The validity of pro-administration viewpoints

Discussion in 'Communications' started by KnightWriter, Jan 3, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: JoinTheSchwarz, LAJ_FETT, Ramza
  1. farraday Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    I'm sure everyone who disagrees with you and is also trying to help takes great comfort in that.
  2. Genghis12 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 1999
    star 6
    I don't see why they shouldn't. The statement had no stipulation on agreement or disagreement with anyone. Just the intent to help make this a better place.
  3. Sam_Skywalker Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2003
    star 4
    I find the wording of this thread interesting. Pro-administration viewpoints? No thank you. What it should be is pro-viewpoint. The wording of the thread points out the problem. We have pro-administration viewpoints. People only have these opinions because its the MS that gives it. I agree with the Adm. with about 90% of what they rule, only becasue they're views reflect mine. Say no to pro-admin. views. Say yes to pro-views, and if they just happen to be shared by the MS, more power to ya.
  4. BOBAFETISH Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 19, 2001
    star 5
    Good point Sam.Same thing should work the other way as well. Don't bash the mods because they are mods. Bash them because they are wrong!


    The above post was intended to be humorous and over the top.
  5. Smuggler-of-Mos-Espa Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jan 23, 2002
    star 6
    Oh, Sape, what a lovely name to call Raven. BANNED FOR 3 MONTHS!!!!

    :p
  6. Handmaiden Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    so people are saying they don't like mod suck ups and this is a problem? who really, seriously cares? if you really spend so much time on here that you know the difference between a mod suck up and someone who share's the administration's views, then you make me lol.

    it's a known fact that yes, people do often compromise their own view to get ahead, and the fact that those people post that on this board doesn't really mean anything. I mean are mod suck ups really inhibiting your posting so much that the JC is no long an enjoyable place? come on, that's ridiculous.

    do the same thing any normal human would do, when you see a mod suck up talk crap behind their back and get over it.

    think of it this way. how many times have each of you thought, "wow, the JC would be so much better if so and so, or such and such group didn't post here."? probably a lot. and chances are that someone is thinking the same thing about you. so just shut up because no one cares if you don't like mod suck ups.
  7. Stackpole_The_Hobbit Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    Handmaiden, I almost read your post, but I figured, "who gives a ****" :p
  8. BOBAFETISH Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 19, 2001
    star 5
    Handmaiden- You are correct. However, you could have heeded your own advice and just ignored those who resent the overly helpful, no?
  9. DarthBane420 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 13, 2003
    star 5
    I mean are mod suck ups really inhibiting your posting so much that the JC is no long an enjoyable place? come on, that's ridiculous.

    The point of Comms, at least as I understand it, is to provide a regular user who has reached the end of his options in dealing with a problem an outlet or forum where he can debate and flesh out the problem he has encountered.

    In the midst of these actions happening we see again and again Happy Helpers popping up to interact with said user, further frustrating them, and then ultimately derailing a thread and turning it into a personal tirade before an Admin has even posted.

    In fairness, if you look at the recent threads the Admins have done an outstanding job getting into threads very early and working with the user on the problem. I see great improvement over the situation that existed a short time ago. I do however wonder if this is because this issue has become a hot topic and extra focus has been added and it will dissipate when people stop complaining. Time will tell.

    So in response to the above quote, I don't think the Happy Helpers are making it so one can't post, but what they are doing is throwing a monkey wrench into the mechanics of a forum that is designed to be a last outlet for a user feeling frustrated.

    I would also ask, what is the administrations stance on certain groups encouraging members to actively post in Comms in support of the Administration on a random issue? This was something brought up that the Admins never addressed. I would think said group would be asked to stop this practice. I know that if I was encouraging people in any group I was in to actively post in Comms and derail threads this wouldn't be seen in a positive light.
  10. DarthAttorney Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2000
    star 6
    "Well, it would appear that DarthAttorney took my PM advice and left the boards."

    Yep, clearly I'm long gone.

