-
Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
-
FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!
If you could change just one thing about Freeones; what would it be?
- Thread starter McRocket
- Start date
I thought Freeones management would like it. Free, healthy criticism.
I'll start.
I think that bannings should be by vote of Freeone's members. Either all members or all those members with over 100 posts or something. No offense to the mods. But I believe in democracy in (almost) all things.
I'll start.
I think that bannings should be by vote of Freeone's members. Either all members or all those members with over 100 posts or something. No offense to the mods. But I believe in democracy in (almost) all things.
mcrocket consider that in every democracy there are certain services thatmcrocket said:
are perfoming certain actions!
like the law courts for example!when someone is being judged there is no
voting from the other people if he is innocent or guilty!!!
imagine that this judges in here , are the mods!
the have full authority to ban a member , even if we(the members) dont
agree with that!!!
i d like the idea to be a vote for members that are good posters , but not for
the members that are just spamming!!!! :hatsoff:
agggelos21 said:
Well, then like I said. All those members with over a certain amount of posts. Yeah, spammers or part timers probably should not have a vote.
Or...let the mods ban whom ever they feel they should. They are the police of the site and sometimes they feel something has to be done right away.
But then they could tell the board the reasons for the ban and then the loyal members could vote for reinstatement if they wanted.
And if the original mod who did hte bannig has no objection - the ban is reversed or the lehgth of it is shortened.
Last edited:
fair enough!!!mcrocket said:
at least for me!!! :thumbsup:
i totally agree, but i would work rep pwer into this somehow, dont go by posts, decide by rep power.
if a member has over 4 or 5 rep power then ask people with over 10 rep power if this person should be banned and for how long. Sort of like a cabinet of freeones, its great that the mods have power as they all use it very well, but a past one abused that power.
btw, great topic mcrocket
if a member has over 4 or 5 rep power then ask people with over 10 rep power if this person should be banned and for how long. Sort of like a cabinet of freeones, its great that the mods have power as they all use it very well, but a past one abused that power.
btw, great topic mcrocket
yep!!!juballs said:
better with rep!!!that would mean that this person is supported by the other members!!!
:thumbsup:
you guys are making some compelling arguments here. however, i doubt that post count or rep power can guarantee an unbiased judgement concerning the banning of a member.
and you wouldn't want to turn this board into a class society. there have already been many issues concerning rep power and the abuse of it, so i don't think it'd be smart to give the "rep-monsters" even more extra power on this board. if you really wanna keep it all-democratic, it's either everyone or no one - and i don't think that EVERYONE would work on a reasonable level...
but here's another suggestion: no SINGLE moderator may ban a member. they should all confer about the pros and contras and then the majority decides. how does that sound ?
and you wouldn't want to turn this board into a class society. there have already been many issues concerning rep power and the abuse of it, so i don't think it'd be smart to give the "rep-monsters" even more extra power on this board. if you really wanna keep it all-democratic, it's either everyone or no one - and i don't think that EVERYONE would work on a reasonable level...
but here's another suggestion: no SINGLE moderator may ban a member. they should all confer about the pros and contras and then the majority decides. how does that sound ?
BNF
Ex-SuperMod
The reasons for a ban are not always apparent to the membership - there are often plenty of things going on behind the scenes, with IPs, with PMs and such. I also do not think that an explanation is necessary. Sometimes, maybe, however, an explanation can serve as an example.
c17000 members, and a few hundred or so regular posters. I don't think that any of the current mods have ever demonstrated mistrust, abuse of power or heavy handedness. I think that a general vote of such issues disrupts the board, can be based on unspecific knowledge and creates cliques, as we have seen before.
FWIW We do confer and inform each other on all bans. We also monitor certain threads, posts and maybe members in our own interactive forum.
c17000 members, and a few hundred or so regular posters. I don't think that any of the current mods have ever demonstrated mistrust, abuse of power or heavy handedness. I think that a general vote of such issues disrupts the board, can be based on unspecific knowledge and creates cliques, as we have seen before.
FWIW We do confer and inform each other on all bans. We also monitor certain threads, posts and maybe members in our own interactive forum.
BNF said:
i agree. another good reason why the banning should be moderator business only !
BNF said:
i don't know about the current mods, since i've only just returned to Freeones, but we certainly had some incidents in the past, if you can remember.
BNF said:
that's good to hear, BNF, and i already figured so. i merely wanted to suggest that it should a MUST to confer with ALL the other mods, before a member gets banned.
Well, I hate to disagree with you Leto II but...
I think that if rules are applied to the masses - then they have to be agreed to by the masses. If a law is passed in a democracy that the majority does not want - then they have the power to reverse that law.
The same here. Now, I am not stupid enough to think that this is a democracy. It is a business where one or more people profit (at least that is what I assume).
But...I still think it would be better if the members have the final say who stays and who goes. We are the ones that are directly affected by what the members say - so we should be able to decide for ourselves whether we want them around or not.
Now for matters that could potentially get this site into financial or legal trouble - then I have no problem with a ban.
But when the ban is strictly because someone is saying something that is just not agreeable and has nothing to do with legalities or business - then the members should decide.
I do not see why the mods would object to that?
And there is the good point about someone maybe ganging up on a member in a vote. But if the majority of loyal members want someone gone - why should that person not be banned. And if they want him/her back (for other then legal/financial reasons) why should they not be allowed back?
