Does anyone actually meta-moderate regularly? I just did it for the first time in a very long time (year maybe? more?), and I was given ten posts ranging in date from 2002 to last week.

2002? If I metamod it unfair, will it actually be demodded and change the person's karma three years later?

Btw, is it sad that even with them all turned to LGs I can tell who posted most of them?

Does anyone actually meta-moderate regularly?

You know...
I asked this very question of Phillip the other week.

He agreed that it was a very good question.

I meta-moderate daily.

When i meta-moderate, most of the moderations in question are rather recent. When i've seen a moderation on an old post, i suspect that the moderation may be far newer than the original comment; i think perhaps the moderator dug deep into old threads to reward or slap a particular member. But i have know way of knowing.

I think it takes considerably more than one meta-moderation of "unfair" to have an impact on the moderator. But i'm not clear how this works. I suspect this effects the moderator, and i don't think any posts will actually be "demodded", as you suggest. I believe that somebody whose activity is frequently considered "unfair" will be less likely to gain the ability to moderate in the future. The Moderation and Meta-Moderation instructions do not explicitly state a formula.

is it sad that even with them all turned to LGs I can tell who posted most of them?

Sad? If you are reading the comments often enough to recognize their authors, then perhaps it's because you find this place interesting. That's not sad. That's sort of comforting, like finding a pub/coffeeshop/parkbench that you enjoy visiting, right?

In Response to Teledildonix (#25722):

I've noticed the old metamods recently, but it had been a while since I did that thing frequently. I certainly don't think that those posts got modded recently. I do think it has to do with the dearth of moderation going on throughout. As I pointed out
recently [goats.com], old conversations seem to get modded to hell - every post has a mod back when honeydew fell out of the sky. Now we're luck to get 5 mods in 100. I don't know exactly how the formula works, but I think maybe the ratio of frequent users to neverusers has gone down such that people that get mod points that will actually mod has decreased. This means less mods to meta mod. For some reason, this means that the ancient pool of mods is brought up?

There's also the theory that the quality of posts has gone down to reduce moderation . . .

Also, lemons tend to get modded less just because, and we're mostly old lemons now . . .

Still, even nonuseless noobs seem to be getting less mod. . .

Maybe something needs to be reset or some old users need to be removed from the mod squad.

I propose we all start back at 0 karma.

Because this attempt to become CWS is not working out.

I mean, WTF?

In Response to deerboy (#25727):

Maybe in the old days, there were fewer threads, and thus a higher ratio of moderators to posts, resulting in all that karma ebullience. Maybe nowadays there's a much higher number of conversation participants who visit frequently and make idle banter which isn't earning as many mod-points. I suppose that might support your conjecture that "the quality of posts has [theoretically] gone down", but i see it as more of a simple issue of scale.

If there are more members now, then hopefully there is a proportional increase in Premium and Super-Premium members correspondingly. Wouldn't that be awesome?!

It's true that i'm less likely to give points to a Sentient Citrus and more to a newbie, because i feel like it helps reinforce the system for the less experienced folks, and the veterans don't need as much stroking (or poking). But to be fair, i will give an up-mod to an especially deserving post no matter who wrote it, even if i'm pretty certain that they are already maxed-out at 50 karma-- because that, too, reinforces the system for less experienced observers. I hope that this is all in the spirit of what Phillip and Jon intended when they set up and tweaked the structure of this place.

I'd be happy to down-mod you the next time i have Moderator capability, with the intent of pushing you back down to Cold War Supervillainry, if that's what you truly desire. But there would be several problems with this:

• An inexperienced onlooker would see those "undeserved" moderations and thus be unenlightened about the true intent of the system.
• You are sufficiently funny, clever, awesome, intriguing, et cetera, to quickly garner fresh up-mods, and i suspect you'd be a Citrus again in no time.
• People who meta-moderate might see my "unfair" mods on your comments, and thus i would have a theoretical karma-backlash.
• The Cold War is supposed to be over, and fuckers who try to perpetuate some Cold War Redux (i'm looking at you, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Cheney!) are just too evil. You wouldn't want to be associated with those smegheads, would you?