    [face_laugh]

    Helpful Hint For Newbie: In the "Sent Messages" section of the Private Messages page, there's a timestamp that allows all sender of messages to check when the recipent has opened and read the message. I read my kind and casual "PM advice" from MeBeJedi about 2min ago. This handy tip allows you avoid embarassing gaffs like this.
  11. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9
    In the midst of these actions happening we see again and again Happy Helpers popping up to interact with said user, further frustrating them

    I know you're meaning well, but the proper term is "helpy helper" -- by getting this right, you make the Forums a better place and I know that's what you're going for.

    Peace.

    //shoots self
  12. DarthBane420 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 13, 2003
    star 5
    Thanks Purple!
    For some reason I always picture them singing there responses, possible this has something to do with what drives me mad about them, and I think that's why I transpose the terms.
    I will not make that mistake again.
  13. Genghis12 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 1999
    star 6
    Bane...
    "The point of Comms, at least as I understand it, is to provide a regular user who has reached the end of his options in dealing with a problem an outlet or forum where he can debate and flesh out the problem he has encountered."

    Not quite. That's one such purpose for Comms, but not by any stretch the only, or even primary point of Comms.

    In fact the number of problems/issues that even requires "reaching the end of available options" is an extremely small minority as well as commonly being a part of the small class of "ban, spam, inappropriate content" in the scheme of board problems/issues.

    The description of Comms as being the place for... "Your questions, comments, and suggestions relating to the Jedi Council and TheForce.net" can be taken at face value. Note, that description is not "Only to be used for when you're exasperated and have reached the end of your rope, come here to make a big hullabaloo."

    "In the midst of these actions happening we see again and again Happy Helpers popping up to interact with said user, further frustrating them, and then ultimately derailing a thread and turning it into a personal tirade before an Admin has even posted."

    Without necessarily defending the Helpy Helpers, it could simply be a case of users interested in Comms issues being frustrated by problems/issues they see as being insignificant or ridiculous. Yeah, it's fine to say "Hey, if don't have anything nice to say, then don't say it." But, come on, this is the internet. That's an impossible expectation. The way it works is people post something, other people respond. And if you post something, you ought to expect a response. But, it seems to me that trying to apply a label to some group who disagrees with a poster is nothing more than an ad hominim attack. "Hey, you're just a 'Helpy Helper,' therefore your opinion doesn't matter" is not a valid argument. In exactly the same way that "Hey, you're just a 'bitter ex-mod,' therefore your opinion doesn't matter" is not a valid argument at face value either.

    "So in response to the above quote, I don't think the Happy Helpers are making it so one can't post, but what they are doing is throwing a monkey wrench into the mechanics of a forum that is designed to be a last outlet for a user feeling frustrated."

    I would say that since I don't think your understanding of the point of this forum is accurate, that I therefore wouldn't agree with this conclusion.

    As long as people are posting in accordance with the Terms of Service, they are free to be a "Nerdy Internet Guy," a "Helpy Helper," a "bitter ex-mod," a "jerk," or whatever other label anyone wants to tack on them to somehow affect the perception of their posts.

    Don't get caught up in the labelling. It serves no positive purpose. If someone's post is pure bunk, it will be obvious that it's pure bunk and not because you've given them the label of "helpy helper," "bitter ex-mod" or whatever else exists.

    "I would also ask, what is the administrations stance on certain groups encouraging members to actively post in Comms in support of the Administration on a random issue?"

    My opinion is that the Administration should not generally be in the business of controlling where regular users choose to post. If there's anything that sits at the top of administrative intrusiveness against users, this would be it. If e-groups say, "Hey, here's an issue you may be interested in, go post on it," then hey great. That's the whole point of a message board.

    "I would think said group would be asked to stop this practice. I know that if I was encouraging people in any group I was in to actively post in Comms and derail threads this wouldn't be seen in a positive light."

