ernest_t_bass;1049228 wrote:If we would want our HS forums to pick up, to include more local chatter from around the state, then an onslaught of new members is definitely what we would need.

sleeper;1049227 wrote:giveupalready.com

Admittedly, this site is basically dead now, but I moderated it about 8-9 years ago at the height of its popularity. I went by the user name "clone".

ernest_t_bass;1049228 wrote:If we would want our HS forums to pick up, to include more local chatter from around the state, then an onslaught of new members is definitely what we would need.

justincredible;1049230 wrote:Ahh, gotcha. I'll take your post as bull ****, then.

That's unfortunate, though. I wouldn't be opposed to having a vote for moderators assuming you could post proof of personal experience with it working well on a large site.

sleeper;1049235 wrote:?

I'm not sure I'm following. Does that link not work? I'm at work so I can't access that forum at the moment, so maybe the link has changed slightly.

justincredible;1049230 wrote:Ahh, gotcha. I'll take your post as bull shit, then.

That's unfortunate, though. I wouldn't be opposed to having a vote for moderators assuming you could post proof of personal experience with it working well on a large site.

ernest_t_bass;1049232 wrote:Link did not work.

justincredible;1049234 wrote:When I talk about "new members" I am mostly talking about people that will post in Serious Business.

But yeah, getting new members to post in the HS forum is always a goal. It just seems that most of those posters stay to the HS forums.

LJ;1049241 wrote:I'm on a few large sites, mainly Offtopic.com, and the members have absolutely no say in who moderates. Sometimes if a new subforum is added, the main posters in that subforum will get a say in who become the mod, but otherwise it's totally up to the site admins. I've never had a problem on there. The only people who do are the ones who think it's cool to contact poster's employers and such.

There are currently 1000 members browsing out of 237,000 reigstered names with 80,000 unique active members in the last 30 days.

sleeper;1049250 wrote:I don't mean to say the members have a 'vote' in who moderates what, but merely the administrators of the forum actually go through an evaluation process using member feedback. I know there was plenty of times where moderators were called out for handling a situation incorrectly, and that moderator was removed for their misconduct. Also, moderators were held to a higher standard and did not add to pissing matches NO MATTER WHAT. That is not upheld here. Attitude reflects leadership.

ernest_t_bass;1049245 wrote:That is the only thing that I, personally, wish this site had... more posters from my area. So we could talk HS sports, whatever. Guess I'll have to go out and advertise. I did bring Bradmaynard here!

justincredible;1049234 wrote:When I talk about "new members" I am mostly talking about people that will post in Serious Business.

But yeah, getting new members to post in the HS forum is always a goal. It just seems that most of those posters stay to the HS forums.

ytownfootball;1049260 wrote:Why the desire for new Serious Business posters? I guess I don't see the difference.

ytownfootball;1049260 wrote:Why the desire for new Serious Business posters? I guess I don't see the difference.

justincredible;1049264 wrote:Without new members everyone will eventually get bored with everyone else. Also, more revenue.

LJ;1049255 wrote:Well the mods of the main forums on OT are actually paid, so they are evaluated all the time. They also engage in discussions and pissing matches all the time. They just don't break the rules of contacting ppl IRL, or using race against someone in a discussion.

justincredible;1049256 wrote:Stuff like that is going to require current members recruiting new members. I don't have the funds to advertise in all the areas of the state so it would have to be a grassroots kind of thing.

Buying advertising at the various state tournaments would be nice, too, but I have no idea if I could afford it.

sleeper;1049274 wrote:Also, removing the prompt that requires people to sign in after viewing so many posts needs to be removed. It sounds like a good idea in practice, but you want to encourage as much page views as possible. Eventually, those people might find a topic of great interest that they are so enthralled about they will actually sign up. Having the prompt discourages people from actually having time to view the forum enough to want to join. Look at JJHuddle, a lot of people lurked there before actually joining, and I believe that allowing lurking adds to the quality of the forum and it should not be discouraged.

sleeper;1049274 wrote:I'm not familiar with OT. They are a much larger site so they can handle a few rogue moderators. This site is too small and moderators are way more visible to new members. Getting involved in a pissing match does little to encourage new users to click the join button, much less getting them to stay and actually post.

Also, removing the prompt that requires people to sign in after viewing so many posts needs to be removed. It sounds like a good idea in practice, but you want to encourage as much page views as possible. Eventually, those people might find a topic of great interest that they are so enthralled about they will actually sign up. Having the prompt discourages people from actually having time to view the forum enough to want to join. Look at JJHuddle, a lot of people lurked there before actually joining, and I believe that allowing lurking adds to the quality of the forum and it should not be discouraged.

queencitybuckeye;1049275 wrote:I don't see the problem as inconsistent moderation, I see the issue as a lack of moderation.

sleeper;1049282 wrote:Disagreements generate discussion, period.

queencitybuckeye;1049290 wrote:Respectful disagreements do, absolutely.