So, if you don't mind my asking, why do you crave SuperVillain status so much? Just a whim? Or is there some particular reason?

In Response to deerboy (#25727):

I've been trying to do my part to up the level of moderation. I think I've had mod points 4 times in about a month. This week I had them twice in a row - like, I used them up and the next day I had 5.

I've also been doing my part to get you back down to Cold War Supervillain. Because, well, honestly there's not much else to do with my mod points a lot of the time.

The problem is, if it's a thread I didn't post in, half the time it's because I'm so uninterested in it that nothing really strikes me as particularly good or bad.

In Response to Teledildonix (#25730):

Nah, it's just a dream I've had for a while, but Zamphir beat me to it, so I ought to give it up.

Another board I'm on has the option that site sponsors (basically, people that donate to pay for the bandwidth) can give themselves custom user titles. Thus, I spend my time over there as a "Primitive Screwhead".

Oh, and I think I've seen the same set of metamods turn up about three times now. It makes me feel a bit of a berk.

In Response to deerboy (#25743):

Just because Zamphir was first (well, second actually, because Katie was first, as far as we know) that doesn't mean you should give up. After all, you could try to do it with more pizzaz than they have. Although, maybe that's no consolation.

If it would make you feel any better, we could all henceforth refer to you as a ColdWar SuperVillain of your choice. Which would you prefer? Kruschev, the most flamboyant? Reagan, the most senile? Goss, the most sociopathological? Kissinger, the most ironic?

I'd be happy to start calling you "Kissinger" from now on. It shortens nicely to "Kissi", Baby!

In Response to Teledildonix (#25764):

Maybe James Watt? Or is he not really 'super'? I can't tell.

Who the hell is Katie? How do you know all of these people by their first names?

Cheers,

Donald

In Response to deerboy (#25772):

I remember the names which specifically came up in conversation, particularly when they've been mentioned repeatedly [goats.com] and/or as the actual point [goats.com] of discussion.

Watt was a SuperVillain, although i saw his position as only vaguely indirectly related to the Cold War, and more as simply one of the country's biggest ass-hats at the time. But i think you've chosen wisely, especially when you consider he resigned over the whole "We have every kind of mix you can have.  I have a black, I have a woman, two Jews and a cripple. [geocities.com]" line. It's timeless.

I suppose an affinity for Earth Sciences would influence your ironic choice. I shall now try to remember to refer to you properly as the SuperVillain of the Interior, Andrew ;-P

I always meta-mod. When I get mod points, I try to find old threads that are dead and that I have read. So sometimes I will mod some very old postings.

I think it is a good idea to meta-mod because that way you can stop blatent abuse of moderators. I try not disagree to often. I work to the rule of 'is that a valid opinion' as opposed to 'is that my opnion'.

As to the qustion of it's worth it, I say 'sodomy non sapiens' (or something like that).

In Response to deerboy (#25727):

I just let two mod points expire... not sure why. A big part of it may be that I'm posting in the threads that I find most interesting, and don't seem to find much that is moderatable in other threads.

I do meta-mod most days. For about a week I was meta-modding the same ten posts, half of which were over a year old. I thought that maybe the system was testing me for consistancy :-)

But I guess it doesn't really matter. We don't get the kinds of trolls that slashdot does and these forums of are kinda low-volume, so there isn't much pressure to seperate the cream from the crap.

In Response to 3mj4y (#25780):

We don't get the kinds of trolls that slashdot does

Come over here and sit under my bridge. Meg Mucklebones thinks you're a fine, fat, yummy boy, Jack.

[I totally forgot that Meg was played by Robert Picardo, until i looked her up on IMdB just now. What incredible make-up in that movie!]

In Response to Teledildonix (#25782):

"-1, Incoherent" ?!?

