OK, maybe I'm way off base here....

You care to revise you statement, LMM, after your other post specifically says you did it for controversy?

Or are we going to have to judge what you say with a finer comb than Mr. Clinton?

 

ugh. If there isn't already a way for us to rate mods and admins, there should be. I can think of a couple I'd vote off the island.

 

Survivor is soooooooo 2000, dude.

 

And 'dude' is sooooo 1986.

 

I dont know what I can add, cept that Loopy aint a dude.

 

Ah, calling non-dudes "dude" can cause most serious hurt feelings.

 

Don't change the subject. We are here to discuss policy and mod behavior, not proper usage of the term "dude."

 

Sure dude.


I think really, everyone just needs to cool off here. Who cares is Dooku is on the banner, who cares if LMM is acting like an elitist, who cares about anything really. You really need to take a step back and examine your life a little bit if your feelings are being hurt by things that people on the other side of the world do on the internet. Grow up a little bit, everyone.
But, who cares, no one will listen to me, and the stupid, petty "drama" will continue.
Complain away I say.

 

Here's my 2 cents for what it's worth: Why aren't mods held to some accountability to the users. Mods aren't ascended from on high they are just people here who enforce the TOS. Your not here to run a dictatorship, you are here to take out #%#%# from a post or ban a troll.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say some users should have never been made mods in the first place. They've shown a lack of maturity and they seem very egotistical at times. The system obviously has flaws in it and I would hate to think that these flaws could rip the JC apart from the inside.

OT: If this has been brought up before I'm sorry but why is LMM a moderator when all other staff members are VIP's?

 

For those who have complained about silence on the part of the rest of the MS, shesh, what would you like us to do? March into the thread en-masse and denounce LMM, strip him of his moderator-ship and throw him naked into a canon debate? Come in here and start banning anyone and everyone who doesn?t think that LMM is doing a fantastic job? You?re not going to see either happening (which I consider to be a good thing ).

Most of us either A) think LMM and KW are doing well enough as things are going, B) disagree with their position to one degree or another but consider maintaining a unified front important, preferring to keep their disagreements away from the sight of the general public, C) have not noticed this thread or are abstaining from saying anything due to lack of familiarity with the forums and people involved, or D) think that this drama is silly even for drama.

 

Amidala Starkiller: Good question.

As to the rest of your two cents ( ), I believe what Cetera and others are really asking for is not that mods be held to stricter levels of accountability than the regs, but that they should be held to the same level of accountability as the regs

 

Most of either A) think LMM and KW are doing well enough as things are going

Did you leave out "us"? I don't know if I want to be associated with anyone in particular here, as I don't agree entirely with LMM (or anyone on this issue, really).

but that they should be held to the same level of accountability as the regs

I certainly agree.

 

Amidala Starkiller - a beacon of light in a body of corruption. I FULLY stand behind your words.

Look at the Communications Forum. A place where you use to be able to question mods decisions and actions. Now it is nothing more than a dictatorship where any public involvement is hushed behind a thing called "PM."

 

Now it is nothing more than a dictatorship where any public involvement is hushed behind a thing called "PM."

Hushed behind a PM? A PM is just a better way of going about things, in my view. It causes little to no drama and is much more efficient. Sometimes, you don't need to know the info you want. This isn't the place to ask questions about different members. Not everyone wants to have the reasons they were banned mentioned publically, or even have it known they were banned to begin with. Privacy and dignity seem to be lost values sometimes.

 

this thread = excuse for DRAMA!

 

It begins sounds like you hiding stuff when you insist certain things be left to PM's.

When an issue concerns a large group of people it needs to be addressed in a more public format

 

In defense of PM's:

Okay, in real life, if you have a problem with someone, what would you do first? Would you go into a crowded place and scream about your problem or would you go to that person and tell them?

 

I would note that admins are accountable to what they say in PMs. They are not deleted, and can be used if problems come up. It's not avoiding responsibility.

 

I know the below isn't currently on topic, its just how I feel but...

