Differing Methods/Standards

[MCXL]

I simply mean that the best record of out past conduct isn't some warn list its our previous posts.

[Danke]

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.

 

The points come off on their own vs. a full pardon. This is for the minor typical infactions, like getting a parking ticket vs going on a crime spree.

 

That gives the user the confidence that they'll go back to zero warn if they behave themselves without having to pester the mods, and of course it's less typing for the mods.

[Misfit]

That gives the user the confidence that they'll go back to zero warn if they behave themselves without having to pester the mods, and of course it's less typing for the mods.

 

I don't see why they'd behave themselves if they knew in six months the warns would be removed automatically, rather than at a moderators discretion.

 

It just seems to be an incentive to break the rules rather than follow them.

[Rob15]

I simply mean that the best record of out past conduct isn't some warn list its our previous posts.

Do you seriously expect mods to look though upto 5000 posts (and probably a lot more counting sections where posts don't increase post count) though? The warn points system is easy in that respect as it highlights past issues for moderators and can help with taking future action especially if a member continues to do something they have been warned about before.

 

From what I've seen people do get warn points reduced for good behaviour as it is and personally I don't see any need for a change to the current system.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Rob15

[MCXL]

No I am not advocating a abolition of the warn, Im just saying it isn't a total record, and using it as such is a little silly.

[The Chef]

No idea,

 

I know some warning points do disappear (I know mine have..... yes I've been a bad boy, but I'm not telling you what for)

 

I do think there needs to be some permanent record, purely for evidential purposes.

It shouldn't be a damning report to be relied on, but it shows a pattern of history, or indeed the change in a pattern of history, that can then be used to formulate the correct response.

 

Maybe a secret moderator sub section called the SH.ONE.T List or some such other wheeze. Whereby persons brought to our notice are entered on there for future re-education.

 

but...

 

- 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.

 

The obvious ones are generally the correct ones. Especially the third one.

Conflict of Interest, I love that one. Anything that detracts from a position of neutrality, then get the sweet bejesus out of there!

 

 

***refresh***

 

EDIT.... no-ones replied, so I can't fall foul of my own request!

 

I think talking via PM is a good starter, but if that illicits no suitable outcome , then you may have no other option than to resort to warnings or suspensions. Or if you think that it will illicit no suitable outcome (no point in reinforcing failure), then a quick cursory PM to explain the course of action is always a good idea.

 

Anyways, always food for thought and my sausages were delicious.

Edited November 20, 2009 by The Chef

[Stealthbomber]

In general, it's usually better to control warning points manually simply because it gives us more flexibility.

 

Pretty much whenever I look at a thread I will check the warning points of any member I'm not familiar with.

If it turns out that the person has old WPs for selling >1J guns or for discussing >1J guns or any other reason that is now obsolete I will remove them all at the same time.

 

Alternatively, if a person starts off here with a poor attitude and runs up several warnings they might also be deleted all at the same time once it becomes apparent the person has relaxed and chilled-out a bit.

 

By contrast, if a person is guilty of a serious breach of the rules or guilty of something malicious then WPs may never be removed.

 

Some people would take advantage of an automated system to choose when and how often they can get away with poor behaviour.

 

 

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.

Erasing WPs, as opposed to negating them, is impractical since it would make it impossible to check if a person had already been issued with a penalty for some offence and it would also remove a mod's abilty to easily check if the person has previous form for a given infraction.

 

The obvious ones are generally the correct ones. Especially the third one.

Conflict of Interest, I love that one. Anything that detracts from a position of neutrality, then get the sweet bejesus out of there!

There's a problem with that which we're seeing here though.

Once a moderator gives any member warning points, or expresses displeasure at a members actions, they are open to accusations of prejudice when that most likely is not the case at all.

 

People seem to think that I have some "issue" with Titleist and that's the reason I have "persecuted" him.

That's not the case at all.

To be perfectly honest, the only reason Titleist was suspended was because I had already issued the suspension to Whomper and it would have been unfair not to issue a similar warning to Titleist.

 

I am slightly baffled why a person, or group of people, who don't indulge in airsoft choose to make use of an airsoft forum but, as I keep telling the people who PM me on the subject, we accept their choice to continue making use of the place.

[MCXL]

Maybe a secret moderator sub section called the SH.ONE.T List or some such other wheeze.

 

Really?

[Chimpy]

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.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Chimpy

[Chimpy]

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.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Chimpy

[Misfit]

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*.

 

That's a surefire way to get your point across in a constructive manner right there.

[MCXL]

His point is valid nonetheless.

 

I'm to tired to sustain the level of outrage that I need to make my long winded posts right now.

Edited November 20, 2009 by MCXL

[Chimpy]

That's a surefire way to get your point across in a constructive manner right there.

