Jump to content

Differing Methods/Standards


Recommended Posts

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.

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.

 

Frankly, it seems as though this is more to do with a tiny clique complaining about the suspension of Whomper and Titleist in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This has more to do with YOUR CONDUCT.

 

How many times do I have to say it, your conduct was terrible from any sort of officiation standpoint. Though your now using the same argument that you used in the thread chimpy linked to. That you think the thread is just about the warn points, er let me find and link it OH HERE IT IS

 

EDIT: Quite frankly sir it seems like the platform your standing on is crumbling away, and instead of trying to mend it your jumping up and down on it, Trying to distract from your previous conduct.

 

EDIT 2: I don't think Chimpy is part of this "Tiny Clique" you speak of... Hmmmm, maybe instead its people who noticed your conduct and were concerned.

Edited by MCXL
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Edited by Chimpy
Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Binairypunisher put it real well in the RS discussion thread.

 

"Wow, are you serious? Way to make personal vendettas a moderator policy.

 

And isnt skirting the curse filter a bannable offense as well? Or is justice tiered here?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Undermining someone's authority because you think you know better than someone who has been given the position isn't very mature.

 

MCXL you're showing 'favour' now by making it personal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It got personal when he started insulting and swearing via PM, that was awhille back, as in in pre this thread. I want to make it very clear, my arguements are of sound mind and logic, even if I am incredibly angry.

 

And SAMM I have to say that your comments so far have been of a low value "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!"

 

You contradicted your self so brilliantly earlier, I just didnt want to point it out. Saying 'Get used to it' is the same thing as saying 'Shut up or leave'. Like EXACTLY THE SAME. If I cant get used to it (shut up) then I presumably leave. Right?

 

"Undermining someone's authority because you think you know better than someone who has been given the position isn't very mature."

 

What are you talking about? How is dissent of those in power immature?

Edited by MCXL
Link to post
Share on other sites

Because maybe you don't know better and that's why you aren't on the mod team? :D

 

I'm not contradicting myself if I've admitted to accepting my position on the forum, the mod's know best, they can look after each other and anyone else getting involved is just muddying the waters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

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

That's a bit rich coming from somebody who called another forum member an idiot less than a week ago.

 

And isnt skirting the curse filter a bannable offense as well? Or is justice tiered here?"

 

No, it isn't, as I said to you already.

 

We usually issue warning point if something is truly offensive but most of the time, as with Chimpy, it is formally ignored.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what your saying is that because they are in power they should be in power... Yea monarchy for the win I guess.

 

Of course in this case I am not questioning the whole staff, simply the system in place for oversight (there is none) and the actions of one moderator.

 

EDIT: this is to SAMM of course.

Edited by MCXL
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a bit rich coming from somebody who called another forum member an idiot less than a week ago.

 

He was objectively being an idiot. I also apologised for it without him having to complain! Besides which it doesn't make it any less acceptable when I do it!

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

I'm not.

 

MCXL mentioned it and it reminded me of another example of a time when Titleist and Whomper took it upon themselves to attempt to undermine a thread they didn't approve of.

 

That's all there was to it for me. You'd need to ask MXCL why he was discussing it.

 

He was objectively being an idiot. I also apologised for it without him having to complain! Besides which it doesn't make it any less acceptable when I do it!

It demonstrates that we have a relaxed, flexible, approach to infractions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it isn't, as I said to you already.

 

We usually issue warning point if something is truly offensive but most of the time, as with Chimpy, it is formally ignored.

 

Well enough warn points ends in a ban, so while your right, he is also right. I simply didnt want to mangle his quote with that correction, but I do concede, skirting the swear filter doesnt end in an instant ban. Now then.

 

The issue here is your a moderator, A MODERATOR. You are held to a higher standard of conduct, so while a forum user might get away with not skirting the swear filter and calling someone an idiot, you don't get that same privilege, let alone the ability to skirt the swear filter and then maliciously suspend people.

