/cry
Sorry to contradict you, but I’ve used that for years and years… out of every two hundred posts I make, I use something like that in the one post when I think there is some ambiguity. In the other 195 posts, it’s very clear. And that leaves four posts for delicious ambiguity.
Goddam right. I hate that about the government, too, always making up new rules on the fly and constantly tweaking them. My grandfather didn’t need all these idiotic government rules about airline security. And the tax laws from 1937 were perfectly fine, why bother to change them? [/sarcasm]
OK, I will give this is a serious answer, although I don’t think it deserves it. We do NOT want to try to write up a law code. The original idea was that we could get along with just “don’t be a jerk” as the only rule. YOU, the posting members, didn’t like that and have continued to want clarification. New situations arise, and we deal with them as we can.
Look, this whole deal about moderator/poster role basically HASN’T COME UP ALL THAT MUCH. Oh, yeah, from time to time, and we’ve dealt with each situation as it arose. And will continue to do so.
And, of course, if we made a rule that the sun should come up in the east, there’d be a gang of posters that would object that it’s not true at the South Pole, where the sun comes up in the north.
There you go again. Sometimes using “sorry” comes naturally, doesn’t it? I don’t think you like being prompted into using it in order to be more sensitive when you’re moderating. I could be mistaken.
The Spanish judge feels you give sarcasm a bad name, though magnanimous as always, gives the attempt a 3.5 and wishes the participant better luck next time.
Appreciate the condescension; exactly the reason I’ve been posting here all these years. Right. Snark aside, I’ll give you a serious answer myself.
In my roughly 5,000 posts and close to a decade here, counting the two in this thread, I doubt you’d find more than ten posts of mine with regards to how you run this joint. Why? Because, by and large, I really don’t care as long as the topics and the posters remain of interest to me. Unlike other posters – not criticizing, just pointing out the difference – I don’t have much of an emotional investment with this place. Meaning that I don’t come here looking for advice and/or pour out my RL travails.
That said, the reason that motivated my snarky reply to twickster is that I am sick and tired of the way many/most of you in power, treat posters on a regular basis: dismissive and rude. I’ve been in business all of my adult life and if an employee of mine acted that way towards one of our costumers…well, let’s just say that they’d be an “ex” employee right quick. With scalding ears to boot.
Seriously, what’s with this looping condescending 'tude so many of you cop? Your pleads for “civility” certainly look hollow in light of how you act – unless what your are really saying is “do as I say, not as I do.”
If it is, then let’s drop all pretenses and call a spade a spade: you are to be considered The Almighty Overlords and we must beg for your pearls of condescending wisdom. If it’s however something else – like being irritable and tired of doing the same crap for so long – then the question answers itself: step away from your keyboards. If your answer comes in the form of “love it or leave it” I’ll have my answer as well.
Let’s just cut the crap.
Not my point. I simply used twickster’s post as a launching pad for my complaint. Why? Because I’ve gotten sick and tired of seeing that attitude, that’s why. And I’ve finally decided to say something about it.
However I will say, on topic, that I found your move vis-a-vis board complains from The Pit to here rather hypocritical and obviously one-sided. You’re collectively armed with with Uzis and we’ve got water-pistols to answer with.
“Fair and Balanced” comes to mind.
I wonder why?
Disclaimer: if the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn’t, I am not talking about you.
Warranty void if you blow a circuit, fry a fuse, burn your monitor and/or are hard of reading.
Apparently it is me who doesn’t understand. To me, you aren’t speaking as a moderator here, as you are not performing any moderating duties. You *are *explaining how moderation works, but that can be done by any poster. But only a moderator can authoritatively tell another poster what to do. It seems you also consider both to be classified under “moderating duties.”
In no way was I intending to be rude or insulting, which is apparently how my post was perceived.
I also apparently misjudged the purpose of this thread. Someone got offended by a moderator, and was suggesting a method of insuring that didn’t happen again. The mods considered the new rule to be too limiting, and dismissed it. As neither side indicated a desire to compromise or agreed to disagree, it basically became a shouting match, with both sides claiming to be right.
On one hand, the staff posts came off as too emotional. On the other hand, they did offer a compromise, saying that if you believe a particular mod is acting improperly, report it to someone else. Some posters do not find this satisfactory, as one moderator is often hesitant to comment on another.
My solution is simple, and pretty much what I assumed was the policy. You have a problem with a moderator action? You bring it up on this forum, in as calm a manner as possible (as mods have admitted to ignoring angry posts in ATMB). And then you live with the result here, or take it on up.
The only other point made here is that sometimes, the mods come off as condescending. Rather than getting all offended by this, I think it would be more productive to figure out what comes accross that way, and ask the mods not to do that. Few people are intentionally condescending.
