Hiding Evidence, or Thin-Skinned Administrators

Well, I only have pages 1, 3 and 4. I must have seen 2 at work. I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll repost page 4 right here. If Seyrah has page 2, then we can combine them and post it out in a new thread.

 

I don't have anything to add at the moment, but in the interest of illustrating forum-wide concern, I'd just like to say that I agree with the sentiments of this thread.

 

NOTE: This is ONLY epic's opening post that started the thread, and page 4 of epic's thread that was deleted last night. I'm reposting it here, because page 4 has most of the unresolved issues in it. Like I said above, if I can get ahold of page 2 which I'm missing, I'll repost the entire thing in a new thread for reference.

First, epic's opening post:

------------------------------------------------

For the betterment of the JC forums
Author: epic Date Added: 9:01am (PST)
Well, we've had another incident, and this time, we've got to deal with this. Too many times this has happened, and it will only continue to do so if nothing is learnt from the past mistakes.

I was told by PreacherBoy to direct my comments to this forum, so that is exactly what I have done.

Firstly, as was the popular opinion in my last "respect" thread, by certain Admins, I am NOT slamming you, or discrediting you. I am merely expressing my rightful opinion on the condition of the forums and the Administration as I see fit. And yes, I *did* agree to abide by their rules and whatnot when i signed up here, but I've seen too much stuff go on, that has, and continues to have a detrimental effect on the JC's popularity and livelihood. This thread's 100% ONLY purpose is to *help* the forums. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Plain and simple.

The initial problem stemmed from LC's "deleted threads" thread. I quote "No Blasters!" who expressed the sentiment well when she said:

"They [Admins in the Episode II and III forum] use logic and reason to deal with members, not a sledgehammer."

This was comparing the Episode II & III handling of users and thread deletions, as compared to the Communities handling. Like I said, the basic feeling was that LC seemed to be "throwing her weight around", as an Admin, and unnecessarily threatening to ban users who didn't comply with the rules.

These are fear tactics...ruling by force. They are NOT helpful to the forums, because they do nothing but incite and provoke users in return.

Now, I'm sure LC didn't entirely mean for things to come out like this, but the fact is, they DID. The Administration as a whole needs to look at this, and perhaps discuss among themselves how to best combat the giving off of *superiority" as an Administrator.

I REPEAT, that I'm not slamming you in any way, LC. I am merely letting you know the feeling that has been given off to the gewneral population, on more than one occasion. For the betterment of the forums, it is something we *all* need to work on. No one is exempt, but being in a leadership position further emphasises the fact you [and your fellow Admins] need to ALWAYS be in control of the situation, and make sure you're never taking your Administraive position too seriously, or over-reacting to something that could easily be solved with better tact or diplomacy skills.

However, this wasn't the only problem. The MAIN problem occured later in the thread.

Because the thread had been intended as a "non-discussion" thread, and only intended for Admins to post notices of deletions, PreacherBoy was unhappy when he found the thread had developed into a discussion. Sure, perhaps the comments in the thread should have been put in the Communications forum, but did it *really* matter? The direction of the thread flowed to a point and discussion developed from it. Big deal. NONE of the users specifically set out to break the rules imposed by LC in the thread by posting there, they were simply following the tone of the thread. They were simply looking out for the forums, and trying to HELP the situation.

A few quotes that were made from PreacherBoy, to the users:

"I can't believe how stupid the majority of you are."

"Oh and epic, you may have a point there, but you are still really really unintelligent for posting in this thread..."

"YOU ARE ALL IN A LOAD OF TROUBLE."

SenatorDA made an excellent reply in regards to this, and I will quote him:

"This is precisely the point that I was trying to make in my initial thread. A

 

Thanks.

I have to note that at NO time did I slam or flame the Administration. I only objected to the actions taken.

 

Ol'val.

I do agree the original action taken was far out of proportion with the original problem. That much has been made very, very clear.