    And we get to the heart of the matter. You're making a leap of faith (that may or may not be true in certain instances) without connecting the dots in between. It seems you've concluded that the very act of an e-group encouraging users to post on a given issue is always synonomous with "d
  14. DarthBane420 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 13, 2003
    star 5
    G12,
    I find myself agreeing with you on almost everything you said.
    I will think this over more, but I do appreciate you taking the time to respond in such detail.
    Let me ask you this my friend, do you think that the majority of the pro-administration view points that are expressed in Comms are from people who genuinely care about the issue at hand and just happen to agree with the administration, or do you think the majority of these posts are born from an alter motive such as ingratiation or personnel grudges that might pre date a particular issue?
    As you may see this as a loaded question, I promise that it is not. I value your insight and wonder what you think on this issue and ask only for that purpose.
  15. Vertical Former Head Admin

    Member Since:
    Apr 6, 1999
    star 6
    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. />
    />

    Hmm. The very same could be said about a select few individuals who religiously oppose the administration at every possible opportunity.

    Like some others, I'm in a situation where I do not have any desire to be a moderator or administrator (been there, done all of it). I seek only to help the forums as best I can.

    I am not Pro-Administration. I think there's a legitimate point to those who would find problems with someone being 'Pro-Administration'. We should all be "Pro-Fun Forums", or "Pro-Whatever's best for everyone". Myself, I find I'm mostly "Pro-Common Sense". That's not to say I always get things 'right', but when I happen to agree with how the Administration has handled a situation, it is not because I am agreeing, by default, with what they did, but rather because I observed the situation, contemplated 'solutions', and have come to a conclusion, which happens to be the same one that the Administration came to.

    On the flip-side, it has also happened that the Administration has chosen an alternate solution, perhaps sometimes even one that I have strongly disagreed with.

    I would hope that most people would use their brains in such a capacity.

    However, as several have pointed out, there are two extreme factions present (I don't think that can be denied) - those who blindly agree with the Administration, and those who blindly disagree.

    I find both parties easily distinguishable, given the amount of time I've spent both on the forums in general, and in this particular forum.

    I've personally simply 'filtered out' those who fall into either category. When I see a post from user X, in absolute blind support of the mods, I simply scroll on by. When I see a post from user Y, berating the mods just because, I simply scroll on by.

    One other point - farraday mentioned that voicing one's support without offering new thought or proof of consideration is pointless, as these are supposed to be discussions not votes... While I agree with the notion that the more input you offer, the more likely you are to be taken seriously, I don't find that simply posting your opinion is pointless. While it's true that these threads are not votes, very often they do act as gauges of public opinion regarding policy. Some things don't require or even need any lengthy support... Some things you either just agree with or don't. Not everything requires calculated deliberation which you can expand upon.

    Kyle Katarn has also touched upon some important factors - that of social pressures.

    The constant 'slamming' of 'Pro-Administration' posters is no more unwarranted than the 'slamming' of 'Anti-Administration' posters - and both do occur.

    People who frequent this forum can easily get caught up in the 'rhetoric' and 'politics' here, and find themselves 'towing party lines', as it were. The only thing that is imperative is that the Administration not be overly influenced by either end of the spectrum, but rather continue to think for itself, and use common sense and consideration of the greater good as the guiding principle for all their decisions.

    Thus far, I've yet to be convinced that the Administration is failing to do so, even if I don't always agree with each individual decision.

    Vertical/>/>
  16. Genghis12 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 1999
    star 6
    Bane...
    I think that for the vast majority of run-of-the-mill issues, questions, problems, et. al. posted to comms (say 90% of all Comms posting) that people are posting genuine thoughts out of genuine interest on the given issue.

    For that other 10%, usually the high-profile buggaboos that go on to 10 to 15 pages, you can definitely find people who are most certainly posting from an ulterior motive such as "ingratiation to the Administration" or "personal grudge predating the issue." And I think part of the reason for these issues ties back to your earlier point about the perception of Comms being "the end of the rope" on that issue after everything else has been exhausted. These issues, and there might be a big one each month or two (if even that frequent) by their very nature will spawn controversy just from the fact of being the end of the line. Ones for it will be pushing for their last shot of acceptance, and the ones against it will be fighting to put the final nail in the coffin. And the "helpy helpers" and "unhelpy nonhelpers" are attracted to controversy like flies on honey.

