Issues Arising from Staking

[henrik777]

Didn't realise that posting a staking thread was guaranteed to give you what you want, must have missed that.

Sandy

[The Camel]

i assume the online section would be modded too right?

Obv

[tikay]

blonde have always said they do not take responsibility for staking Threads. Essentially, the (existing) Mods action in such threads is limited to flaming & the like, & of course policing the "300 Posts" rule & get-arounds.

I don't really see how Mods, or blonde itself, could stop a self-appointed group of Members from being formed, & offering a view on staking threads.

[RED-DOG]

Having three would be perfect really.

You must also remember that a SINGLE Mod would get absolutely butchered in the event of a contentious decision. Not that such a thing is ever likely, obv.

It would have to be policed with an iron fist.

Mods decision final, no arguments.

If you don't agree with that, you lose posting rights on the staking board.

How will that be enforced?

[The Camel]

I'm making this up as I go along.

I'm not sure if it is feasible or workable or whatever.

I just think having a mod to quickly look at staking requests and help people make better ones is a good idea.

I don't think Alex would argue his request today falls a little way short of what is acceptable!

Arbiting in disputes might not be in their remit, but again would solve alot of problems.

[smashedagain]

Countless people posted sensibly along the lines of 'caveat emptor' etc. Keys wasn't appointed so he can critique staking posts from any angle he wants, just like the rest of us.

Truly ridic idea to look to appoint judges/mods to police this board specifically

Existing mods approach is plenty - ie someone does something that obviously harms the community, ban them from Blonde

A bunch of petty fascistic rulings over the minutiae within staking requests does not advance the place at all

Whatever else, it isn't a "truly ridic" idea.

I don't mind either way if Mods are implemented or not for the staking board but it's most definitely not a truly ridic idea by any means.

I agreed with glens post until Keith posted that... Confusedagain

I like it the way it is let people sell at 70/30 if they can, let people flame away.

[The Camel]

Having three would be perfect really.

You must also remember that a SINGLE Mod would get absolutely butchered in the event of a contentious decision. Not that such a thing is ever likely, obv.

It would have to be policed with an iron fist.

Mods decision final, no arguments.

If you don't agree with that, you lose posting rights on the staking board.

How will that be enforced?

What do you mean?

Surely there is an option in the software for stopping someone posting on a specific board?

[nirvana]

blonde have always said they do not take responsibility for staking Threads. Essentially, the (existing) Mods action in such threads is limited to flaming & the like, & of course policing the "300 Posts" rule & get-arounds.

I don't really see how Mods, or blonde itself, could stop a self-appointed group of Members from being formed, & offering a view on staking threads.

Hint taken, I've ordered shirts

[pleno1]

I'm making this up as I go along.

I'm not sure if it is feasible or workable or whatever.

I just think having a mod to quickly look at staking requests and help people make better ones is a good idea.

I don't think Alex would argue his request today falls a little way short of what is acceptable!

Arbiting in disputes might not be in their remit, but again would solve alot of problems.

but why shouldnt it be acceptable, he has the reputation and required posts and obviously the ability. We know him, trust him and think he will be profitable. Someone random isn't going to come along and buy, they can't even do it!


If its about protecting blonde then they should remove the 300 post cap if they want mods, otherwise its pointless.

[TightEnd]

I don't think Alex would argue his request today falls a little way short of what is acceptable!

Not acceptable to you, but it self polices

If its not acceptable to others, no one buys a piece, Alex has to do something different next time

We all know that, we don't need a "mod" to tell us that

[The Camel]

Countless people posted sensibly along the lines of 'caveat emptor' etc. Keys wasn't appointed so he can critique staking posts from any angle he wants, just like the rest of us.

Truly ridic idea to look to appoint judges/mods to police this board specifically

Existing mods approach is plenty - ie someone does something that obviously harms the community, ban them from Blonde

A bunch of petty fascistic rulings over the minutiae within staking requests does not advance the place at all

Whatever else, it isn't a "truly ridic" idea.

I don't mind either way if Mods are implemented or not for the staking board but it's most definitely not a truly ridic idea by any means.

I agreed with glens post until Keith posted that... Confusedagain

I like it the way it is let people sell at 70/30 if they can, let people flame away.

I doubt it would be the Mods job to decide on whether a price is fair or not.

[RED-DOG]

Having three would be perfect really.

You must also remember that a SINGLE Mod would get absolutely butchered in the event of a contentious decision. Not that such a thing is ever likely, obv.

It would have to be policed with an iron fist.

Mods decision final, no arguments.

If you don't agree with that, you lose posting rights on the staking board.

How will that be enforced?

What do you mean?

Surely there is an option in the software for stopping someone posting on a specific board?

So what if they post the same thing on a different board?

[tikay]

I'm making this up as I go along.

I'm not sure if it is feasible or workable or whatever.

I just think having a mod to quickly look at staking requests and help people make better ones is a good idea.

I don't think Alex would argue his request today falls a little way short of what is acceptable!

Arbiting in disputes might not be in their remit, but again would solve alot of problems.

Very probably, yes, but that already happens, Keith. As it happens, it mostly falls to James Keys at present, because he chose to put himself out there (which has helped improve the OP's), but there is abso nothing to stop anyone else having their say under the present system. Anyone who wishes to comment on the quality of the OP can.

Bear in mind, a SBM's would not, in truth, have any power as such, except by the power of dissuasion & adverse comment.

[nirvana]

I'm making this up as I go along.

I'm not sure if it is feasible or workable or whatever.

I just think having a mod to quickly look at staking requests and help people make better ones is a good idea.

I don't think Alex would argue his request today falls a little way short of what is acceptable!

Arbiting in disputes might not be in their remit, but again would solve alot of problems.

Alex's request is perfectly acceptable. This is why the concept of modding it formally is a truly ridic idea

[Skippy]

Countless people posted sensibly along the lines of 'caveat emptor' etc. Keys wasn't appointed so he can critique staking posts from any angle he wants, just like the rest of us.

Truly ridic idea to look to appoint judges/mods to police this board specifically

Existing mods approach is plenty - ie someone does something that obviously harms the community, ban them from Blonde

A bunch of petty fascistic rulings over the minutiae within staking requests does not advance the place at all

+1.

The current system works fine. People can buy if they want to. People can try and sell however they like. Other people can criticise if they feel it's out of line. At the end of the day it's a service provided for buyers and sellers, and if they are happy doing business, it's no one else's business.

If you think a staking request is a scam, then by all means say so, but if nobody cares and buys anyway, don't try and get a mod involved.