[Discussion] What do we do about testing?

[Gil Hamilton]

We should probably keep Testing the way it is. It's a good means to keep the more retarded 4Chan crap safely locked away in a bin. Warsie's actions were unprecedented and not typical, so we shouldn't cut our noises off to spite our faces by removing our garbage midden.

Though I do think for sport we can still raise a Roman style Senatorial Mob and send them through the streets of testing to rough people up a little.

[phongn]

Though I do think for sport we can still raise a Roman style Senatorial Mob and send them through the streets of testing to rough people up a little.

Senatorial oversight of Testing would nicely increased the moderator pool there, actually (granted, they already have a lot as it is, since any moderator can moderate said forum).

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Though I do think for sport we can still raise a Roman style Senatorial Mob and send them through the streets of testing to rough people up a little. :D

Senatorial oversight of Testing would nicely increased the moderator pool there, actually (granted, they already have a lot as it is, since any moderator can moderate said forum).

That's a very uniquely interesting idea--would there be any downside to making all the Senators minimods of Testing?

[Hotfoot]

Why yes, any number of nasty things could happen tomorrow. Why don't you suggest that Mike shuts down this website tomorrow? In fact, why don't we just make a motion to shut down every website that does not directly involve business? That way, we can stop child pornography on the internet altogether!

Take a clear look at the situation. In the real world we don't punish for possible acts because it is not a logical act, and last I checked, this forum is based on logic. Pre-banning is not an an acceptable or reasonable solution to this, because it doesn't resolve the problem at hand, which is stopping people from doing this sort of thing. Even if you pre-ban someone now, someone could come in, and in their first, second, or fifty-third post, do the same shit. It's not like we haven't had people come in before and pull the wool over our eyes as to their intentions until it was too late.

We stop anonymous URLs from being posted, we stop the problem. It's that simple, end of story, that's all that needs to be done.

[phongn]

Er, Hotfoot, I'm pretty sure she's conceded on her proposal already.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Mostly it was intended to be a cost/benefit analysis, Hotfoot.

[The Yosemite Bear]

yes, in response to what had been expressed in the posts just prior, it almost sounded like Hotfoot was strawmanning...

no beating up people I have a friendly but adversarial relationship with ok?

---edit---
especially for something they haven't done.

[Pablo Sanchez]

That's a very uniquely interesting idea--would there be any downside to making all the Senators minimods of Testing?

There are too many senators to effectively track who's doing what, and the difference of opinion among them guarantees that the character of policing in Testing will be wildly inconsistent depending on who happens to be scooting through. 32 cooks is a little too many for the safety of the broth. Finally, explain to me how having dozens of moderators in Testing would have prevented the Warsie flap, and how instituting such a policy now will prevent something similar from happening in the future.

I just don't see it.

Simply advising those who already have moderator privileges in Testing to pay more attention to it will be sufficient.

[Coyote]

Had I been a Mod in Testing, it would not have done any good. I saw the thread, read it, saw that people were telling Warsie what a little shit he was, and went to see for myself what the problem was-- and bingo.

[Ghost Rider]

And let's just take Pablo's bit on testing to heart. If you spot something and moderator hasn't touched it...PM one of them. We have them for a reason beyond "HAY GETS ON IM!!!"