Member Management

dont know who he is but if you approve i approve.

I guess its a good time to restate my case from several months ago that AnaBBFan wants a thread I think more than anyone I've ever known of on BZ and by the standard of recent thread acceptance has the same warning level (and only has that by virtue of being one of many to argue with a certain cerial baiter) and less overall infractions than Prettyphile and has been here much longer than donbot has. Along those lines, I think Laffy should be allowed to start a thread for Berno as well. Just my two cents of course .

Well not wanting to devote too much time to a discussion about whom should or should not get a thread, but amount of time spent on the forum has never been the main factor in deciding whether or not someone was worthy.

It doesn't matter to me which one cares enough to listen, there's several of us. I never said the standard was all about time spent , however you did use the phrase 'for quite some time now' in your origianl post. I then mentioned time because if people with the same quality of overall conduct and contributions who have been there longer aren't equally rewarded it invalidates the relevance of said criteria. Most members however believe that what it its really about is who (that gets or asks for one to get one) is most liked by the staff and of course the majority of the threads were granted during the time frame (04-07) that the staff was most active and familiar with members. There are just as many members from 08-now that qualify based on the standard of those members, but very few have one. My case isn't that people who have been here a certain amount of time automatically get a thread, but that there be a definitive standard for what warrants a thread and the people that are okayed are that standard. The people I mentioned are the calibre of the person being considered as well as those that have gotten one recently in terms of conduct and contributions as well. People who are of the standard of people with threads should be considered equally or else its just staff saying okay to people they like or picking out of a hat and any criteria you use has no relevance whatsoever.

Well there never was one easily definable set of criteria. Several people had to wait for well over a year, some close to two years even though they contributed daily and were considered quality posters. Others got a thread in under six months. The reason for that discrepancy was never discussed nor defined. Awarding member threads has always been subjective.

I can't say I recall why AnaBBfan didn't get a thread yet, but I do know she has been part of more problematic situations than donbot. Not saying she isn't a good poster, but that has to factor into as well. As far as I know, donbot has a pretty clean record, I personally don't recall ever having to delete one of his posts.

I'm not against any of those folks getting a thread provided we get to discuss their worthiness separately, and not in one big vague discussion.

So speaking specifically about donbot here, are there any objections?

I think there are pros and cons of both, though he is definitely (like Michael* and Berno) and upstanding member. It would appear vindictive and small of me to wait until now to point out his flaws to make her look better of course so all I'll say regarding him is I approve and also suggested him with the others when I first brought this up ...

I know its a not an issue of an easy formula, my only thing is I make my inquiries not on behalf of myself but what I'm asked by several members and I just think all are entitled to an answer regardless of what that answer is. I also just want to make sure the threads don't just appear as 'this person got it because they're cool with the mods' or because Jennka, pheno, red_ed or whoever asked but some kindof standard that can be weighed at face value. I know of course its subjective and that we aren't machines, I just feel that the more measurable variables involved some would just need not apply, the fairness would be self evident and we'd be saved half the trouble for the most part.

Well the problem is that there have never been truly measurable variables involved in the process. red_ed himself was here for a very long time before he got his thread.

I'm not opposed to us having some set of rules or standards for awarding a thread, but what should they be?

Of course I probably shouldn't have thrown ed's name in as an example of someone who asked (for someone else) since the other two examples actually did ask . Of course, there's no perfect way and obviously every decent member can't have a thread, though there's more members than ever, so its only fair that post 07 members the same calibre as those with threads be weighed equally so off the top of my head...

1. Conduct - I wouldn't say perfect necessarily, but relatively upstanding. Now that Prettyphile has a thread, some would say the standard is lowered slightly there, but even though she's easily prone to debates her conduct is much better than the past. Also, I wouldn't call someone like mbinebri perfect conduct wise, but I'd say much improved and pretty good overall I guess. Of members without threads I'd say examples of great conduct would be BabyJude, Michael* and Berno off the top of my head.