 

I think it was.

 

Firstly I corrected his misunderstanding and secondly I gave an example of where he had done exactly what I was talking about. I wasn't rude or unfactual.

 

What did you think was wrong with it?

[Chimpy]

Bloomin double post.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Chimpy

[Danke]

I don't see why they'd behave themselves if they knew in six months the warns would be removed automatically, rather than at a moderators discretion.

 

It just seems to be an incentive to break the rules rather than follow them.

 

I don't think that would really be an incentive to break the rules. If it's not an issue for the mods though to address it manually then stay the course.

 

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.

 

That's where the "Who's been a naughty boy" thread kicks in. It confirms to the user where they crossed the line and also re-inforces the community standard for all users to be reminded off. As said we're dealing with shades of grey where mod A may feel the posts are not an issue and mod B feels the line was crossed.

 

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.

[Chimpy]

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.

[Misfit]

That's where the "Who's been a naughty boy" thread kicks in. It confirms to the user where they crossed the line and also re-inforces the community standard for all users to be reminded off. As said we're dealing with shades of grey where mod A may feel the posts are not an issue and mod B feels the line was crossed.

 

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.

 

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

 

I think it was.

 

Firstly I corrected his misunderstanding and secondly I gave an example of where he had done exactly what I was talking about. I wasn't rude or unfactual.

 

What did you think was wrong with it?

 

I think telling Stealth to 'GTFO' in such situations was not a very good way to phrase your argument when you are trying to raise your complaints in a constructive manner.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Misfit

[Chimpy]

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?

 

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

 

Anyway am out for the night.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Chimpy

[Stealthbomber]

Firstly I corrected his misunderstanding and secondly I gave an example of where he had done exactly what I was talking about. I wasn't rude or unfactual.

Firstly, there WAS no misunderstanding because, secondly, I didn't issue any formal warning.

The comment I made WAS the total extent of any punitive action.

 

If you need an analogy, it's like receiving a b*llocking from a cop rather than getting a speeding ticket.

[MCXL]

I cant muster the strength to respond, but I think there are 2 2week suspensions that prove your statement wrong. Maybe I'm misreading what your saying?

 

Anyhow, I am out for now. SO tired.

[Danke]

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

 

I don't think it would lead to public ridicule. The lack of connection between the infraction and punishment is Star Chamber justice & I don't think it's the most productive way to guide the members.

 

At the same time the folks who felt they were being targeted by a particular mod would be able to see they are either just another fish in the sea, or if there was a vendetta it would be visible to all.

[Stealthbomber]

I cant muster the strength to respond, but I think there are 2 2week suspensions that prove your statement wrong. Maybe I'm misreading what your saying?

Yes, you are.

 

BBR was trolling and I posted to ask/tell him to pack it in and no further action was taken against BBR.

2 known trouble-makers posted to debate the issue and were suspended in order to minimise further derailment of the thread.

Further off-topic posting resulted in the thread being closed.

 

I think you've made your opinion perfectly clear and, given that we're now repeating ourselves, it seems there's little else to add.

[L4byr1nth]

I would just like to say at this juncture that ArniesAirsoft.co.uk has one of THE best moderating teams on the internet, in my opinion.

 

I frequent several different forums, on my different hobbies; Guitar, Retro Arcade Games, etc., and the mods are either completely non-existent, or overly aggressive in their online presence.

 

Personally, I feel that the online community we have here is rich and enjoyable to be a part of. I also respect the fact that although this is a UK-based forum, we cater for people from all parts of the Earth.

 

That being said, I'm glad the thread in question was closed, and I totally support the mod team's decision to do so.

 

1./ R-E-S-P-E-C-T, as the song goes.

 

This is a shared community, and while it's taken that certain members gravitate to certain types of threads, it's anti-social to create such a small clique that was the RS Discussion Thread. It was basically the same five or six people backslapping about mainly Armalite rifles, in all their raped glory.

 

While it had a limited purpose for other members (gun porn anyone?), any posts by 'outsiders' were generally ignored in favour of the next Titleist comment, or picture of said raped AR's. And lets face it - it was only of real use to mainly the American members of the forum.

 

Some of the members of this little clique also had limited input over the rest of the forum, apart from posting real steel pictures in airsoft gear threads

 

2./ Mods.

 

The moderating team are all trusted members of the forum, who have been around long enough to know when to put a quiet P.M. in, and when to tackle an issue head-on, in full view of the rest of the forum.

 

They are volunteers who give up their time listening to people *badgeress* and whine about this and that, whilst the rest of us happily get on with talking about Airsoft - (usually) blissfully unaware of most of the behind-the-scenes stuff that goes on.

 

This gives them, in my view, a certain leverage - they shouldn't be obligated to put up with being spoken to disrespectfully. I hate it when people talk down to waiters in restaurants, and the same thing applies here - the mods are not your slaves.

