The validity of pro-administration viewpoints

There's a voice I turn to for "fair and balanced" opinions ((rolls eyes)).

Please keep your comments constructive.

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."

Constructive criticism from any viewpoint is not going to result in a warning or ban. If you can provide an example of this happening, please do. I'd be interested in seeing it.

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!

Can you provide some examples of this?

We all have our biases, but what counts is whether or not we let them affect our judgment.

 

Why thank you Krash, it always amuses me when someone I've never bothered remembering makes it a point to slam me in their post. Perhaps if you'd care to remind me of the slight, real or imagined, which weighs so heavily on your mind and is so inconsequential to mine?

 

Nice example.

 

We all have our biases, but what counts is whether or not we let them affect our judgment. I agree with what KW pointed out, if the mods and admins let their own judgement get in the way then its unfair to the other person who is trying to make a point and gets banned for something they believe in that the mods don't. So technically you can't let your feelings get in the way of better judgement, if they do then the guilty will end up going unpunished half the time.

 

Please keep your comments constructive.
That's exactly the problem...anyone speaks up against someone who is a "watched user" of a Mod (or in some cases the Mod themself) has a difference of opinion or has issue with how that person conduct themselves is considered "disruptive." There is more to being constructive then being a "yes-man."

I have provided example of this from "Senate Floor"...which were ignored. Therefore, I don't frequent that board(anymore) because I have learned it is not a place where my views/constructive criticism can be expressed freely.

it always amuses me when someone I've never bothered remembering makes it a point to slam me in their post.
While I am glad to hear that I have made your existance that much better then it could possibly be without...I have neither the time, nor the desire to spend any more time revisiting this matter...no offense.

 

Please keep your comments constructive.
That's exactly the problem...anyone speaks up against someone who is a "watched user" of a Mod (or in some cases the Mod themself) has a difference of opinion or has issue with how that person conduct themselves is considered "disruptive." There is more to being constructive then being a "yes-man."

It isn't necessary to express a difference of opinion by negatively commenting on someone else (which is what you did with the "roll eyes" comment).

Constructively criticizing or just analyzing issues doesn't equate to being a yes man.

 

Constructively criticizing or just analyzing issues doesn't equate to being a yes man.

I agree with that dude with the pretty colours on this issue.

 

I disagree that his colours are pretty.

 

It isn't necessary to express a difference of opinion by negatively commenting on someone else
Seems to be standard operating procedure for some; but we've danced around this subject before!

And how (without drawing the wrath of a mod) do you suggest someone to express their views (or simply defend themselves) from attacks by folks like farraday?

And, farraday, you can be as right wing as you want, but throwing <rolleyes.gif> at every comment with an opposing view does not make a very challenging or supportive argument. And when everyone continues to ignore the questions being proferred by a_g, her point is being supported.
Kessel Runner hit this one right on the head! (and on one of your boards I believe) So if my ((rolls eyes)) was uncalled for...and I will remove it if asked; I would expect the same response of others who do that MUCH more frequent then I did. Seems fair and "construtive" don't you?

 

And how (without drawing the wrath of a mod) do you suggest someone to express their views (or simply defend themselves) from attacks by folks like farraday?

By sticking to the issues at hand, avoiding comments about other members and ignoring comments made toward you (and reporting them to a moderator).

Kessel Runner hit this one right on the head! (and on one of your boards I believe)

I'm not sure what the point is in referencing a post made several days ago in a Senate thread that most people here probably haven't read.

I would expect the same response of others who do that MUCH more frequent then I did

If you see this happening, let a moderator know. I can't speak to things I don't see.

 

"By sticking to the issues at hand, avoiding comments about other members and ignoring comments made toward you (and reporting them to a moderator)."

Unless you follow the rules for baiting and report it and it's considered "mild" by Knightwriter. That's what I did. Mild baiting is allowed in Comms now so don't report that.

Sticking to an issue can be difficult to do when somone is challenging you though. In the end, if you're the only one sticking to an issue while the thread around you devolves into wild savagery...what's the point? Who would you be discussing the issue with?

"If you see this happening, let a moderator know. I can't speak to things I don't see."

I guess you don't read my posts before they're edited or deleted KW...I do it all the time.
Is something as trivially (sp?) minor as the rolleyes.gif a bannable offense now too?

