Discussion in 'Communications' started by ObiWan506, Nov 9, 2010.
I agree and think this might need to be explained to everyone.
I, for one, hope it doesn't mean being in lockstep with the admins. If there's anything I think everyone can agree on its that a community of yes men isn't a good environment for healthy decision making.
It has always been my impression that moderators, managers, administrators, and even VIPs (I have a PM to that effect from my game hosting days) were held to different standards than the regular users. This thought was backed up by the "resignation" of SLG after she made some comments that, as far as I can tell, would have resulted in an edit (at most) had she been a regular user. Maybe she should have flamed someone instead, she could have gotten a 48 hour ban and resumed her modly duties once that was over. As long as she stayed active in mod squad, that is.
Following the company line in a public forum is one thing. But being able to disagree in the mod squad was something that always happened when I was a mod. A bunch of yes men are really not the best way to go.
Yeah, there's at last two admins tast don't deserve that same level of respect.
I think everyone does agree on that, from every sign I've gotten. Which is why it doesn't mean being in lockstep with the admins. That's not what this is about at all, given the information in MS. That's a pretty big leap of logic to make.
I can see why it would be feared, and it's unfortunate for everybody's understanding that MS policy is keeping the situation private, but for a long time now MS policy has erred on the side of privacy rather than on the side of full disclosure of all the juicy gossip, and there's no reason to assume that all of a sudden now it's being used as a smokescreen for a personal purge of MS dissent. It's an understandable fear, but it makes a rather silly default assumption.
What does being a cohesive member of the team mean? Speaking purely for myself, I don't think it means agreement -- cohesion is not about opinion, but about how you get along. Attitude, demeanor, how one handles relationships -- that's what I think of when I think of cohesion in a team sense, not just uniformity of opinion. How one handles differences of opinion is more vital to creating cohesion than trying to avoid any differences of opinion at all. Not to say that that's necessarily what's in question here, but it's an example of why I would not jump right to the conclusion that it's just about lockstep thinking.
Edit: clarifying a vague sentence.
You can keep posting that, harpuah, but until Grimby actually gets online, I don't think it'll get many posts out of him.
Now how would that work with the head admin - dare I say - "bullying" mods into agreeing with him, and if they don't then stepping down? Rather than the head admin working constructively to help the moderators understand what they're doing wrong? Can someone from MS please address that? Because like I already said, I dealt with that first hand and I'm reallyyyyy highllyyyyyy doubting that Strilo's situation is much different, and if it is by all means - he's given the ok to discuss at least a bit of this situation. Otherwise I'm just going to assume that this is being brushed under the carpet like my situation with the head admin was.
Basically, what I'm seeing is a lot of explaining as to why Strilo was demoted by a head admin who is committing a lot worse behavior than the mod who he's demoting. That's not making sense to me. And if there's an explanation, I really honestly would like to hear it, because I don't believe that something this double-standardy would actually be supported by MS. Something isn't adding up.
I said it in MS and I'm going to say this here: this deserves to be public information. There's nothing to lose by telling the full story (esp. since Strilo doesn't mind) and plenty to gain (in terms of addressing public concerns, and just keeping people informed). There are times where confidentiality is important, and disclosure is more harmful than helpful. This isn't one of them, and I don't mind saying so. Some have agreed in MS, and I don't think it's inflammatory to say so--in fact, it's possible that when presented with the story, some might agree with the decision.
As it stands, it's impossible for anybody to agree. This is not smart PR.
I do think, though, that if this happens, I'll refrain from giving my own opinions on it here. I do have very pointed and specific comments about how communication and interaction among MS members is functioning (or not functioning) and I'll be happy to share those general thoughts about how I think an ideal MS should work, but I don't think it'd be helpful for me to give my comments. That, and I'm more concerned with MS issues as a whole than this specific situation (regardless of how it was handled/mishandled; I'll leave those opinions to others, and I'm sure there will be plenty of those.)
I have no specific comments on Grimby's conduct, because I've only heard it from one side. However, I think you'll remember that I was highly sympathetic and supportive of you when you resigned. While the admins haven't posted the story yet (and I'll leave that to them), I will say that as a general issue I think MS needs to work on ways to both express disagreement and resolve said disagreements in a constructive fashion. This, however, cuts both ways: both parties ought to be reasonable in any situation.