Come on, people! That reference wasn't even very obscure. How the hell does it qualify as "Incoherent"?

Monsieur Drôle Trolly n'est pas amusé!

I meta-mod all the time. Which is probably one of the reasons I never feel a compulsion to moderate. (Incidentally, I get mod points all the fucking time. I have four now, for that matter.)

And given that most of the posts I end up metamodding I have read recently, it's usually not hard to tell whose it was. Although the freebies from Graham are scarce nowadays.

In Response to Teledildonix (#25784):

I thought you liked to take it up the ass.

There's a reference*subject/post ratio that you cannot exceed.

In Response to deerboy (#25802):

Maybe so, but there's also an irresistible temptation to refer when most pertinent.

The movie is twenty years old-- almost a "classic", really-- and directed by the same person who produced BladeRunner, Thelma and Louise, Someone to Watch Over Me, and a zillion other films that i thought had some appeal to people here. I guess you could argue that it just makes me look old when i mention it; but then again, Fear and Loathing, Dune, HHGG, and other titles pop up in conversation here frequently, despite their age. The actor starred in a television series mentioned on several occasions also. Perhaps i just can't seem to guage people's notions of relevance.

As for the "up the ass" topic, i consider that to be pleasurable and healthful, whereas i think that inscrutable down-mod was a karmic Rochambeau. Boo hoo hoo hoo, etc.

Today - for the first time ever - I got meta-moderation privileges. I feel kind of special now.

In Response to GeminiCrash (#25895):

Meta-moderation privileges become available to everyone every day at midnight EST, don't they? Did you mean to say that you got moderator privileges? Or are you really, truly, exceptionally special (in the sense that you are the first person who's mentioned not always having the ability to meta-moderate)?

In Response to Teledildonix (#25899):

It's very possible that I just kept missing the "click here to meta-moderate" sentence. I; however; would like to believe that it was the first time that it came up. Then again, if I'm going to feel like a moron I should just get it all out of the way at once.

In Response to GeminiCrash (#25895):

Today - for the first time ever - I got posting privileges. I feel kind of special now.

What to do, what to do . . .

In Response to Teledildonix (#25784):

Now that is what meta-moderation is supposed to correct: if any asshats are trying to F Tele* in the A (strictly the in the metaphorical sense), constant "Unfair" meta-modding should prevent said asshat from becoming a moderator again.

And the circle of thread life is now complete: back on topic (meta modding), used a different word prefixed with "meta", cursed a couple of times, sneaked in a South Park reference, and discussed a poster's personal hobbies. I'll be awaiting my "+1, Awesome" moderations now.

In Response to GeminiCrash (#25901):

if I'm going to feel like a moron I should just get it all out of the way at once

One of the things i've gradually learned in this particular venue is that one's own ability to make oneself feel moronic seems to never be "all out of the way". Additionally, the ability of other people here to make one feel moronic does not necessarily diminish over time: although one might believe oneself to be adaptive to the barbs, they will forever adapt their techniques in order to find new ways to penetrate one. It's sort of like having tea with the Borg.

In this particular instance, you don't have to automatically feel moronic. There is a small chance (incredibly small, but it theoretically exists) that you may, in fact, never have had meta-moderation opportunities before now. The instructions suggest that members who do not have the ability to moderate (for reasons related to low karma, or whatever) will also probably be unable to meta-moderate.

But i can see from your Advanced level of Pedantry that you have approximately a couple dozen karma points, so that's probably not going to be a feasible excuse. Thus, i suggest that you make some wild claim about Karma Goblins or Underwear Gnomes or some other ghosts in the machine who have been secretly screwing with your forum capabilities. Phillip and Jon write excellent code, but maybe they can't help it if Bizzarro GeminiCrash or some other evil being from another dimension has been interfering with your webcomic-related programme activities.

In Response to deerboy (#25905):

How 'bout making your 1000th post?

In Response to Dynedain (#25915):

Nah, I think I'll pass on that one.