IMO, it seems that people like to target each other as pro and anti administration because it's comfortable. I don't think of myself as anti-administration, I've sided with the administration several times here in the past (including the whole "Focus Group" deal that started out so promisingly) but in the end, they as a group, seem to do much dumber things on the whole than intelligent, insightful things. So a spade's a spade.

On A Tangent: Can an admin explain where my VIP status went and why? ?
My PM's on the issue are being ignored.

 

Gee-whiz, DA, if I didn?t know better, I?d say that you didn?t like Knight much at all.

In any case, you?ve been told why you don?t have VIP status: because you?ve been switching around your colors in the recent and not-so-recent past. You?ve also been told that you get it back within a week.

 

Thats an extremely oversimplified reason as to why the VIP colours are gone. The removal was based on a decision by an administrator that hadnt bothered to investigate the who's what's and why's of the incident.

One could say that an administrator decided the punishment based on personal bias with zero investigation, and just told someone else to handle the actual demotion. Resulting in a messy situation whereby an innocent VIP has had his status taken away wrongly, and a near impossibility to get the administrators responsible to reconsider the decision when all the facts were made known.

Beaurocracy at its finest. Palpatine would have been proud.

 

Correct me if I?m wrong, but does that translate into that you think that Knight didn?t like DA, so he asked Sape to demote him for a week after an excuse presented itself?

 

What I'm saying is that those involved did not investigate the situation. That happens because of three reasons, either they didnt want to, they were unable to, or just didnt bother to.

The investigation could have been as simple as sending a PM to DA to ask for details, and then a PM to me to verify what happened. Thats a very simple course of investigation, yet it didnt happen (I got a PM well after the demotion). Now given the PM system was working at the time, and there really wasnt any rush to inflict a punishment, one can easily rule out the 'unable to' reason.

Which leaves us with 'didnt want to' or 'didnt bother to'.

Which is poor form. Especially since the administrator that decided on the punishment wouldnt even stick his neck out to inflict it. He simply went to someone else and said "Well, this is what happened (without investigating), so he needs to be punished...and this is what it should be". Of course, this administrator had no right to even involve himself in the punishment, given that is only something that the Head Admin should do.


So yeah. The admin involved didnt investigate the incident. And then decided on a punishment, even though it wasnt his position to do so. And then Sape carried it out without looking into it.

Its kinda like Sape being a judge, and listening to the prosecution, without bothering to listen to the defense.

And now that the full story is known to Sape, he wont overturn without the permission of the Admin involved....even though the punishment should never have had anything to do with him in the first place.

Either way, its a poor reflection on the way the system works.

 

Krash,

That's exactly the problem...anyone speaks up against someone who is a "watched user" of a Mod (or in some cases the Mod themself) has a difference of opinion or has issue with how that person conduct themselves is considered "disruptive." There is more to being constructive then being a "yes-man."

We accept differences of opinion within the bounds of the TOS. The only things I've ever warned someone for are violations of the TOS. It's often a good idea to reread the TOS at times. It's certainly relevant to your complaint.

User agrees not to post material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory, misleading, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, that otherwise violates any law, or that encourages conduct constituting a criminal offense. In compliance with the Federal Trade Commission's Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA), you must be at least 13 years of age to use this system. Also, as a general guideline, all users here should respect one another's opinions and beliefs. User also agrees not to post spoilers regarding the upcoming Star Wars prequel in any forum outside of those specifically labelled as allowing spoilers (this includes posting spoilers of any type in your profile and signature). This applies to private messages as well.

Notice that there aren't any exceptions to the part of "User agrees not to post..." That means that you agree not to post such things as personal attacks, regardless of what others post. If you respond with personal attacks, you have also broken the rules and may get warned.

Also, being on a mod's WUL is no indication of someone being given a special status. For example, from my WUL, there is one user who I recently participated in indefinitely banning (including banning one of his socks), and most of the others got added to that list because they made a series of very good points (usually in disagreement to me) in various discussions.

I have provided example of this from "Senate Floor"...which were ignored. Therefore, I don't frequent that board(anymore) because I have learned it is not a place where my views/constructive criticism can be expressed freely.

And, as I told you when you decided to stop visiting the Senate Floor, you are always welcome to post there within the same rules as anyone else. We welcome other opinions (since that is what makes the Senate interesting in the first place), but only when they follow the same rules as everyone else.

And how (without drawing the wrath of a mod) do you suggest someone to express their views (or simply defend themselves) from attacks by folks like farraday?