Sorry to see you go, Tim.
I think the general MS policy where we don't discuss demotions is a good one.
However: given that Strilo has been around forever, and given that it's obvious he and the Head Admin were fighting and now he's demoted, we need some kind of explanation.
Even if it was another manager or even arguably one of the other admins, I probably wouldn't insist, but this is the burden of being The Boss.
Thanks for pointing out a disconnect in the administrative line, though.
Its not a disconnect - it was part of the process, as Grimby mentioned, but it was only a small part.
I'd like to comment briefly on being a "cohesive member of the team" - though keep in mind these are generic comments and not specific to this case. Being a cohesive member of MS does not mean always agreeing with the admins or other mods. If we only wanted mods like that, MS would be boring as heck. We like having mods who are willing to disagree with the prevailing opinions and state their own mind. That helps us all - it makes sure we look at things as completely as we can. We don't want "yes men" - but we do want people who can help foster discussion while respecting others' opinions. Its quite possible to be a "yes man" but do so in a way that drives off other people from the discussion and keeps other people from posting. That's a problem, and such a person would not be a "cohesive member" even though s/he would be agreeing with people. I'd much, much rather have someone who frequently disagrees but does so in a respectful manner that encourages others to get involved than someone like the "yes man" I just described.
I fail to see how Strilo does not fall under that very vast, generic description that you just gave.
I've said it in MS and I'll say it here. I support full disclosure of this issue so we can get the full picture and hopefully get some resolution out of the situation. Take that for what it's worth.
Well, with many users (myself included) wanting it, we'll probably get full disclosure about this. Knowing my luck, it will happen while I'm at work tomorrow.
They beat Boston!: 2009-2010 L.A. Lakers: Back-to-Back World Champions
It's kind of in the Admin's ballpark now, no?
Strilo openly said he was fully willing to have open disclosure on the matter.
Now it's up to the staff to let that happen.
He's got nothing to hide, if you aren't willing to discuss it openly, than what is it that YOU have to hide?
I think it's fairly obvious that there are many people upset about this, the time for damage control is probably going to be better, sooner than later.
Strilo, when MalkieD2 got demoted after you and he got involved in This very public fiasco you will remember it was long standing policy that the administration was not able to disclose what had transpired to lead to his demotion. The story eventually came out via off shoot boards and Malkie himself posted what had happened - If you want people to know whats gone on you will have to tell them.
There was also of course the time Kimball Kinnison stepped down as admin and senate mod after you and he had a very public bust up in comms, which I think resulted in you being banned for a couple of days, but somehow managing to keep your position in MS? Again it was kimball that disclosed some of his reasons for stepping down.
Personally I agree with Jello that it'd be in the administrations interests to post the full reasons for your demotion, but its not going to happen, cause it never does in these situations.
Joining all the dots together I think we can pretty much work out whats happened and all I'll say is that with your abrasive attitude to some of your fellow mods and admins over the years, this outcome was inevitable sooner or later. You and I both know it.
So, it's safe to assume that you two had personal issues at some point and perhaps this may bend your side to the MS issues that aren't being disclosed openly?
Is SLG allowed to give her open opinion about her stepping down, through what she felt was intimidation?
And finally, wtf do we have Comms, if things like this can not be openly spoken about, particularly when the one that was wronged(prove me wrong admins, by discussing it) is open to discuss it?
ASG, I've already stated that I admire Strilo as a forum mod, but that Strilo and I have clashed on occasion, though thankfully never publically, while we were mods. But to be honest I've got no problem personally with Strilo and there has never been a major issue between us. I've just always felt that given Strilo's history it was always going to end this way.
As far as the thing about Comms goes, thats another issue. Admin has never (or at least not for a very long time) discussed the reasons for demotions or mods stepping down. If the mod him/herself wants to comment then they are free to do so, but its a long standing tradition that, just like discussing banned users, mod changes are not discussed openly either. Thats how these things have always played out.
As Jello says it would probably be in the interests of admin to disclose whats gone down, but I doubt they will and they are under no obligation to do so.
I've already said my peace in MS but, for the record, I agree that full disclosure should be the way to go right now.
You guys waited until you had abolished the weekly Mod Squad Update, then you come out with all this drama?