    But, all is not lost on that front, because I've also found that they tend to be fairly obvious, as well. Which is why I'm not really all that terrified at the thought of Helpy Helpers (and their opposites too, "Unhelpy Nonhelpers?") running amock. Because the posts can pretty much be dismissed out of hand on their merits (or rather, their lack of), and not necessarily because the person making the post has been deemed to be a "helpy helper," by someone.

    Do trolls sometimes get away with evading enforcement because they've ingratiated themselves to the Administration (or on the opposite end because people view their negative posts as acting as some sort of counter-weight to the Administration's POV)? Yeah, they probably have. We can seek to minimize it, but I think it's unrealistic to believe we'll catch every instance.
  17. MeBeJedi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 30, 2002
    star 6
    "Well, it would appear that DarthAttorney took my PM advice and left the boards."

    "Yep, clearly I'm long gone."


    Chalk it up to wishful thinking. If your legacy is to ultimately come down to becoming the very type of user you strove to clear the Saga forum of, so be it.
  18. BOBAFETISH Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 19, 2001
    star 5
    I also think Genghis makes a lot of sense in the big post a few up. I will try not to label Helpy Helpers in the future, and if they derail the thread, I will PM someone.
  19. Handmaiden Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    Handmaiden- You are correct. However, you could have heeded your own advice and just ignored those who resent the overly helpful, no?

    Who says I don't? :)
  20. jedi_master_ousley Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 14, 2002
    star 8
    Nevermind, I read something wrong.

    Move along.
  21. Vader Fett Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 18, 1999
    star 4
    i think i created a monster with the Helpy Helper term and definition, last spring. heh.

    as others have said, judging the speech based on the speaker is often times a big problem. and it's just as easy to notice as ass kissing and belligerence too.

    but there is some validity to the complaints about Helpy Helpers and the like. refer to this thread
  22. Handmaiden Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
  23. Falcon Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 7, 2002
    star 8
    "I would think said group would be asked to stop this practice. I know that if I was encouraging people in any group I was in to actively post in Comms and derail threads this wouldn't be seen in a positive light." is this what you think? not everyone who resides in these groups do as you suggest. Not all groups derail threads intentionally, if they are caught derailing a thread, that group member is dealt with in accordance including to be expelled from the group.



  24. TripleB Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 4
    The other day we had a discussion via postings, about the inclusion of an unrelated social topic in a political thread. You felt that the social topic did not belong in the thread, I pointed out that as long as the social topic was applied to the political discussion (and by all accounts, that particular social issue could be a very explosive factor in the elections), that it shoudl be allowed to stay.

    Disagrement about how to proceed on something often helps find a better path and I don't see anything wrong with pointing out when a Moderator might do something better if they did it a different way. THe worse that can happen is they dont' agree.
  25. Krash RSA Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 11, 2000
    star 5
    farraday mentioned that voicing one's support without offering new thought or proof of consideration is pointless
    There's a voice I turn to for "fair and balanced" opinions ((rolls eyes))...not every post has to be a political platform. Sometimes a simple "I'd go along with that" says more then a lengthy rant.

    One of the things I've noticed (as a CR and now RSA) is that many people feel that if they voice any disagreement with a Mod...that they'll find themselves a target for constant "warnings" and "banishment." Personally, if someone disagrees with me (and can present a vaild reason WHY) I know I am not all knowing...so I give credit where it is due. The some cannot be said for many Mods.

    And there are Mods who are less inclined to take action against someone who typically is in line with their own views...like that user is some kind of saint! It makes it very difficult for people (with the opposing view) to feel they can speak their mind on a level playing field (like having the officials wearing the your opponent's jersey!)
Moderators: JoinTheSchwarz, LAJ_FETT, Ramza
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.