Further (and perhaps even more seriously), the original thread in which this issue had been discussed _much_ more reasonably has been deleted -- something that has been growing all too common of late. Now this deletion could have been provoked by many things -- but the perception created by this and other deletions is that uncomfortable, open discussion will always be erased by those in power, and that some things are to be simply accepted by the general membership without discussion or appeal -- which indeed was also the core of the original issue. It might be argued that such issues are to be debated over ICQ, e-mail, or PM -- but, in addition to quietly covering up the issue from everyone in the JC membership but the specific person involved in each specific exchange, many have had little success in achieving any response via these avenues of late: which of course only reinforces the illusion of individual isolation -- that each person who PMs is, in effect, acting alone: one person sending the message, one person responding.

For some cases, hidden and isolated response is no longer acceptable.

I will suggest, however, that a constant attack mode does not contribute to objectivity -- by anyone. What occurred yesterday and last night certainly is a JC-wide issue and a serious one, but it will neither be looked at objectively nor even considered if the core group involved are forced into a defensive stance. Despite yesterday's apology thread (the second of its kind), lines have been drawn in the sand: the kind of lines that define sides and force outward perception of unanimity -- regardless of actual opinion.

Ware: lest, in the very act of protesting, we create precisely that to which we object, by forcing a defensive solidarity which did not originally exist.

Kida

 

Whoaaa Mama, this is getting heated.

Who is this LC chracter and what have they done in the past by the way? Can somebody please fill me in as I am not a regular of the community/communication forums?

 

In response to AL (I can respond to this, as it involves me... although not ONLY me):

We had discussed this issue over PM, and I thought we had a very productive discussion. It was agreed that perhaps the threads were being deleted a little too *quickly*, without time for the majority of the forum-goers to see the problem thread. So, I've taken that advice into consideration, and I now only immediately remove *clearly* redundant or problematic threads. Off-topic threads I usually allow to sit with a little reply by me for a while.

I was brought on to help ease some of the problems in the Ep.2/3 forum. There had been numerous complaints about off-topic and 'crap' threads there. I enforced the rules to help this. I have been adjusting my 'timing', but I've never been 'unfair', I don't think. I always PM, I always document everything in the deleted threads forum, and I've only received one 'disagreement' from an author, and I agreed with him, after looking at the issue again, and the issue was resolved right away.

So, my point is: in terms of the problems you brought up about over-zealous new admins, I think that I am making progress to that regard. I will not let clearly redundant threads stay, nor off-topic ones, but I have slowed my reaction time down so as to clearly show my point, and to allow the message to sink in. I can't speak for others, but I know I've taken your advice to heart. I'm trying to do my best.

However, I think the point of *this* thread is to discuss the events that happened yesterday, not to discuss "problems with the administration", so, let's keep it on topic, OK?

Thanks,
Vertical

 

I edited my repost and included epic's thread-opening post in the top.

 

Vertical,

I understand now as originally the point wasn't that clear though I am sure people had a clear idea what they meant.

Hence apologies in order though my points are becoming less and less concerning you my friend.

 

I am pretty sure I have page 2, JMA -- but I didn't have those last posts that you printed right there. You & I could probably combine to provide Epic with a complete version of his deleted thread, to keep for posterity or whatever he likes.

I think we all need to create a group "Letter to the powers that be" . . . a petition of sorts. To demonstrate that there IS a general consensus here that a problem exists. It does not just come from one particular group of the JC. It is affecting EVERYONE's enjoyment of the forum, and some longtime members have been disgusted enough to think about leaving.

Let's be calm and rational and provide examples. Most of the deleted threads still exist in some form on JMA's hard drive, my own, or others'. We need to show that we have attempted to resolve this with the admins in question, and they have been unresponsive or, as someone put it, selectively responsive. There is a pattern of behavior here and there has been no attempt to learn from it and correct it. Au contraire, it has been hushed up and swept under the proverbial rug.

I understand the concept of admin unity . . . and you can't understand the pressures of the job until you've held it, etcetera. But the time period in which such behavior could have been excused has passed. It has occurred, again, and again, and again.

We ARE the forum. The forum that squelches the voices of its own members WILL die. And what good then will be all the rules intended to keep order?

 

I see the PMs, and requests to communicate in this manner, as a "divide and conquer" tactic. As Shar Kida said, "one person sending the message, one person responding". As I stated before, this method did not work yesterday (or in the past) in dealing with the issue(s) at hand. It will not work today. We must continue to post to threads such as this, and bring up points before the forum at large, so that everyone can see and discuss them.

