The validity of pro-administration viewpoints

If there is thought behind a post, and reasons given or expanded upon for the point of view in that post, that post will be read as legitimate no matter what "side" the poster is on.

The Happy Helper syndrome, as encouraged by such clubs as the Light Siders, while it may state it encourages thoughtful support of the admins of the JC, does not work that way in practice. There are numerous examples of mindless agreement with the mods by members of these clubs. (Links can be provided if they are requested.) Please note, I do not see them as bucking for mod "status", merely as wanting to fit in with their chosen group of friends.

Once a person is aware of the Mission Guidelines for the various Padawan Missions in these clubs, it becomes very hard to take such posts by the members seriously. If I read Padawan of the Lightside in someone's signature, I *know* I will be reading a post in support of whatever the stated Mod Squad stand is on an issue. It becomes difficult to see their points as valid, when you are aware they post only when they agree with the mods.

Another thought on that is that sometimes members of these clubs are posting to "defuse" a situation that has become tense, (as another of their 'missions') but about which they have no strong feelings. They feel justified because they are more objective when they aren't emotionally involved, but their interference in such threads may be increasing the acrimony with which such actions are viewed.

I think such organisations may have much to contribute, but I would like to see the evidence of thoughtful support, and occasionally an example of thoughtful disagreement, as I feel real leadership and good administration relies on critical appraisal.


*Derisa*

 

I believe I said that.

I know. I was sharing my opinion.

 

All mods started out like anyone else, as someone who registered on the site, continued posting, and got promoted. Agreeing with a moderator, if that indeed is your viewpoint, is not and should not be viewed as a bad thing. Just because one agrees with a moderator's viewpoint doesn't make them a wannabe and just because they're mods doesn't mean that they're always right. So don't attack someone for agreeing. We appreciate those who appreciate the site and want to make it better and care enough to look into the Communications Forum to see if there's something of importance to which they can offer up an opinion.

 

Looks like someone forgot to change his socks...

 

Actually, someone misplaced his password at home, looked every last place for it, figured four days away would do some good, and realized I'll be back full time for the year starting tomorrow.

 

[Obi-Wan]Good job![/Obi-Wan]

We will look for your coming at first light on the 5th day (of January). At dawn, we will look to the east.

 

I agree with the Administration on this issue

 

I know. I was sharing my opinion.

Took it the wrong way. I must be showing my sensitive side

 

Oh my god...It's buttsteak!

 

Yeah, I wonder what he's doing here.

 

ok, here's the newbie comment, who's buttsteak?

 

I'm not sure if I'm at liberty to say.

 

You shouldn't agree with a mod just because they don't get paid.

Change the "p" in "paid" to an "l" and you're 100% correct there, buddy.

 

This issue is fascinating to me many ways.
It's beyond hilarious to see users who regularly defend the mods and admins in almost every topic that comes up for no other reason than future considerations of a coloured path that could lay ahead.
I will not throw names around but I see the usual 3 people pop up in almost every thread to lend there support to the admins and mods no matter what the issue.
If you think about this on a deeper level, it's an amazing cry out for one's desperate need for a social life, as TFN suddenly becomes as perverse substitute for real world and real friendships.
This being said, I look forward to coming here everyday just to watch the Happy Helpers battle with disgruntle ex-TFN admins and Mods. Sometimes I even print them out for people at work to read because the humour is just to good not to be shared.

 

Well, we're aware as well of the help in Comms and handle a good bit of it privately, as it should be.

 

Hey, I AM part of the "administration" and I don't "agree with the administration" on every issue.

Does that make me an "outcast" when I don't and a "yes man" when I do?

I agree with the people who think that it's suspicious of a sort for those who either agree OR disagree with the administration 100% of the time -- but I think what's happened recently are some people who agree with ANY decision getting lumped into a "helpy helper" or "maek me a mod!11!!" category, which is simply not true.

 

Is there something inherently wrong or undesirable about agreeing with the administration (either completely or in part)? Several times in recent threads, I've seen posts derided for seemingly no other reason than because they expressed agreement with something the administration has (or has not) done, or about the actions of a particular moderator.

We've got a drama-esque here, people.

Of course, there is no "requirements" here to agree with the administration. If i agree, i will say so, if not, i will say so.

If no one agrees with you, too bad.

 

Hey, I AM part of the "administration" and I don't "agree with the administration" on every issue.

Does that make me an "outcast" when I don't and a "yes man" when I do?

Thats what it was like for me as a regular member...yesman and outcast and back to yesman.

Now that I'm a mod, I either 'fit in' or I'm an annoying you-know-what....usually the latter

 

Dagsy, you'll always be an outcast as far as I'm concerned.

 

I like NICE men.

 

I'm nice men.

And that's why I jokingly mentioned in the MS update that Darth-Stryphe was once a beloved member of the TPM Forum who instantly turned into a hated mod.

 

I'll admit that I find the idea of being a Help Helper so pathetic that I MAY be overly watchful for it and too quick to respond negatively towards members answering for mods.

I will try and be less so this year, and less suspicious of mod motives in general.

 

At its core, however, a 'helpy helper' cares about the boards, wants to help, and is simply doing it in a manner that may not necessarily come across the right way. Their heart's in the right place.

 

At its core, however, a 'helpy helper' cares about the boards, wants to help, and is simply doing it in a manner that may not necessarily come across the right way. Their heart's in the right place.

That may be true, but that doesn't make it RIGHT.

Road to hell, and all of that...

I think that, in their own way, a "helpy helper" COULD be more destructive in their own way than someone who is the opposite (contrary for contrary's sake, etc.)... but if you try to reform a Double-H, you're starting from a better position of guidance as they do seem to want to contribute positively to the boards rather than negatively.

 

I just don't like seeing people getting jumped on when all they're really trying to do is help. That's not right.