By obeying the TOS yourself and not responding with any personal attacks. If you respond to someone with personal attacks, you become guilty of the same offense, and have broken the exact same rules that they did. Don't drop to their level.

That is why we have moderators, to help deal with inappropriate behavior by users. However, when both sides are acting inappropriately, it becomes more difficult to peacefully resolve the issue.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Dagsy is that guilt I hear in your statement considering you were the other involved with this incident?

 

By the same token, you could have sent us a PM, or started a thread in the Mod Squad. Preferably before you gave DA permission to break the rules, but right after you noticed that DA was colorless would have been a good time too. Or even started a thread in the Mod Squad asking about how far managers and administrators can go in telling people what they can do or how we run the Mod Squad. Instead, you hauled things out into Communications, where this is sure to breed Drama.

I know that I didn?t get a PM from you. In the thread that you and DA were posting in, you mention nothing about giving him permission to use his old colors. Did you give him permission via PM, or some other method we can verify? Nevertheless, you do make a good point in that we should have asked you if you had given him permission to use his colors. You?re right, we should have asked.



Oh, and speaking of not investigating the situation, why is it that you and DA seem to think that it was Knight that suggested the punishment. It was not. All four JC Administrators received an identical PM from a JC moderator, asking us to take action. We discussed the situation amongst ourselves, and I suggested that he lose his colors for a week, and this was agreed to by all four administrators.

 

Guilt?

I gave DA permission to change his colours for a short time, provided he stuck to some strong rules. Which he did.

Then later on, a number of hours after the fact, DA was demoted, without so much as a question as to what happened. No investigation at all. No knowledge of the details behind the incident, nor that permission was given.

No guilt on my behalf. I gave him permission to do it for a short time, because I felt that people would enjoy the horseplay that went along with it. And given that people did enjoy the horseplay (and DA stuck with the guidelines I gave), I stand by my decision.

Why would I have guilt on this issue? I did something that I felt would help people have fun on the boards for a little while. I was proven right.

Its just that other members of the administration went off half-cocked later on.

 

ok thanks for the clarification, it was fun while it lasted until DA got demoted, a few of the Dark Lords were upset or probably didn't understand the situation too well.

I even saved the two pages as well. History in the making

DA vs Dagsy

 

but right after you noticed that DA was colorless would have been a good time too

I sent Sape a PM explanation when I noticed the demotion. Until that point, there was no need, given that there was no trouble.

Besides, is it really necessary to seek greater approval for a joke that laster 28 mins (give or take), and happened in the dead of the night when hardly anyone was around?

That takes away from the spontenaiety of the action. We can only allow joking around if we've planned it well in advance. We should be helping people have fun, especially in the 'dead' times.

why is it that you and DA seem to think that it was Knight that suggested the punishment. It was not. All four JC Administrators received an identical PM from a JC moderator, asking us to take action. We discussed the situation amongst ourselves, and I suggested that he lose his colors for a week, and this was agreed to by all four administrators.

Then all 4 of you went along without investigating? Well, that doesnt reflect well on any of you. After all, someone could have easily sent DA a PM. Sounds like a group of administrators that went off half-arsed.

And anyway, I thought the Leadership Council was gone? Well, now thats something to discuss in the MS. Any punishment is up to Sape, not you, KW or G-S.

And you had better talk to Sape. In my discussions with him, he indicated that KW played a very big part in this. Cant divulge what was in the PMs, but either Sape is lying, or KW was the instigator and protagonist.

 

Instead, you hauled things out into Communications, where this is sure to breed Drama.
Well you know how we all are here. Thanks for the vote of cofidence

 

Dagsy, et. al...

I question what any of it has to do with discussing the validity of pro-administration viewpoints. Even DA recognized he was off on an off-topic tangent when he asked about his VIP status. It's about time everyone else does so too.

I don't care where you guys take out your trash, just so long as you don't dump it here.

 

Combining both "pro-admin" and "VIP" points via MERGE INNER JOIN:

Why should someone who is so anti-tf.n and anti-JC on other sites even be allowed to be a VIP anyway? If your not "pro-JC, pro-Admin" then you don't deserve to be held in "high regard" by the site you disparage.

Besides, I thought Giving colours.. even as a "joke" was not something that could be decided upon by individual moderators, but was something that usually comes from the MS as a whole.. simply to prevent silly stuff like this.

UKS