 

EDIT: Oh and just to be clear, Titleist isn't a republican, just because you like guns and gun rights doesn't make you a "republican idiot" In fact from my conversations with the man I think he is quite liberal (as am I). I know he has told me he voted for Obama. Theres another dagger in your argument I guess.

 

EDIT 2, OH GOD MORE: How is a 2 week suspension for questioning your professionalism "a relaxed, flexible, approach to infractions"? Man, If you look at my avatar, thats the face I am making.

Edited by MCXL
Link to post
Share on other sites
EDIT: Oh and just to be clear, Titleist isn't a republican, just because you like guns and gun rights doesn't make you a "republican idiot" In fact from my conversations with the man I think he is quite liberal (as am I). I know he has told me he voted for Obama. Theres another dagger in your argument I guess.

Erm, I'm making the same face now.

 

EDIT 2, OH GOD MORE: How is a 2 week suspension for questioning your professionalism "a relaxed, flexible, approach to infractions"? Man If you look at my avatar, thats the face I am making man.

The problem, IMO, is that because we try and act in an informal manner as often as possible a lot of people, including yourself, seem to feel shocked and victimised when we DO insist on the cooperation of forum members.

 

Again, on the basis of their past history, the two members in question were dealt with in a way designed to minimise further disruption of the forums.

When that failed the thread was closed in preference to simply suspending further people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blimey, this is running thick and fast, so I'm going to have to read and write at the same time (sheesh, my poor little mind).

 

Righty then.

 

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.

 

Couldn't agree more with misfit on this.

 

Personally, I go one further and try not to address any personalisation to any admonishment. Partly because it negates anything like this situation arising, and partly because I know how infuriating it is to be nice to someone who is incredibly p!$$ed at you! Hey it works for me.

 

But seriously, the more professional, and less personal a response then the less likelihood of combustion. I'm sure that's basic chemistry..... Stick an inert substance into a volatile one and nothing happens.

 

 

There should be a place for complaints. I think one exists, and it exists in the moderating team itself. If you have an issue with someone, by all means try addressing it with the individual, but if that gets nothing but static, then you can escalate that to one of the other mods.

I don't think we have an 'in crowd' mentality within this team, and if there is one.... I'm certainly unaware of it. (maybe I'm not on the 'in-crowd'!).

 

 

 

 

 

*****

 

So at this juncture, I shall say this.

 

MCXL, Chimpy, Stealth. You all seem to have reached an impasse. I am not going to throw judgement on who I think is right or wrong (it's not my place), but I think dialogue directed between yourselves is not going to be 'without incident'. So step back from the lighted firework and let it go off with the dull uninspiring thwap of a tesco barcode banger, rather than a rather earth shattering and spectacular KABOOM!

 

*****

 

back to work.

 

I'm going to step away from the particular incident that this seems to be revolving around. We are all aware of the circumstances and personally it's now for the upper echelons to deal with. What I think this thread can be useful for is defining a framework (jesus, I'm starting to sound like management! take me outside and have a word!) of how these issues should be tackled, both from a moderators and users perspective.

 

This thread is sort of a step up, but I don't know that its ok to basically walk away to a different section of the forum. Calling him in thread on it and leaving it there I think is totally acceptable, no matter what his mod mandate is, mostly because of the fact because that way you don't stifle spontaneity

 

I think an action/response in a thread is probably OK, it firmly puts a lid on things quickly and quietly (I've done it), but once it descends further than that, resulting in numerous posts focussing on that issue, but are ultimately 'off topic', then I think it should resort to PM or escalation further.

 

We arent all Jesus

Speak for yourself!

 

so why should our members be held to a higher standard then our moderators?

They shouldn't..... They should all should be bound by the same rules.

But the moderators should strive to transcend these rules.

 

Besides, I'm just going to clean my pistols with my special lotion whilst standing next to my waspy glue fountain! what's ridiculous about that?

 

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.