2. Contributions - Primarily the posting of pics, videos, reporting ect. (some such as pheno and AnaBBFan report more through pm and others report through Site and Forum rather than the report button of course). I'd even be willing to add good natured conversation and spreading general good will as a contribution (those like Limer, red_ed ect. even not posting a lot of pics seem to spread positive energy).

3. A good contribution/PIP ratio - meaning the majority of their posts are either tangible contributions such as the posting of pics, videos, news ect. or intangible (pleasant conversation, goodwill ect.) rather than being a PIP machine (such as a Bronx Bomber) primarily. If the majority of their posts are overt PIP I say they need not apply.

4. Its not all about time spent of course, though maybe at least a 2 year minimum as a member probably wouldn't hurt.

5. Likelihood to making use of said thread - In other words, someone who is a good contributor but doesn't do much talking or engage in much conversation probably still wouldn't be a great candidate for a thread simply because it would be a waste of space.

6. If even 1 of the voting staff feels strongly that the person should not have a thread and cannot be persuaded otherwise without a debate, then the person should probably not have a thread. If 1 feels strongly that they should and 1 still feels strongly they should not even after hearing their case, the person should not have a thread. If the odds are a minimum of 4 to 1 on the other hand, they should have a thread.

Like I said, not perfect and just off the top of my head, but the knowledge that there's some kindof standard can if anything only increace respect for the staff and encourage the kind of qualities we'd like all members to have which benefits the site as a whole .

So besides donbot, what do you want to do with the possible threads for the other people you mentioned?

FYI.....

I gave solange_09 her third formal warning yesterday for an oversized signature after she ignored my informal warning. (I did not give her the other two warnings.)

She posted yet another oversized siggie today. Message tracker indicated that she has ignored PMs I have sent her. Nevertheless, I sent her another PM, giving her the benefit of the doubt, asking if she knew how to determine the size of her siggie If she does not respond, I will suspend her posting privileges for a week. If she continues to ignore me and posts another non-compliant signature, I might seek her banishment.

Question: since when has topic creation been turned off for regular members in the members thread section?

Question: since when has topic creation been turned off for regular members in the members thread section?

I though it has always been that way since they need mod approval for someones thread?

Question: since when has topic creation been turned off for regular members in the members thread section?

I though it has always been that way since they need mod approval for someones thread?

But then how is a member supposed to create a thread for another member? Most of the current threads in there were created by non-staff members.

What was Jolene banned for?

DELETE FOR SPAMMING (CREATED 3 THREADS)

lovelybaby

Thank you!

DELETE FOR SPAMMING (CREATED 3 THREADS)

lovelybaby

Thank you!

Done

Me again, what do I do with advertising?

I found this one

http://www.bellazon.com/main/index.php?showtopic=38353

and made it invisible since I didn't know if I should just delete it. The member must be banned for sure ...

Done. ~ Post Edited by Joe > Average

Thanks, Joe!

Sure thing . I proved my own theory about the Actress forum. I just randomly clicked on pics of random threads and edited tons of hotlinked pics in a few minutes .

So i got two reports within 20 minutes of each other both regarding the same member, jOEh.

first report from frechkiki:

"And like on almost every single threads of the models of the 90's jOEh is attacking and insulting members for no reasons. This is about the 7 times i report him. He is a trouble maker and will never stop since NO mods are doing something about it. 835 posts in 6 years and half of his posts are nasty attacks and the rest is just... well nothing since he is a lurker in about every fashion forums under different names. Please do something?"

& the second from brazilianaffair

"this person with the nick name jOEh started calling me stupid for no reason in the Cindy Crawford thread just for a divergence of opinions, he's rude and uneducated, and that's not the first time he does so (he did the same some time ago in the Stephanie Seymour thread, that was cleaned up afterwards)....he doesn't share anything, he just bitches about everything, and i think something should be done about it....thank you in advance"

Two of them cant be wrong, i've never seen him around so i don't know?