Board ownership

i been tryin to start one but jj is in mellow form and hi dere is eastery and tbh it's a dead loss.

seems like it's over and i'm sad

xp (for instance)

for example, a mod might temp ban someone who spent 24 hours posting the same picture over and over on discussions that other people were clearly interested in having

― Wood shavings! Laughing out loud! (HI DERE), Monday, 5 April 2010 19:03 (29 minutes ago)

I'm not questioning this course of action, but I'd be curious as to whether there are any repercussions on, say, a subboard mod that went on a spree of blatant and petulant abuse of their powers. Seems a more serious issue than posting an image to a few threads.

Generally speaking, you could expect to see that subboard mod have their powers taken away and someone else put in their place.

To be more specific- I'm aware that subboards have historically played fast and loose in a way that sitewide mods can't, but 'Site New Answers' has changed the whole dynamic imo and I'm just curious as to what kind of rules we're looking at here.

xp fairy nuff- I wasn't sure that that had happened or w/e. Hail enbb i for one bow to our new etc

It does depend to a large degree on the subboard; for example, lol mod abuse was very much a cornerstone to noise board interaction, so you would have to do something particularly egregious and possibly illegal in order to be a noise board mod and have your powers taken away from you (like, for example, hacking the board to steal a sitemod's credentials).

i'll try my best not to do that on 'I Love Football' (when you get around to creating it), then.

i still don't know why i'm not an IRE mod

if it ever becomes I Hate Everything again you should be

; )

Since people have contributed to the servers on the entire site, it seems a little wrong for someone to 'own' one board, non?

I'm not questioning this course of action, but I'd be curious as to whether there are any repercussions on, say, a subboard mod that went on a spree of blatant and petulant abuse of their powers. Seems a more serious issue than posting an image to a few threads.

― Jesse James Woods (darraghmac), Monday, April 5, 2010 2:35 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

in the end I don't think that kate locking/deleting a thread on ILTMI is a "serious issue," it's just childish and frustrating that she did it because she didn't want to face up to someone questioning her beliefs. but I'd rather let kate have her forum where she feels she can express herself freely than do something that would run her off.

^^^^make curt1s a site mod

xp poll

what a gay message board mod

would like to petition that darraghmac never be appointed I Love Football mod.

you'll get yours.

'give' de subjectivisten to kate

but don't tell any of the dutchies beforehand

you'll get yours.

my borad? sweet.

although tbh it would likely make cogh look like a thriving metropolis so i think i'll pass.

77 was and is owned by the people

( <3 COGH btw )

but I'd rather let kate have her forum where she feels she can express herself freely than do something that would run her off.

Since people have contributed to the servers on the entire site, it seems a little wrong for someone to 'own' one board, non?

― Il suffit de ne pas l'envier (Michael White), Monday, April 5, 2010 7:56 PM (1 hour ago)

i totes agree with this, and im all against the principal of board ownership but like, at the same time, lolbanning etc maybe requires like a partic type of ownership and i think like no boys allowed etc

the noize board, for example, is owned by j0n willi@ms

I definitely think ownership is the wrong word to describe this thing -- "custodianship" is more like it.

borad curator

tbh no matter how u feel abt this theres no way to stop ppl thinking they own the place

http://bartsblackboard.com/files/2009/11/The-Simpsons-06x19-Lisas-Wedding.jpg

"strut around" is cute imo

thats like the most surmounter post ever to have been not posted by surmounter imo

the way i personally see it is thus: Nobody owns a thread, nobody owns a board, the only people who own ILX are those who pay for it's servers. As long as everybody acts decent, it's cool. But even boards specifically made for people (77, 1p3, TMI, The Cape, heck I had the underused ILG Players Club) are not those people's boards. Mods aren't usurping anyone's power, they're serving to make an attempt to keep the dialogue neutral and open and posi and they'll prune anything/one required to keep that the status quo, up to and including board and site mods.

but i'm just a guy

^^^this is fine and all but its kinda boring, mod terrorism on the subboards can b kinda fun. just feel like iltmi is a special case bc it has a specifici function wrt things ppl obviously wanna have real convs abt that other ppl might wanna avoid bc of nsfw/squeamish/prudishness w/e

i owned a board once. i gave it away. we cool.

plax is right, no one talks about anything very serious on 1p3 and no one gets seriously butthurt when they are occasionally lolbanned or their threads are locked. on the other hand, for whatever reason, people really were into discussing the color of their poop, so kate's totaliatarian leanings are a little less endearing and she shouldn't be a mod unless she can chill out a little

"Mod terrorism" as practiced on IRE, IP3, ITR, etc still promotes and encourages discourse and, as such, isn't contradictory towards anything Forks said.

I disagree that donating money buys you a stake in ILX btw.

serving to make an attempt to keep the dialogue neutral and open and posi

not even sure about this as a stated aim tbph

nega 4 life

I disagree that donating money buys you a stake in ILX btw

Damn straight and I don't feel it shd really be brought up to back any opinion ever

^ did not give

ilx plc.

iirc the last fundraiser we had happened real fast and some people who wanted to contribute didn't get a chance, but those issues aside it's an irrelevance - ILX has always been much more than the sum of the regrettably necessary dirty finance it occasionally has to dabble with

ILX IS A FEELING

You have tried to insert a duplicate message.

v did not give either, tbf v

oh i missed your first ^ lol

"You have tried to insert a duplicate message"

has potential as a meme, with the right decisions made early on in the effort