WHAT? Mods pandering to certain members and playing favorites??? That's MADness!

//sarcasm




But the mods aren't totally at fault, I suppose. 98% of the people at this boards have the singular goal of desperately brownnosing the admins... for the feeling of power, to feel like they belong, I don't know, but it is very pathetic. It's like little runt puppies getting milk from their mom.

 

Knightwriter,

"A PM is just a better way of going about things, in my view. It causes little to no drama and is much more efficient."

If your actions are in-line with JC policy, then there should be no reason for it to be PM'd.

"Not everyone wants to have the reasons they were banned mentioned publically..."

That is like covering up people's crimes. It is also an opening for rules to be debated and changed or modified.

"It's not avoiding responsibility."

It is avoiding both responsibility and accountability.

Aurra_Sting,

"Okay, in real life, if you have a problem with someone, what would you do first? Would you go into a crowded place and scream about your problem or would you go to that person and tell them?"

We are not talking about personal problems here. We are talking about mods being responsible and accountable for their actions.

 

"Not everyone wants to have the reasons they were banned mentioned publically..."

That is like covering up people's crimes. It is also an opening for rules to be debated and changed or modified.

Hardly. Their "crimes" are not public business. I can see information being given privately (although I personally am against that), but not publically. This may be a shock to many, but members don't need to know everything that goes on with Joe Member if he gets banned. It's between the administration and him, and no one else. Rule changes or modifications don't need to involve giving out information that is no one else's business.

It is avoiding both responsibility and accountability.


It is not avoiding any accountability or responsibility. It is simply a more quiet and efficient way of doing things. You don't have to hear comments from people who don't know what they are talking about. You focus on the issues and that's it. People are held accountable for what they say in a private message. Not everything needs to be dramatized, and people don't need to know everything that goes on. If something is going on in a Senate thread, I want to deal only with the people it involves. I don't want or need to hear from people who don't visit the Senate, or know what's going on.

I think some people have the mistaken idea that if something goes on, they have a right to know.

That is not the case here, and it is not the case in the real world.

Edit: Markup code.

 

I agree that LMM acted improperly in the Banner thread.

I agree Dooku should not be in the banner.

I agree with the idea of PMing a mod before going to the board.

I agree with going to the board when PMing has not resolved the issue.

Oh, and I do find it slightly amusing how all of this came out of a thread about a banner. Of all the topics in the JC, who would have thought?

 

March into the thread en-masse and denounce LMM, strip him of his moderator-ship and throw him naked into a canon debate?

I like your thinkin', Gandolf.


I don't think anybody wants LMM lynched, this is just an opportunity for the members to voice what some of us feel is a public relations problem for the administration and staff of TF.n. I personally couldn't care less if any apology was or was not issued, a good number of members, however, do care about the perception of this site and the JC by both those who are and those who are not members. The seemingly callous attitude toward the membership could be seen as one of the main reasons that several older members have left over the past few months -- and has been cited in some cases. These issues would more than likely not have been addressed if this conversation had taken place over PM.

 

QGJ23, do you mean the TFN staff as separate from the administration? The two are separate, and I just don't want people to get the idea that admins like myself have any control over staff decisionsor handling.

These issues would more than likely not have been addressed if this conversation had taken place over PM.

Not in the same way, I agree. However, if numerous people PM either LMM or an administrator and respectfully express their thoughts, I think those things would have been addressed. If they hadn't been, then by all means take things to Communications and make it public. I don't mean to say that things should never be public. I just don't think it would be the first step.

 

QGJ23, do you mean the TFN staff as separate from the administration? The two are separate, and I just don't want people to get the idea that admins like myself have any control over staff decisions or handling.

I do realize that the staff of TF.n and the administration of the JC are two different entities, but I'm not sure everyone seperates the two. Most of the mods have been very reasonable and helpful to myself and other members, but the interaction between staff members (who look just like any other mod to most people) and the membership recently has left something to be desired. What many members see is "posters with color" rather than seperating the two.