I don't think we need many moderators. However, as we get bigger, the system is already well beyond what one person can easily manage. I'm having trouble just keeping up with the Tech section allot of days. I'd be here all night trying to read all the threads in all the forums.

A "pager" kind of button that brings threads to Cliff/Moderator attention wouln't be a bad idea at all. The pager button should only work for registered users and should log who pushed it. I like the idea of the confirm dialog. It's way to easy to click a spot when you didn't mean to.

I am a free speech maven, as you may know, but I also stand in for personal responsibility. As such, I've probably upset my share of people here. Sometimes, it's difficult to balance the two, i.e.: it's easy to censor yourself around your children, but, whenin a forum such as this, you run the risk of turning everyone else into your "children," not only censoring yourself, but others, as well.

I agree that we should be able to talk about controversial subjects in PFF, esp. in O/T. For some, rebodying a Fiero may be just as offensive to some as abortion is to others. Yet we must remain agreeable in our disagreement, as we are, as has been stated before, Cliff's guests. Unfortunately, you bicker with your friends, you bicker with your family, and you bicker with your neighbors. The last thing we need is Pennock's Fiero Police State. Or Pennock's State of Fiero Anarchy. We all need to be self moderators, so that Cliff (and whomever he may appoint) doesn't have to keep cleaning up after us.

Archie brought up a good point about the damage being done to a thread by others. Maybe in these situations Cliff (not Moderators) could edit the contents of the offending post and replace it with a *Removed by Admin* disclaimer and reopen the thread.

Finally, there may be people from time to time than need banned. Troublemakers tend to drive 'law abiding citizens' away. If this happens often enough you are left with nothing but troublemakers. This of course should remain solely at Cliff's discretion.

This way Cliff still is the one who gets to make the decision on what happens on his forum,but wouldn't have to read every single topic in order to stay on top of it all.

Tina

For example, the threads like the "FieroLisa" thread which is now 21+ pages long (just got on and I am getting caught up here first ) would be time consuming at best to go through all 21+ pages to determine if it hurting anyone specificially. There may be a couple of flame wars to begin with, however, they may have resolved themselves and the flow may be more positive then negative to humourouse as it is. Somebody that see's a flame who is not familiar with what is going on, or where it may eventually lead like this thread has overtime (positive and humourse) may inadvertently shut it down.

To me, that would be like cutting off the legs of your child who you want to start walking and when they finally do take those first steps, you stop them before they can go any further because you are afraid they will either start running, trip and hurt themselves (negative) or take up running all the time as a career move (positive).

quote Originally posted by JSocha: Does that make sense????

Yes it makes sense but you must remeber if any thread, regardless how many pages, suddenly gets "out of hand", the thread would be suspended at the point it got out of hand. Then you would just need to go to the last post and read back to see who or where it started. Also the average thread is probably closer to 2 pages and threads that require being locked or deleted can usually be identified in the first page. The other thing is if the thread is a large one, the moderator would most likely follow up with an email to Cliff and can note which page of the thread the problem is located on.

As for someone who is unfamiliar with what is going on in the thread could mistake the general attitude of those that are participating. That is why I suggested a "suspension" rather than a lock or a delete.