Discussion in 'Communications' started by ObiWan506, Nov 9, 2010.
First Grimby, now this. Is everything okay in ModSquad Land?
That is correct.
It sounds like forced retirement to me. He was a mod for what, 8 years? Welcome to the tribe, Tim!
Unless there is a conspiracy here involving cult sacrifices. I have long suspected Grimby and a few others of such devilish deeds.
Can't Strilo just come out and say what the reason was? He's not banned.
We're preparing for Armageddon! I claim Bruce Willis!
Since I became a mod it was portrayed to me that participation in MS was expected. It has always bothered me that some mods don't participate especially when it causes harm to a particular forum by their inactivity. For instance sometimes we can't move on if enough people haven't given their input. If you're that busy that you can't participate in part of the job that is expected then why shouldn't we have someone else do the job?
506 - why should MS settle for someone who will not participate when we can have someone who is equally fantastic in the forum and does participate? MS makes policy decisions that impact the whole boards, why as users do you want mods in there that don't participate or represent the forum that you post in?
To go along with the business analogy SLG brought up. Do you want to be represented by someone in board meetings who doesn't go to the meetings or doesn't talk in the meetings?
Edit: This post does not actually address the demotion of Strilo or my opinion on the matter, but does pertain to discussion here.
So you're gonna sacrifice yourself to save us all? Thanks!
Wow that was so not what I intended when I typed that.
You guys really want to be joking around in this thread? Far as I can see this is a fairly serious issue.
Lisa, in an *ideal* MS, everyone would participate and the MS would be full of rich, meaningful, productive discussions in which everyone participates. However, this thread is not about the ideal, this is about how the MS actually is and what the rules actually are. I'd appreciate it if the MS would stop acting like this was a purge of moderators who were no longer active in Mod Squad, as I do not believe that Stilo was the only mod who did not regularly participate in Mod Squad. Furthermore, since this has never been a reason for demotion in the past, I would love to know how it can be the justification for this action now. But more than that, I'd prefer if the administrators would stop trying to feed us a line and admit why Strilo was really demoted. From a user's perspective, given the timing of this and Grimby's recent ban, it seems suspiciously like Strilo and Grimby got into a disagreement and Grimby has forced Strilo out. That may not be the case, I certainly don't have knowledge of what went on, and if that's not what happened, the admins could certainly help themselves dispel that notion by being more forthcoming on what actually did happen.
I?m kinda disappointed in the communication so far in that I was hoping to have things better spelled out. The only explanation that?s been given is "participation in Mod Squad?, which is hardly enough for this sort of action. The rule of not discussing details was put in place years ago to protect the user and/or moderator?s right to privacy. It?s not something to hide behind, which what it feels like is happening here. There?s a serious divide on this issue and I?m just urging more transparency. It makes a world of difference. At the moment, it feels like things that are being said just fall on deaf ears.
Grimby, you?re the Head Admin, so when I target you it?s not personal. I?m just looking to you - and only you - for answers right now.
That?s like me saying I want to use apples to start cars. It sounds nice, but there?s no substance - no practicality - behind it. It?s just words; just words used to make something sound better than it is. It almost has me wondering "what is this really about??. You cannot be so hung up on the letter-of-the-law that it has become this dogmatic in Mod Squad. I cannot believe that and I cannot believe this reasoning.
horsey, MS participation was certainly advised and pushed to be the best practice of a moderator, but it has never ever been used as a hard-nosed rule for demotion of anyone.
I think this is a reasonable theory.
That's what I was thinking too, actually, I was just too afraid to say it.
Rogue did address this above ObiWan506.
Actual participation level was only a small part of the process. Unfortunately, we cannot share the contents of the other factor
So it wasn't really participation in MS. That is the assumptions of others.
That's not the assumption of others, that's the first thing we were told:
Thanks for pointing out a disconnect in the administrative line, though.
At this point, barring Strilo coming in here to say that he doesn't want the details shared, I'm not sure why the administration would be hesitant to discuss the details of this situation. I mean, what do you guys have to lose?
Obviously, you want to respect user privacy and policy precedent, but you have to understand how suspicious this all looks? It seems like this drama could be easily settled by a comprehensive explanation of what happened. Some people will then agree that you made the right call, others will disagree-and they should all be allowed to do that vocally-but at least then the user-base will be confident that you're not acting in a shady manner, and that you're proud of your choices. Leadership doesn't mean having everybody agree with you, it means allowing people to disagree with you in ways that are constructive and not destructive. At this rate, you're trending towards the latter.
Actually Grimby's post points out two factors and we seem to be focusing on one factor, participation in MS and being a cohesive member are two different things.
I apologize for making jokes. It is a defense mechanism when I'm emotional.
By all means, lay it out there. I'd like to see this discussed fully with the userbase.
You know they wouldn't do that, if it's gonna be put out there I would think it would have to be by you.
Well then I think we need to have a discussion about what "cohesivness as a unit" is defined as.
And what does "being a cohesive member of the team" mean, exactly? It's a very nebulous statement that could mean many things. If Strilo was going off on all his other mods, cursing and attacking people and being abusive and disruptive, then that would be a logical reason for a demotion. Knowing Strilo, that seems unlikely. Not "being a cohesive member of the team" could also mean that he and Grimby had a difference of opinion on an issue that Grimby took offense to, leading to Grimby pushing for Strilo's demotion. If that's the case, that's not acceptable in my opinion. The MS should function together, but there is no need for all the mods to agree on every issue. Having a diverse set of opinions and disagreements drive the MS to better serve the JC. Regardless, we need more communication from the admins, especially Grimby, about what actually went on, especially now that Strilo has posted that he would be fine with such a discussion.
To me, since we don't know all the facts (a shocker!), this seems like an unnecessary move, and even if we do find out the whole story, it could still be a unneeded move. Strilo is a great user/mod. Bad idea to demote him.
They beat Boston!: 2009-2010 L.A. Lakers: Back-to-Back World Champions
And it's funny, considering that wasn't Grimby just banned for 48 hours for being hostile towards another manager? And yet Strilo doesn't commit any action even close to as bad as that, and he's demoted. I thought Grimby's ban was supposed to prove that the rules apply to him. Well if they do, he should probably step down if the same rules that apply to Strilo also fit here.
Unless of course, there is a better explanation that would make this sound more fair?
Users should never be afraid to ask questions or question their administration. Healthy discussion helps to foster a healthy environment for both users and moderators. Thus making us a stronger community.
Very reasonable theory.
An interesting theory, for sure.
They beat Boston!: 2009-2010 L.A. Lakers: Back-to-Back World Champions