TheBear

That makes sense.

I guess the better way to look at it would be in terms of how many hits per month.

Mistermystery

In anycase I think it's safe to assume that CF's mod-management is in some spots way to uptight, and even biased. Ever since Bradford came allong, for instance, I've been warned 2 times in no time. While before that it only happened parsely. Sure, they say that it all happens in "discussion" with other mods, but I don't buy that.

And besides the warnings they issue are way to childish anyways. I was once warned because I didn't filter out the ****'s their filter made. I mean WhiskeyFoxtrotTango, I was warned because I should have corrected the filter of my "naughty words".

If I hadn't learn so freaking much from most evolutionists at that place, I wouldn't want to return to it.

crazyfingers

Are you saying that you think that CF mods collectively have 40-50 time the work as IIDB mods?

I'd accept some argument that CF creates more work for itself than a simple number of user online would imply, but 40-50 times IIDB's workload?

Mistermystery

They have more rules, and more reports comming in then here. So yes I would assume there is more "work"

crazyfingers

And again, I could buy an argument that they have more work per user than here. But 40-50 times?

Based simply on number of users on line, CF should have about 3 times the total workload for the mods than here. Say that they double that with the rules and such, make it 6 times the work. I could buy that.

But increase the workload not by double but by more than an order of magnitude?

seebs

That's my rough estimate. Having been a mod at both boards, and watched the rate of incoming reports, meta-work (such as discussion about reports, and so on), yeah, that's about the number I'd give.

Unfortunately, a detailed discussion of why it's so different is impossible except between me and any other people who have been staff at both sites.

Hmm. It'd be interesting doing statistics, things like "what percentage of reports are actually actionable offenses", and so on.

CF's rules are much, much, more restrictive than IIDB's... But also, I think CF has a much larger population of thin-skinned people who will report damn near anything. I mean, compare; here, I got static from a user for moderating posts wishing physical harm on people. At CF, you'd get public complaints from users about, say, not removing links to the Onion. (I once had a link to an Onion article deleted for "blasphemy".)

Also, CF has a lot less public moderation, which has the side-effect that people have no fucking clue how the staff understand the rules. Here, we try to lock threads with messages saying "this was not okay"; I think Hugo was the pioneer of this, and it works excellently. People browse the thread and say "okay, this is what the mods mean when they talk about flaming". Then it rolls off the page. No harm done, but everyone has a clearer idea of what's wrong.

On CF, a lot of threads just disappear, with no explanation given. That's... bad. And it means that users have very little in the way of opportunities to learn.

crazyfingers

Hints of what a theocracy would be like?

Lanakila

I have also been staff at both places. I agree with Seebs here about workload. I moderated GA, News, and Protestant forums, and even the sex forum for awhile. With homosexuality not allowed to be discussed, and calling someone a jerk not allowed over there--its constant work. I felt like I parented the members over there, which is sad since most are adults in the forums I moderated.

Here was much easier, even though I took on II's semi-equivelant to GA. There were very few reports, and I felt free to join in the fray as a member and post without thinking I should hide my identitiy as a moderator.

edited to correct a spelling error

rockNhardplace

The work the CF mods have, and depending on what forums they moderate, is sustantial. However, the work is mostly due to the myriad of rules CF has which impose a morality which frankly not "all Christians" view the same.

For example, it has been discussed that the word "sucks" be added to the censor. Apparently by saying this you are promoting oral sex or something, and everyone knows Christians don't do THAT. Can you imagine being warned for saying, 'this really sucks'! I say this almost daily, as it is my preferred description of what bites...uh, blows...uh, nevermind. At any rate, when you try to filter out what the majority (or the noisy) think is wrong, then people are warned or banned for things they don't understand or agree with. Then to not be willing to politely desribe what the problem is, then it is even more aggravating.

But then again, it is their ball so they can make or change the rules all they want to.

TheBear

Hey, Lana! :wave:

Good to see you. I hope all is well.