 

99% of moderation is dealing with the admin side of it. Well certainly for me it is.

 

Ultimately I think the 'do unto others as you'd have them do unto you' blurb is quite valid. If on the receiving end, you'd find it a little unreasonable, then it probably is.

 

I'm as guilty of the swear filter as the next guy. I know I shouldn't and it's terribly hypoctitical of me to then go and admonish someone for it, hence I let most of it slide, unless I think they 'deserve a Rory' (google 'Rory Award, first link) or they are directing it towards another person.

 

 

Maybe we could have a 'Personal Apologies' sub-section? Nothing like a bit of social spotlight to humble the soul. Open to postee and recipient only but available for all to see.

Public admissions of wrong doing do make a person consider what they have done more than arbitary punishment. Plus it can't be worn as a status symbol.

 

 

Undermining someone's authority because you think you know better than someone who has been given the position isn't very mature.

 

Differing with an opinion is different to undermining someones authority. I'm sure you can see the irony in your statement with this in mind.

 

I can see nothing but mature debate in this thread. Admittedly, there is a polar difference in opinion, and one which I cannot see being resolved between those persons in question, but it is being handled in a mature fashion.

 

Long may this continue.

 

But in the crux of it, let's find a solution.

It's probably taken me the best part of an hour to type this all out.... I'm hungry and I've got pork and apple sausages in the fridge! I may be some time.

 

 

EDIT***

 

And before anyone says it, I know... I've just done what I'm about to ask everyone not to do....

 

Can we please not edit a post if someone has replied to it already.

Besides warping my noodle, it can give a person chance to change a post sufficiently to change the initial meaning, and in a thread like this, is counter productive.

Edited by The Chef
Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Edited by Chimpy
Link to post
Share on other sites
Erm, I'm making the same face now.

 

Think what you like but beliefs in one area don't dictate your political spectrum. You can be pro choice and a Republican, or Pro life and a democrat. Part of a persons political beliefs don't dictate the rest. Just because he like guns doesn't mean that is enough to vote on. For instance I to am pro gun, but I also voted for President Obama, and on almost every social and fiscal issue between the 2 major parties here in the US I side with the democrats. I don't think they are perfect, but I don't like where the republican party has gone over the last 20 years.

 

I don't want this thread to be about me though.

 

Obviously you have a problem with "republican idiots" and maybe thats part of the reason you are so hasty against the men in the RS discussion thread, but not toward Chimpy, and other users. Maybe you should, you know, try and be impartial like I have said several times. Seems like this whole bias thing is showing, and it ain't pretty.

 

EDIT: Oh! I almost forgot, Chef, that is one heck of a post, I really think in all of this you have been the most cool headed reasonable person in here. I'd tip my hat to you, but I haven't got a hat.

Edited by MCXL
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 wasn't and I appreciated the apology. Dunno why you felt the need to drag this up now though?

 

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?

 

 

 

I try to take any infraction with a grain of salt and move on. A couple thoughts though here; I don't know if the architecture of the site will support either of these suggestions though.

 

 

 

If possible set up the dings vanish automatically when the six months or whatever the time period is up. That'll help smooth the ruffled feathers of the members and reduce mod workload and PMs.

 

 

 

Create a new sub-forum that posts the infraction and the user/post. That will help folks gauge their personality vs. rules so they can still express themselves without crossing the blurry line.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
If possible set up the dings vanish automatically when the six months or whatever the time period is up. That'll help smooth the ruffled feathers of the members and reduce mod workload and PMs.

 

Some warns are received due to much more serious matters, and the points for these may never be removed.

 

I'm also unsure if by vanish you mean delete the actual warn, or just remove the points. Because deleting the whole warn would be rather problematic as it would mean moderators would not have a record of peoples past behaviour.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Thats right Mr. Its going on your permanent record!"

 

Am I wrong in think that aside from posts that get deleted the record of our conduct is in the forum history archive whatever you want to call it?

 

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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