And I think Juballs is right (thanks for the compliment btw) that it should be by rep, not posts. Rep must be given by the masses. It is MUCH harder to build up good rep without support from many people. But it is easy to just post at will and get a higher total.
I think that if rules are applied to the masses - then they have to be agreed to by the masses. If a law is passed in a democracy that the majority does not want - then they have the power to reverse that law.
The same here. Now, I am not stupid enough to think that this is a democracy. It is a business where one or more people profit (at least that is what I assume).
But...I still think it would be better if the members have the final say who stays and who goes. We are the ones that are directly affected by what the members say - so we should be able to decide for ourselves whether we want them around or not.
Now for matters that could potentially get this site into financial or legal trouble - then I have no problem with a ban.
But when the ban is strictly because someone is saying something that is just not agreeable and has nothing to do with legalities or business - then the members should decide.
I do not see why the mods would object to that?
And there is the good point about someone maybe ganging up on a member in a vote. But if the majority of loyal members want someone gone - why should that person not be banned. And if they want him/her back (for other then legal/financial reasons) why should they not be allowed back?
And I think Juballs is right (thanks for the compliment btw) that it should be by rep, not posts. Rep must be given by the masses. It is MUCH harder to build up good rep without support from many people. But it is easy to just post at will and get a higher total.
Last edited:
I think a board with members that vote to ban, would end up being a very stagnant board indeed. It would be weighed down but to much Beurocracy, and we all know the big B-word only feeds on power.
Just have faith in the mods and confidence in yourself, through your words and actions. IF there were a reason to change Freeones, I'm sure we could come together once to solve a problem. Otherwise this is an open forum and needs the independent voices of it's memberes. 1000 voices screaming in the night is life, 1 voice staying quiet for everyone is a goverment. :2 cents: IMO
Just have faith in the mods and confidence in yourself, through your words and actions. IF there were a reason to change Freeones, I'm sure we could come together once to solve a problem. Otherwise this is an open forum and needs the independent voices of it's memberes. 1000 voices screaming in the night is life, 1 voice staying quiet for everyone is a goverment. :2 cents: IMO
mcrocket, i'd LOVE to have it managed the way you described it, i just don't believe it's possible. look, we have THOUSANDS of members here. how many would really care whether a member gets banned or not - seriously ? okay, let's take those away and continue with the rest, those who care about these things. still some THOUSANDS left ! it'd take weeks to decide whether the member in question should be banned or not.
"unrealistic", i can already hear you say, and i totally agree with you ! most probably only a few hundred would actually give their vote, but here exactly is the problem ! are those few hundreds (and i think that number is still too high) representative for Freeones ? i don't think so ! wich brings us to the point you've already mentioned: only the well-respected members should be allowed to vote for a ban. but this is everything else but democratic, isn't it ?! what if the majority of the newbies absolutely disagrees with the decision of our most loyal members ? doesn't their opinion count, too ?!
and one more thing ! yes, reps are given by the masses, but for what ? sure we give away rep for a smart post or suggestion, but i'm pretty sure that many people here get their reps for their contributions - which is posting porn stuff ! this IS, after all, a porn board, not politics. sometimes (and not too seldomly) we even give away rep for NOTHING at all. you can't imagine how many "random rep bumps" i got in my list. so i don't think that rep power is, generally speaking, a good benchmark for proper judgement - which is exactly what we need if we're to decide about the future of a member.
btw, i'm pretty sure that the big members on Freeones already have a certain influence on a mod's decision. which is absolutely natural IMO.
:2 cents:
"unrealistic", i can already hear you say, and i totally agree with you ! most probably only a few hundred would actually give their vote, but here exactly is the problem ! are those few hundreds (and i think that number is still too high) representative for Freeones ? i don't think so ! wich brings us to the point you've already mentioned: only the well-respected members should be allowed to vote for a ban. but this is everything else but democratic, isn't it ?! what if the majority of the newbies absolutely disagrees with the decision of our most loyal members ? doesn't their opinion count, too ?!
and one more thing ! yes, reps are given by the masses, but for what ? sure we give away rep for a smart post or suggestion, but i'm pretty sure that many people here get their reps for their contributions - which is posting porn stuff ! this IS, after all, a porn board, not politics. sometimes (and not too seldomly) we even give away rep for NOTHING at all. you can't imagine how many "random rep bumps" i got in my list. so i don't think that rep power is, generally speaking, a good benchmark for proper judgement - which is exactly what we need if we're to decide about the future of a member.
btw, i'm pretty sure that the big members on Freeones already have a certain influence on a mod's decision. which is absolutely natural IMO.
:2 cents:
Last edited:
LetoII said:
Well, if you look like and indeed, are your sig...you are hired my beloved Queen.
And if you are a guy....I'll make you...hmmm....my minister of common sense. And your sig lady will be YOUR queen (of sorts)...I will command her. And then she will slap my face and I will say to you; 'Sorry man. She doesn't like being ordered around. Any one else strike your fancy?'
But then she will speak up and say; 'I did not say I didn't want him. I just don't like being ordered.'
And then I will say; 'Well......'
ANd she will say; 'I will be his consort.'
And it will be done. You will be my minister of common sense (which is just below my minister of War as the most important minister) and you will have Linda O'Neil as your consort.
Last edited:
juballs said:
LOL. You having great common sense and physical strength you would be my head of security. My personal bodyguard. And my personal trainer.
And your consort would either be Jill Kelly or I will order Jenna Jameson to look like she did 6 years ago - and she will be your consort.
Similar threads
