............. nuff said

Well someone's a bit grumpy. Is it because I got in before you could?