This thread may seem like a full-on assault, and maybe it is; I seek only to bring the issue to light, fully and irreversibly. No tiptoeing. No kid gloves. The time has come for discussion, and I'm pleased with what's happening in this thread.

The resolution of this issue hinges on solidarity, visibility, and sustained discussion.

Thanks to all for their contributions.

 

If you've still got my email, Seyrah, could you email me the raw text of page 2 so we can get this thread reposted?

EDIT...actually, scratch that...you can repost it yourself, cause I'm off to work in a couple minutes. Just copy and paste my post here into your new thread...

 

Does anyone also have the original thread posted by the admin (is it ok to name names here??) in JC Community? As I was one of those posting to that thread in it's early incarnation, I am not sure when everything was shot to pieces, and how the admins and members reacted to each other past any point around the start of page 2. I was PM'ed by a member who had a question deleted on page 1 and was threatened, but past that and the initial mass banning post I don't know how it progressed.

 

I believe Padme Bra has pages 1 and 3 of it.

 

Good point. It will be good to see the origin thread here and judge for ourselves again what the whole thing was about.

 

For those of you who have asked, here are links to two pages of the "original" thread in question. Apparently, and unfortunately, the third page wasn't saved by anyone before being deleted.

Page One: http://www.geocities.com/billlumbergh2000/tirade1.html

Page Two: http://www.geocities.com/billlumbergh2000/tirade.html

 

I had never read that thread before now, so I refrained from making comments about it. After reading those two pages, it appears to me as though LC didn't want a discussion, she just wanted people to ask her questions, and show everybody her answers, so the whole board would know. Then, some of the people decide they want to start a conversation -- which is what she asked them not to do.

 

Unfortunatly those links don't show the posts that were deleted and edited, the posts that were the real controversy.

 

Thanks for setting those links up, Senator Dzrekpo Amegnran.

 

Like Bra said, the problem wasn't to do with the thread itself, or the fact we added to the discussion in a non-discussion-intended thread, [I admitted my fault to this to LC herself].

The problem was the way in which the thread was created, the tone of it, etc, and also, the way the situation was handled. Period. That has always been the problem from the start.

I'm off to bed now. I'll see what results of all this when I wake up tomorrow...

 

"Unfortunatly those links don't show the posts that were deleted and edited, the posts that were the real controversy."

True, Padme Bra. There are still a few posts in there that are indicative of the issue, though.

Jay, the point of this argument is the tone that was displayed in that thread and (hasty, illogical) actions taken as a result of it. It's an example of the miscommunication and disregard for members that was characteristic of this incident and a few similar occurances in the recent past.

 

I think you guys are missing a few posts at the end of epic's thread. Shar Kida posted a reply that said he nominated epic and Padme Bra as admins hoping that in doing this they wouldn't be percieved as admin wanna-bes and I posted a reply that said I seconded the nomination. That was around midnight and my post was the last one I saw.

 

It is so far fetched that it is absolutely ludicrous how some of the admins take themselves and their duties so bloody seriously. Step back a bit, look at what you do. You moderate who posts or not and what they post on a geek board, have some sense of irony and have some sense of self-depreciating humour.

I have now read those threads (Thanks by the way) and the comments there from admins are so pedantic it is unbelievable.

 

"Shar Kida posted a reply that said he nominated epic and Padme Bra as admins"

--LOL, well at least we know why the thread was deleted.

 

After reading that thread, I'd just like to make one humble suggestion to the Admins. When an administrative decision is made (e.g. "This thread is for notification only and not discussion."), *ask* people to follow it. Even if you're not asking at all. Even if you're telling them straight out, "Do not post here or all hell will break loose," just ask them. Don't tell.

It is much more palatable to the average person to hear (or read), "This is what this thread was created for. Please help us out and keep it for that, and only that. It'd be a great help," than to hear, "No conversations allowed in this thread. I think I will allow people to post ONE message concerning a deleted thread or a banning, only if it has to do with them." The latter is a command, and makes people feel as if they're being babysat. The former is a request for everyone's help in making this place better. It all boils down to tact. "Please" makes all the difference.