RE: MS Update April 10-16

Sape I find it completely astonishing one of the head mods thinks the current systen works fine.

Just shocking.

And Genghis, The mods are fine with users questioning in theory, but in practice they tend to be dismissive and ignore threads.

And all you've said is the mods are right because they're mods.

Because it's the truth.

You're right because you're right?

Tell me, farraday, who makes the rules on this forum? Who enforces them? Who's word is final if it comes down to a judgment call?

The mods, sadly, just because the things are one way doesn't mean it's right. Responsible government involves those in charge giving away some of their power in return for giving the rules legitimacy.

Yes, but let's say the owners of this site go on a power-trip and stuff. Who's going to stop them?

Except the difference between your little world and mine is in mine I say they actually need to be stopped, in yours since they are capable of doing anythign they want it's okay if they do anything they want.

Tell me Syntax, do you really think J*sh is so enamoured with the idea of him being above and beyond the rules he would demand they not apply to him?

Who wrote the TOS?
Who gets the final say?

If what you were saying was true, there would be no point in having Mods, as the users could "police" this forum just as easily.

Vert wrote the TOS, the mods would have the final say.

But that doens't mean they shouldn't be accountable for their acitons like you've been arguing for. And your last sentance shows you haven't understood a word I've said. Mods are needed to actually enforce the rules because they're the only ones who can ban. That isn't to say they should be allowed to ban whoever they want (original TOS "Banned at any time... without reason") and do whatever they want (current TOS "The... Administration has the right but not the obligation to monitor and/or moderate the Forums").

If the mods are responsible to the rules then they would do a few things.
Involve the members more in the discussion about the rules, while mods have to enforce the rules, everyone has to follow them, meaning members should have some say in them.
Rewrite the TOS to remove the clear as mod aspects and attempt to give working definitions(ie, definitions in relation to how the words are moderated on these forums) of the "POV" words, as far as possible.
When theres a public problem take aprt in a public discussion and if required make a public apology. It was nice to see it done in this last case. Oh and it's a public matter if it effects users on the JC. I'd like mods to recognize that just bringing something up in comms isn't drama mongering and trouble making. Stop telling people to take it to PMs unless you're afraid to actually say something publically, in which case admit that.

I ask you again: who established that common law? Certainly not the users. if the owners wanted to arbitrarily alter the rules of this forum, it is THEIR call to make, and no one else's.

There isn't a common law you already admitted yourself since certain people don't have to follow it. And it certainly isn't common law if it's almost entirely up to the discression of individual mods what a rule or one of the TOS buzzwords means.

Answer the following questions for me again:

- IF the owners decided to make arbitrary rules, what say do the users have with regard to those rules?
The owners should recognize their responsibility not to make arbitrary rules.
- if the Mods/Admins ban someone, whoshould have [/i]the final say on whether or not that person is banned?[/i]
The rules of the forum. I would hope you're not comfortable with the idea any mod can ban you 'because'.
- do you have a "right" to post on this forum?
The privledge to post on this forum should only be abriged in response to a violation of the rules, not because of some arbitrary decision by another user. Any other way leads to anarchy.

-what "rights" do you think you have on this forum

 

I say that it works well because I have realistic expectations. We have never met, we're all different ages from all over the world, and despite that I think we do great.

 

The system only works as well as the people who enforce it.

 

I have also found that when we stray away from, "The system is flawed and the moderators are inconsistent," and move closer towards, "In x, y, and z threads the following moderators took this action and I am failing to understand why," we make much more progress and save a lot of hurt feelings on all sides.

 

But you aren't supposed to bring up issues with specific mods... Or can you?

 

Sape specific examples would mean you could ignore everything I was saying by brushing those off or promising to "discuss them in the MS".

Specific examples also means some mod might come in here full of selfrightous anger and ban me for baiting since that is entirely up to them to decide.

I would think the benefits of a common law would be easily understandable, do you want me to point them out or is Genghis about to respond saying the TOS is perfectly clear and no changes need to be made because I'm a troublemaker?

 

Farraday, what I have seen and I know you did as a mod, is that some users come straight to Comms when they disagree with an action taken by a moderator. Then it all blows up. 99% of the problems on these boards could be solved between the user and the mod.

 

It might be different if some mods were willing to discuss things in Private instea dof just provide information.

I can think of atleast twice where I banned someone wrongly and found it by talking to them via PM rather then just waiting for an unban request.

And atleast another time where I screwed up and deleted a thread I shouldn't have. I did apologize explaining what had happened, the user didn't exactly believe me but I did apologizes immediately.

In any case, if a mod is actually willing to discuss things they can do thta either via PM or in comm, PM is probably quicker but you can earn greater good will in Comm, if you're willing to actually try.

Consider Vertical, he was widely respected, do you think it was because he never made a mistake? Hardly.

 

I make plenty of mistakes, I just never act like I'm incapable of making mistakes. And there is a protocol of sorts for complaints. Start a dialogue between the two users. If they can't resolve it, go up the chain from moderator, to manager, to administrator. I find that it nearly always gets settled and most things were a misunderstanding.