I would suggest that even if you weren’t aware of my suggestion, and your policy predated it, it would appear to be the case you have adopted the policy. My evidence is limited, to be sure, to simply that you do seem to use it. The adoption of the procedures set out in a policy have nothing to do with knowing that the policy exists. For as far as reality is concerned, you might do it because it’s law, or simply because it’s your habit; that you don’t do something, or do something is what matters. In the case with you, you seem to understand that sometimes it clarifies things.
If you’re reasonable enough to see that in some situations it can avoid a lot of miscommunication, where’s the controversy of requiring that other moderators try to do the same, especially since some of them already do?
I’m explaining how moderation works, and only a moderator can explain that authoritatively. If I’m just another poster, then my opinion about how moderation works may or may not connect to reality.
I use “I’m sorry” a great deal, and always have… when I’m sorry. I don’t use it when I’m not: for instance, when I feel as if I’m facing teenagers and batting my head against a wall trying to be reasonable with those who are out to stir up trouble, not to be reasonable.
RedFury: You’re right on many counts. The problem is usually a question of who we’re dealing with. There are people who are not here to discuss or converse, but just to stir up troubles. It can take a while to ferret them out, and frankly there’s not much we can do unless they actually break the rules – “trolling” is often hard to prove, but an easy accusation. I think, on the whole, the moderators are pretty even tempered and calm. Every so often, we get the feeling that we are dealing with trolls (probably teenaged, at that) and we are sort of helpless, and so our dander gets up.
There’s also, as I’ve said before, a problem with reading text. One can read “Good morning” as a happy greeting, or as a dismissal (ref The Hobbit). Condescension is sometimes in the eye of the reader, and not intended by the mod. (Not always, of course – again, when dealing with people who seem to be teenaged trollers, it’s hard not to be snippy. )
We’ve always had the recourse that, if you don’t like a moderator’s action, you can appeal to an administrator.
And, it should be noted, sometimes the remedial actions happen behind the scenes, in emails. This is true of posters sometimes, too – we don’t always feel that public flogging is the best remedy or gets to the best results. Sometimes, a quiet and private discussion can be WAY more effective.
I totally feel your frustration, but I think in threads like this, you end up with the worst possible outcome: the trolls get the conflict they want, and regular posters feel like complaints are met with irritation by the staff.
A few hopefully constructive comments:
-
If the complainer is a guest with a very recent join date and/or very few posts, yet surprisingly strong feelings about the mods and/or the rules, just ban them. Any actual “long time lurker” is going to have sense enough not to charge in with guns blazing when they finally decide to start posting.
-
Otherwise, assume the person isn’t complaining just to make you mad or cause trouble. Even if you’re wrong, everyone else reading the thread will appreciate the approach.
-
And don’t make comments like:
They are antagonistic and counter-productive. Vent to the other mods about the frustrations of the job, don’t do it like this.
I think if you adopt these suggestions, you’ll be amazed at how much less whiny everyone magically becomes.
Not that I think I’m whining; indeed, I even posted about a potential way to avoid the issue altogether, in the case specifically where there’s ambiguity as to which role it is someone’s functioning as.
In this case, I suppose that would include me. But I’m hard-pressed to understand why it would be prudent that merely because someone is new to the board, that he’s to presume incidents he sees are atypical. If the conduct is so very rare, then one would imagine that it’s unlikely a recently joined addition would witness it. Of course, that someone has been posting somewhere longer doesn’t somehow imbue them with any magical powers of discernment than some new person. Evidence is the same for everyone.
Sounds very reasonable.
I think if you adopt these suggestions, you’ll be amazed at how much less whiny everyone magically becomes.
[/QUOTE]
I’d agree with that.
I believe it’s actually goddamnit. With an “n”. Not sure it’s all one word either.
Well, god knows otherwise..
Clearly, definition 1 doesn’t apply since his came at the front. =P
Appreciate the response Dexter and thank you for the tone contained therein. I understand where you’re coming from as I ran a forum for a number of years after S.I.'s own board closed down in '98. Place is still going although I gave up my affiliation with it long ago as the ratio of headaches vs enjoyment became increasingly one-sided. So yes, I empathize with the difficulty of culling the herd in order to give individual posters due respect.
Having said that, I am not surprised to see that Giraffe has already addressed and offered a suggestion as to how to resolve the issue that drove me to post in this thread to begin with. Not [surprised] because I think he is particularly a visionary, but rather because throughout the years that I’ve seen him at work, we appear to apply what seems to me a quite sensible approach towards board etiquette – but even more salient in that communality as pertains to the topic at hand, is the fact that I’ve found to be, in so far as my memory goes, an advocate for both sides of the equation regardless of his status. Which, again, is the sole issue that brought me to post here in the first place: the perception of worthlessness towards the very people that provide the great majority of the content to the message board.
