Very true. They could decide that the standard board font was Comic Sans, if they wanted.
And we could suggest that was a bad idea, and promote what we think could be better ones. Or agree and merrily praise the decision, if we were big fans of posts that looked like this.
Or we can realize that we are guests in their house, accept their hospitality and their rules(which we agree to when entering), and try to have a good time. Different boards are run in different ways by different owners of said boards-some last, most don’t. This one seems to be doing something right (if its longevity is any measure of its success), and I think that the input it allows its guests is more than generous.
I can’t speak for your own home, but my house’s purpose isn’t to fight ignorance. Or, if you prefer a more general point, to have people inside in order to discuss… well, for the most part whatever they wish. It’s more like a privately-owned club. Which, to bring in your earlier point, certainly retains the rights of the owners to set whichever rules they so wish and to allow the processes by which they work be as open or hidden as they wish.
You’ve put it in a similar way before; that the insight into internal processes is a “gift”. I’m not asking for any kind of benevolent help out of a desire of moral goodnesss, a kind present that goes beyond what we should expect. I’m just talking about processes which work better as a way to solve problems and even avoid future problems. It’s entirely in the self-interest of the moderating team to work with a more transparent process than they do now.
I too think this board is pretty great. That’s why I’m interested in improving it yet further. To turn that “something right” into yet more somethings right. After all, if the only care was to be satisfied with what we have now, why transition to the board format as it currently is? Why add new forums? Why move from the old membership system to the Charter Membership paid system?
The Charter Membership system is a legacy of the pay to post days. Only current Charter members can retain their charter status. It is not offered to any other members.
Yep. It’s a good example of how the board changed because - good as it was - people thought it could work better. As with all the other changes I gave as examples.
I’m missing your point. You seem to be saying that the Charter membership is an improvement, when it’s really a closed club that doesn’t admit new members. How is that an improvement? 
I’m actually not passing judgement on whether it’s an improvement or not. I’m just saying that changes to the board have happened when people have thought things could work better. **Czarcasm **says the board must be doing something right, and I agree, but where it seems we differ is I don’t think “they’re doing something right” is the end of the argument - and I think the fact that there’s been changes in the boards’ history backs that up.
So, you don’t have a point then? Alrighty.
Oh, bad show. The point is the* existence* of the change, which shows that - at some time - people thought the board was good, but could be better. Even if the result had been terrible, much like my Comic Sans example, that wouldn’t deny the point that the change had been made because people thought matters could be better and tried to accomplish that.
If I haven’t made the point you’d like me to make, I apologise for that, but you’ll have to supply your own arguments to do so. I made the point I wanted to make.
I think this may be the crux of the disagreement. I don’t think the process you describe would work better. I don’t think the management team here thinks your way would work better. Whether something of this nature would be in the self interest of the moderating team is not objectively true, and since they’ve made the determination for themselves already, you are both at an impasse and out of luck.
Well, you seem to consider that the process I describe would render the board worthless, and that if used in a company it would result in a “thirst for blood” of complaints for customers to hit a pay day, but that’s certainly a less hyperbolic summary. We can go with that.
Given that they aren’t doing it already, and no mods and admins have been in to agree, this seems likely enough.
Well, no, actually. The possibility exists that they can be convinced otherwise. Just as you’re doing now; you and I disagree on a subjective point, but we’ve been discussing the matter, learning about each other’s viewpoints and experiences, trying to convince each other or others reading this that we have good points.
You’re right about the lack of any objective truth, though, that’s a handicap for both our “sides”. I suggest that if we try out a more transparent process on only a temporary basis, we’d be able to get some kind of more objective evidence about how it would actually work - or not work - here.
No, I’m not going to bother. If you expect me to do your work for you, then it isn’t worth it to me to read your posts any further. You seem to be stuck on a point that is only desirable to yourself.
Agreed.
You’ve got that backwards. I did all my work; I made all the points I wanted to make. You suggested that I didn’t have a point based on quoting one line of my post to you; I wasn’t trying to make the point you apparently would like me to, and, as I said, if you want me to make some point that I have no interest in making, that’s on you, not me. Make your own points, and don’t expect me to make the points you’d like me to make for you.
Would you like to try again, or are you done regardless?
As for TB, on the subject of doing your own work and not expecting others to do it for you…
I’m done. I’m through parsing your posts to try to figure out what your point is.
A transparent process is better for all parties. To nail it down to the crux.
I’m not sure how it is you know that I’m arguing a point that is “only desirable to myself” if you feel unable to parse my posts to know what my point is. Generally speaking, I try to pass judgement only when I feel I understand what I’m passing judgement on. When I feel I don’t know what a point is, I can’t reasonably take a stand on it. Something just for future reference, I guess.
From what I’ve read, only two other posters on the forums share your belief. Everyone else seems to prefer the status quo, at least those who have posted an opinion.
Eh. There’s something of a continuum of views, I’d say. There’s posters who take no issue with the status quo, point blank. Some are fine, but specify about Miller’s apology in their acceptance. There’s suggestions that mod noting or warning of mods be in place, and others who would be happy just with spreading the information here into the thread this whole thing originated from. I see a suggestion that a good idea might be just to say that matters are being discussed behind closed doors. And then me and a couple of others who seem to be at the farthest end of the “information would be a good idea” continuum.
But I’m happy to agree that, generally speaking, more people who’ve posted an opinion disagree with me than agree.
Fortunately, it is not oft times that mods break rules, so whatever, it’s not that big a deal.
I do have a few issues though, with a complete lack of communication about mod rule breaking.
The main one is exemplified in the thread that this thread spawned from, where Miller directly insulted another poster, in complete violation of the rules. If Miller had not issued his apology, how long do you think it would have been before other posters started piling on that poster (who is a bit controversial in his subject matter) pit style. If they are then warned for breaking the rules, could they not point to the mod’s seemingly unmodded breaking of those same rules as an affirmative defense?
Second, if you are a poster, who is insulted directly by a mod in violation of the rules, how are you going to feel if there is no visible action taken? I would think that, on this board, mods get special treatment, and would not interact with them as a poster in the future, but as a bully with authority. It would have a strong chilling effect on participating in any thread that a mod is posting in, under the concern of being freely insulted by those in charge.
I don’t think anyone is looking to get mods pilloried or publicly humiliated. It’s a tough job, for which they get little recompense. (I know they don’t get paid, but there must be some perks). I don’t think anyone needs to or cares to know the “mod loop” discussions. No one needs to know what sort of discipline, if any, Ed tosses down.
The only thing I would like to see is, “I was out of line in posting that, and I would endeavor to not do so in the future” or some such from the mod in question. I do not consider that to be that much to ask, in fact, it has already been done in this exact example, for which I give Miller great praise.
I agree with this, particularly the last two points.