 

And what if the problem is with an admin?


No I know what it's like msot of the time. If the mdo is willing to do anything it'll be along the lines of "I'll look into that and then maybe if you're lucky something will happen.

 

Well, if I say I'll look into it, I will. Always. If the problem is with an administrator, go to another administrator.

 

I made my fair share of mistakes, definitely.

After all my time as a mod, I think the one thing I tried to do more than any other was to listen to every side of an argument before making a judgement.

Often in my long tenure as a moderator I saw myself (and other mods) falling into the trap of systematically and automatically defending an administrative decision/point of view simply because it was the Administrative view.

It's not easy to always remain clear-headed and totally objective on issues, but I found that trying to remain objective was the only sure way to come to the best resolution. The best resolution didn't always make everyone 100% happy, but it almost always involved compromise, which never left anyone 100% unhappy.

Moderating forums is relatively easy. Doing so and remaining open to criticism and discussion is not. It requires a lot of patience and work.

Vertical

 

Who will also look into it?

How about instead of "I will look into it" you make it, "I will look into it and get back to you" and then get back to them.

 

I didn't write it, but that's what I do. I respond to every PM I have ever received. If I said I'll look into it via a thread post, I'll still get back to the person.

 

A point in your favour, but just responding isn't sometimes enough.

for example, if I asked an admin via PM if somethign a mod had done was okay, and they said they'd look into it, they'd have responded but they didn't answer the question.

Yes it requires a bit more effort on your part, but good will is earned.

 

GriffZ...
"But you aren't supposed to bring up issues with specific mods... Or can you?"

Sure you can. If you have a question about something a specific mod's done, go ask them about it.

 

I don't think Sapient is a good example for you, farraday, as I know he always does his best to not only respond to the PM, but also address the issue.

Not receiving a the desired result(i.e., you think Mod X did something wrong, you write to Admin Y, who then gets back to you saying, "No, I think Mod X was right") is not necessarily the same as having a mod not be responsive or willing to discuss.

Simply discussing an issue with an Admin doesn't mean they're going to agree with you. Would you be satisfied if you wrote a mod but didn't get the answer you were looking for, even if they did discuss the matter?

Make sure this is a discussion on "The mods should be open to discussion" and not "The mods should do whatever I ask them if I take the time to PM them".

Vertical

 

I meant publically. You know, like, in Communications.

 

I know Vert, but if I bring up another mod then I'm baiting and I should have taken it up with them privately.

I'm saying the mods need to answer questions via PM, not that Sape doesn't. I'm talking to sape because he's the mod posting in response.

And vert you and I disagreed quite vociferously some times, in the end though I knew you'd always agree with me because I was always right

If someone is willing to post a differing opinion and argue it, I respect them for that even if I would disagree, sometimes extremely, with their view. Progress is a process, not a result.

It can be frusturating to end up witha reult you disagree with, but then again it's more frusturating if the process excludes you entirely because only mods count.

 

"but then again it's more frusturating if the process excludes you entirely because only mods count."

Mmm, true, true.

Well, then, if you feel it's a real problem (mods not answering PM's), perhaps you could ask Sapient (since he's the one answering in here, and since he's an Admin) how he thinks the problem could be solved, looking at mods other than himself.

I think the Administration can agree that Mods all need to be responsive to PM's, and open to discussion - so if there's an issue with how the general populace perceives this responsiveness, how would the Administration propose improving this situation?

Mind you, without specific examples, it makes it difficult for an Admin to go to a mod and discuss the issue specifically. If no examples are given, and the Admins are forced to simply post a general "We should all respond to PM's" post in the MS, any of the 'guilty parties' might simply shrug and think "he's not talking to me". Vague, general "we should all make sure we do X" posts are not very effective.

Vertical

 

Maybe I should PM every mod and see which of them don't respond?

The problem is I tend to first go to the mods who I know will be responsive.

However in the cases where the mod I contacted isn't being responsive I have contacted the admins about it... something I'm sure you cna remember me doing

 

Yes, I do remember.

How widespread of a problem would you say this is? Are most mods guilty of not responding? Half?

I'm just trying to get a sense of how pervasive this problem really is...

 

I can think of two mods who did not respond to PMs I set each of them. Perhaps it was just an isolated incident, but it's pretty annoying when that happens.

 

Well considering I don't usually talk to atleast half the mods with any regularity, any estimate I gave would be vague at best.

I would however sya I think the mods have a much higher chance of responding productively when you're asking them to do something rather then when you're questioning them.

Some mods also appear not to have any fondness for me, the reason for it elludes me still.

And of course if I did ask others for examples or attempt to provide some myself I could be banned for revealing PMs

 

Well, I would hope not. I think as long as we, as members, establish and convey that we're honestly just trying to address an issue, and not get beligerant or confrontational, we can turn the Communications forum into a more productive dialogue session.

I know, as a mod, sometimes it feels as though entering communications is like entering a shooting gallery, on the opposite side of the guns. A little respect and patience could go a long way in turning this forum into a place where such discussions wouldn't result in threads being closed for 'drama'.

Mutual respect is the key.

Vertical