In closing, I’ll also add that this is not really an issue that has affected me directly, likely due to the fact (as priorly mentioned) that I simply don’t much care to get involved with the running of this board. Truth be told I think there are enough (too many) busybodies as is, thus my hands-off approach. But this whole thing had been bugging me for quite some time and I felt the need to express my concerns. In that vein I do appreciate you taking the time to hear my complaint, and hopefully, you and the rest of TPTB will tone down the condescension – or at the very least stop making all-encompassing claims that generate posts like mine.
In short, less divisiveness and a slightly more courteous tone coming from on up high. If so, I know of at least one poster that wouldn’t have bothered to comment on the situation – and I suspect I wouldn’t be the only one.
Trust that is not too much to ask for.
Be well.
That has always been the goal. We sometimes fall short of the ideal, especially when the mods feel that they are batting their heads against a wall, but that’s always the goal.
I need to add a footnote that sometimes “condescending tone” is in the eye of the reader. It’s a problem with online stuff, as I said earlier, that one can read any tone one wants into a post.
Yes, it is.
(You can choose to interpret the previous sentence as “Dumbass, that’s why I keep requesting that the Mods adopy a policy of erring on the side of caution, and recuse themselves as a general rule when they wish to participate in some heated debate as a poster” or simply as “Yes, **Dex **, tonal precision is difficult without an actual tone to one’s voice.” Since we’re in ATMB, the second choice is the correct one.
Your argument, as I understand it, is that we’re in agreement except for the diminished fun for the Mods if they were to obey the general rule about recusal. I maintain that the sheer giddy joy of serving as a Mod should be subservient to the primary Mod function, that of clearly and correctly maintaining a consistent tone in each of the forums. (“Sorry if we hurt your field, mister,” would be your response to this point.)
I would add only that the particular concerns raised herein apply especially when you (the admins and mods) are locking a thread. Because you get the last word in those cases, it seems to me that you should choose words more thoughtfully than in an ordinary mod ruling. Passive voice and neutral phraseology would be helpful.
Good: Thread closed due to too much off-topic discussion.
Bad: Okay, you guys, cut it out. If you can’t get along, take it elsewhere. I’m closing this thread.
No, that’s not the reason we don’t require recusal. The reason is that mods need to be able to respond, usually quickly, without waiting for some lengthy administrative process.
**Current scenario:**Several posters are indulging in discussion, and a mod is participating as well (as a poster.) On page 2, one of the posters calls another poster a numb-nut. The mod posts a warning a few posts later.
Your proposal: Several posters are indulging in discussion, and a mod is participating as well (as a poster.) On page 2, one of the posters calls another poster a numb-nut. The mod who is participating in the thread can’t do anything, since she must recuse herself, so she reports the post. This means that she and one other mod who shares the forum gets an email, alerting them to the alleged insult. However, the other mod in the forum may not read email until the next day (we’re not on 24/7.) By the time he goes to take action, the thread is now on page 6.
Sorry, that just doesn’t work. By that time, the original poster could have stopped reading the thread altogether, or could have posted another ten or twelve insults (not unusual with some new person who doesn’t know the rules.)
Timeliness is the reason that any mod, from any forum, can take action when they see a rules violation. And the reason that we don’t ask mods to recuse themselves and spend time trying to find someone else to cover a situation.
The REPORT function is very helpful, but is not instanteous – the REPORT sends an email to the mods for that forum, who see it when they see it.
If you think a mod has made a wrong decision, there are three ways of handling it:
(1) Email that mod and explain your reasoning and ask them to reconsider.
(2) Email an admin and explain your reasoning.
(3) Post politely in ATMB, explaining your reasoning and asking the mod (or an admin) to reconsider.
A mod usually needs to make a decision in a timely (immediate) manner. Reversal of a decision usually can be at leisure, after discussion and contemplative thought.
I have said all this before, multiple times.
Finally: you think there’s “giddy joy” in being a mod? If that’s what you think, then there’s a serious disconnect between your statements and reality. Perhaps you’re projecting. And I do not understand your comment about “hurt your field.”
Then have a rotating “mod” of the day position and make all us nay-sayers deal with it. =P
That’ll learn us good. :eek:
“giddy joy” refers somewhat sardonically to your post here wherein you explain to me that, since Modding is so poorly compensated in monetary terms, the poor overworked creatures must be allowed their pleasures by being allowed to post freely, even in threads they are hotly moderating.
The “hurt your field” line (as opposed to the ever-dangerous “hurt your butt” line) is an allusion to the scene in A HARD DAYS’ NIGHT, wherein the boys are romping in an open field, giddy with delight until they are chased off by the field’s mean owner to whom they (I believe George) says the quoted line. It’s a comeback to someone who seeking to deny another the giddy joy I was alluding to above. Your position is “Gee, Mods gotta have SOME fun, don’t they? It’s too much to ask them to refrain from posting at their pleasure until another Mod can be roused from his coma,” while mine would be “Who cares about the Mods having fun? I want a board moderated evenhandedly and well.”
Maybe get more mods?
What? There aren’t enough already?
:rolleyes: