Jump to content

Chimpy

Forum guru
  • Content Count

    763
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Chimpy

  1. That seems to be leading to public ridicule of members which is not something I think any of the moderators would want or allow.

     

    Except when they do it themselves whilst admonishing members as this very thread is about? :mellow:

     

    Generally on principle public humiliation is something I'd have a moral problem with though.

     

    Anyway am out for the night.

  2. The only real problem is if the setup of the site would allow that, it has to be an automatic process when the warrning is issued, the poster would receive a PM that they'd been dinged and the orignal post would be copied into the infraction thread.

     

    We found out in the other thread that the mods have a box to stick a PM message in when they issue a warning point. The post copying would likely have to be a manual step AFAIK.

  3. Regarding "past history", the only thing mod's have to go on is the warning points panel and their ability to search through a persons previous posts.

     

    Past history is more personal past history between the member and the moderator. Like The Chef says when a conflict of interest occurs its best to GTFO and pass it on to someone else. It might manifest itself in say making antagonistic comments that someone is another persons *badgeress*. You might even try to get round the swear filter as the substitute word makes the whole thing look a bit silly.

  4. I guess you could say I posted in that thread in an attempt to interject some humor (Eddie Murphy and SNL missing out on Obama), and as they say jokes you have to explain aren't funny so I got dinged. If I say I'm a socialist though can I still be in the club with the rest of you?

     

    You should direct that question at Stealth as the only reason I posted in that thread was to interject some humour as well! The jokes were funny and a whole series of people got it with no malice intended. Anyway my complaint about that thread was not related to the reasoning behind getting the warning point but the mechanism behind it's delivery.

  5. Good post there The Chef the solution to me is pretty obvious:

     

    - Moderators shouldn't be rude to members, particularly when wearing their moderator hats. This avoids allegations of unprofessional conduct and would save people reacting badly to decisions.

    - If people express an negative opinion about what you are doing it's better to talk to them about it (via PM) than suspend them in the hopes of ignoring it.

    - If a moderator thinks there is a conflict of interest (such as they have been involved in the thread or previous history) it should be passed on to another mod.

    - If a moderator can't manage the above then they should quit.

     

    From a users point of view I usually escalate things to Marlowe if I disagree with a mods decision. I last did that in the VCRA thread where mature discussions about the question of under-18s importing got consistently derailed and the thread locked. Amazingly once I laid out some ground rules the entire thing went smoothly and we had a good look at the issues. If I think it's an issue worth gathering more opinion about, I put it here.

     

    It would probably be good to formalise the procedure for that sort of thing though. Rather than leaving it to hope and guesswork!

  6. I'm really not sure what your point is with respect to that other thread.

     

    The Obame thread DOES, however, provide a good example of where members such as Titleist, Whomper and Chimpy attempted to undermine a topic with glib comments which were taken in good spirit at first and then, when they continued to the point where warning points were issued, complaints are made regarding heavy-handed moderation. :rolleyes:

     

    But the point is they continued for a few posts and stopped before the warning points were even issued! Besides why are you bringing in an entirely separate incident in a totally different thread?

     

    Since you can't seem to get passed that incident lets take a look at the anatomy of that situation:

     

    You posted here about warning points being issued, no mention of who got them and I didn't notice them for a clear 24 hours afterwards and had to PM you to find out what they were about. Hence why I wrote the post earlier suggesting telling someone what they did wrong might help!

     

    The people who you characterised in a PM to me as "republican morons" included:

    babybackribs

    WeirdoTransvestite

    Titleist

    cazboab (who is a global mod)

    Victory

    Danke

    Myself

     

    I expect all these people received warning points as I did? cazboab I've seen you watching this thread did you get warning points?

     

    Anyway further to that my post was on Oct 9 2009, 08:59 PM you didn't issue warning points or post on the thread until Oct 10 2009, 12:21 AM long after the jokes had stopped and people were back to discussing topics around the Nobel Peace Prize. So yeah it seemed a little unwarranted for making an on topic joke, although I didn't make that the subject of my complaint previously and don't particularly care that they were given to me. You also later relented and removed them saying:

     

    I know we often find ourselves with opposing points of view but I just wanted to point out that I've never issued warning points (to you or anybody else) simply as a way of imposing my own opinion.

    I hope you can accept that.

     

    I issued those WPs to several people because it was clear that certain people wanted to undermine that Obama thread rather than discuss the subject sensibly.

     

    Having said that, given your general attitude on the forums, they were probably undeserved.

    I'm sure you aren't losing sleep over it either way but I like to try and put things right.

     

    I wasn't and I appreciated the apology. Dunno why you felt the need to drag this up now though?

  7. I didn't notice the "tiny clique" comment and can say other than oogling his guns I've had no direct contact with Titleist in anyway shape or form. I had the misgivings that I'm expressing at the time and this thread was the first place I've expressed them. MXCL chatted to me about this after that first post as he is on my MSN list which is freely available on my profile as we have talked before about the game I'm working on and some other things. Stealth is just trying to lump us in together as a group of people biased towards Titleist to deflect from having to look at complaints about his behaviour coming from multiple sources. It couldn't be further from the truth.

  8. I don't think what I wrote was particularly insulting.

    What's more, I don't think BBR was too worried about it either, given that he hasn't yet complained about it.

     

    Or perhaps he was too scared to complain since you suspended the only two people that voiced so much as a complaint.

     

    You were most certainly more insulting that Titliest was to you! But it's nice to know you think it was appropriate behaviour, even if it does contravene this part of the Forum Rules:

     

    Be nice to other forum users

    Treat others as you would expect to be treated. If you are abusive on these forums, your posts / threads will be edited or deleted, you may be given warning points, you may get your account suspended, and persistent offenders will be banned.

     

    As well as this rule:

     

    This is a PG-13 web site

     

    By this, we mean that the following things are NOT allowed to be posted on the forums...

     

    * foul or obscene language (there is a language filter that will block most profanities. Deliberately mis-spelling words to get past the language filters will result in your post being edited or deleted)

     

    But whats good for the goose is not good for the gander I guess?

  9. I have no idea if he was insulted. Do you?

     

    The point of an apology is supposed to be a sincere admission of error. You either think it was okay to insult him or not. By making it conditional on him complaining it suggests that you think your behaviour was perfectly acceptable and are only offering to apologise in that instance to save face.

     

    Never mind the object lesson you gave him about complaining about mods behaviour in that thread... doesn't exactly make you appear to be someone you can complain about?

  10. I can't help noticing that babybackribs has not registered any complaint over my comment.

    If he wants to post here or PM me I will be happy to apologise for any insult made.

     

    Hang on! Someone doesn't need to request an apology and only apologising on receipt of a complaint hardly speaks of an honourable motive for doing so!

  11. You know all this talk of "the proper place" Is reminding me of the "Free Speech zones" that have become so popular these days.

     

    There's a difference here. The threads are broadly on a topic for a reason, it's a method of organising conversations into topics and areas. Otherwise you may as well have one thread with everyone talking across one another at will. It's also why we have moderators who try to keep things organised. The key point here is that they should be facilitators of debate not some sort of authoritarian in charge of debate. So having rules about not going too off-topic and posting in the right place is entirely in keeping with the framework of a forum. You do need to make it clear what is or isn't allowed though.

  12. No, it's not alright for moderators to swear and insult users, just as it's not alright for users to swear at other users. I am unaware as to whether Stealth apologised to the user in question, however, so can't really comment any further.

     

    Good! At least someone on the mod staff is willing to directly acknowledge that at least in part his behaviour was wrong.

     

    I think it would have been much better for all concerned if Titliest had simply PM'd Stealth, or to create a separate thread such as this one. Generally when a user posts a complaint in a thread where a moderator has taken action and asked people to get back on topic, it comes across to me as that user attempting to show people that the moderator is the spawn of pure malevolence, or an attempt to derail the thread further as some kind of mini-revolt.

     

    It is most definitely okay for users to post their complaints, however, complaints should be made in the correct place. Posting a complaint in any thread after a moderator has asked users to get back on topic generally just derails the thread further, and is a blatant attempt to ignore the moderators request.

     

    Perhaps this should be made more clear in the rules then. A 'complaints procedure' if you like. BTW you 'shoulda PMd' works both ways its hardly like Stealth bothered to get to the bottom of things before suspending Titleist and two weeks seems like an awful long time for such a weak expression of displeasure!

     

    The "spawn of pure malevolence" and "mini-revolt" is hilariously over the top when describing someone saying that they thought something was unprofessional!

     

    I believe the correct thing to do if a user wishes to complain would be to either create a thread such as this one in this forum, or, if they wish, raise the matter privately with the moderator in question, Marlowe, or another global.

     

    I agree with this too but if it's not clearly communicated other people with different ideas will do different things. Punishing them because they didn't follow rules that don't exist except in other peoples heads doesn't work very well.

  13. I haven't slung mud at anyone.

     

    You initially neglected to mention that your decisions were essentially reversed by another moderator though and that you apologised for your actions! That's not exactly presenting the same situation and when directed at MXCL makes it look like you are trying to make him look like he is just complaining about that. That the two are related but ended up resolved in a completely different manner I think speaks volumes.

     

    I don't believe I've posted "thats just the way it is" either.

     

    Not explicitly but that is the summation of what you did post.

  14. Posting "Wow, that was professional." is not an attempt to get the thread back on topic.

     

    It's not an attempt to derail the thread either. It's a valid criticism of someones actions. Perhaps a little sarcastic, perhaps not raised in the right venue but it hardly deserves two weeks suspension! I think ego and temper got the better of Stealth there.

     

    I hope I'm not coming across as defensive, Chimpy. I'm simply trying to provide the moderators viewpoint and perspective in a situation such as this, rather than simply the members which has been portrayed quite adequately. ;)

     

    You are coming across as defensive to me and others though. You are ignoring the substantive complaints raised here in favour of slinging mud at one of the people raising the complaint and saying what essentially amounts to 'thats just the way it is'.

  15. Now I cannot condone such a course of conduct, it's not my style. I'll grant you Moderators have to appear to be whiter than white (in a 'clean' sense, don't go misconstruing that comment into something its not...) and above reproach.

     

    There should be a system of addressing these issues..... and indeed you are making good usage of that very system by posting your comments here. So you see, the process can and does work. Nobody is hiding anything and it's certainly not the 'pack mentality' I spoke of before.

     

    Nobody is coming to your house with a black sack and some large batons (well, not yet anyway! but best keep any eye out).

     

    What the eventual outcome will be is far from me to speculate upon. I am merely a pawn and do not consider the functions of higher beings (it makes my brain hurt).

     

    Well hopefully something positive will result rather than the current rather defensive attitude being displayed by some here (not yourself) to what seems like reasonable and constructive criticism.

     

    But one thing I will say is, whilst Stealth is brash, ubrupt, cynical, opinionated, hot tempered and dare I say ugly.....

    He's a good honest bloke, he's done a lot in this forum and is a worthy addition. It would be a more monochrome place without him.

     

    As someone whose personality regularly clashes with Stealths and who thinks he has his own set of failings as a moderator I fully agree that he is an essential part of the forum and has done a lot for it. That doesn't make him immune from criticism for his actions though.

     

  16. A very well worded post, but you don't seem to realise that the mods aren't a democractic group that you've voted into power.

     

    To have taken regular members' opinions as gospel as to how the forum is run isn't very fair, and hints towards an 'Us versus Them' attitude. No one is defending anyone, no one is saying "shut up or leave" - simply get used to it, because the rest of us have and that's why we're still here!

     

    If you aren't getting what you want out of this forum, then you aren't getting behind Bill Clinton's proverbial office desk often enough.

     

    Bum kissing is the way forward in dictatorships.

     

    I think there's two things to take here:

     

    - No one thinks that the moderators are democratically elected.

    - That doesn't make them or their decisions beyond criticism by the forum population. In fact this area of the site solicits that criticism. Community bureaucrats like the admins and mods are there to ensure the smooth running of the forum. If they aren't following the rules or enforcing them unequally or using punishments inappropriately in order to squash dissent then there is an issue there which should be spoken about.

     

    The thing I find here is that most of the admin team are open to suggestions, see for example this thread:

    http://www.arniesairsoft.co.uk/forums/inde...p;#entry2197293

     

    Whilst you'll see the first response is very defensive it actually turned out what I was asking about wasn't that hard to do at all. I dunno what effect that had as my warning points were removed shortly afterwards and I haven't been awarded any subsequently but I hope it had a positive effect (although I think it ended up getting one of the mods, Anteater, banned as well!).

     

    MCXL nails it, what people aren't asking for is perfection in mods, it's accountability when the inevitable mistakes are made. Suspending people who express dissent or displeasure at the way something is dealt with is the very opposite of fostering the sort of atmosphere where the mods are approachable over these issues. Dictatorships don't necessarily need to be authoritarian or unaccountable.

     

    I fully agree with what Stealth was actually trying to do in preventing the Real Steel thread descending into another epic gun control thread. I just don't think he handled the aftermath with aplomb.

     

    Edit: I actually think it's more childish if we keep avoiding talking about the incident in question as we are all perfectly aware of it, hence the naming names.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the use of session cookies.