 

I will end by saying this;

 

If you want to have your own little private place to chat about whatever with a select group of your own buddies, start your own internet forum.

 

If you want to talk about real steel guns in all their raped glory, join AR15discussion.com, or whatever it is.

 

If you want to look at pictures of gear in a real steel environment, join MilitaryPhotos.net.

 

If you want to see the work of some really poor mods, join ASCUK.

 

If you can put up with the loss of a useless Off-Topic thread, and not seeing a couple of circlejerkers for a week or so without feeling the need to hurl abuse at the mods for what is a pretty thankless task, stay here. We have a nice atmosphere, friendly members, and a wealth of airsoft information, and I'd like to keep it that way, thanks.

 

Ben.

[MCXL]

Wow L4byr1nth, that post was downright hateful. For someone who talks about "R-E-S-P-E-C-T" you sure don't show any.

 

Obviously you missed all the stuff about the "Its better then most places" being a ###### poor argument for the practices and mistakes of the moderating team here. Even if in your mind armies is number one in online moderation technique, there is always room for improvement.

 

You also manage to miss ENTIRELY what we are talking about here. This isn't about the RS discussion thread being closed, it's about the actions of one moderator that ultimately ended in the thread being closed because of his unprofessional attitude and biased behavior.

 

If you look through the long history of the RS thread you will see that not only does Titleist use the thread as intended, which is to say the discussion of firearms, but many people, newcomers, came seeking advice and got it. USCM came in seeking advice on pistols for instance. Or how about silent assassin who came in with a question about armilite operation (which was promptly answered, even though this man isn't a part of the "Clique". If you go over the last, 20 Pages (all I felt like reading through to prove my point) posts by 'outsiders' were not as you put it, generally ignored, but welcomed into the discussion. Yes there are a very limited number people who are the predominant members of that thread, but if that is what is the criteria for closing it is then what about all the long discussion threads HERE, or HERE? Or maybe HERE?

 

The problem is, all these threads are filled with members with some sort of stake in them, the knights thread has people who own Knights pattern guns, the G36 thread people who have G36's and so on. Yes these too are a "Clique" atmosphere but they are a location that one goes when seeking that info. But those threads are big, how a bout a smaller one like the Desert Eagle discussion thread, that is a small small group, and still it is the place to go when you have a question about the desert eagle, or when you want to post pictures about said desert eagle. Likewise the RS discussion thread is not so surprisingly the place to go when you have a question about a RS gun.

 

But surely if your argument stands we could make a discussion thread of just "the airsoft gun thread" But then what about the members that dont own an airsoft gun? Are they excluded? Or how about a "Players thread" But then I know at least one moderator doesn't play ever because he lives in Maine.

 

In the end yes some members are going to be more active then others in certain threads, that is the nature of discussion, but this "Cliquey" atmosphere you speak of doesn't exist. Newcomers come into threads and ask questions, those questions are often answered. This is how it works.

 

Also saying that because they have little input over the rest of the forum is not really a valid argument either. I don't post in the game threads. I dont post in the Newbie forum, Many people don't wander outside there comfort zone. That's why there are all the sub forums for people who want there subject separate. Like the Sniping haven, or gear discussion, or project suggestions.

 

Yes your right the RS discussion thread is going to primarily apply to us USA users, just as your VCRA thread applies to the members in the UK over other countries. I don't see an issue there. We have members from all over the world here and the reason for that is we can all discuss the things we want to discuss. I realize that first and foremost this is a UK forum (hence the URL and locale of most users) but excluding something because your people arent as free to partake in it is sort of, well wrong.

 

Now responding to your part 2.

 

2./ Mods.

 

The moderating team are all trusted members of the forum, who have been around long enough to know when to put a quiet P.M. in, and when to tackle an issue head-on, in full view of the rest of the forum.

 

They are volunteers who give up their time listening to people *badgeress* and whine about this and that, whilst the rest of us happily get on with talking about Airsoft - (usually) blissfully unaware of most of the behind-the-scenes stuff that goes on.

 

This gives them, in my view, a certain leverage - they shouldn't be obligated to put up with being spoken to disrespectfully. I hate it when people talk down to waiters in restaurants, and the same thing applies here - the mods are not your slaves.

 

What? WHAT? WHAT?

 

So what your saying here is if I went to a restaurant, and my waiter told me "not to order dinner as this is a lunch restaurant you *albatross* kissing *badgeress*" I should smile and give him a fat tip? ARE YOU *fruitcage* KIDDING ME?

 

You obviously don't even get what went on here either. This wasn't a mod coming in and going "I respectfully ask that you drop the gun politic discussion" This was a mod who said "GO BACK TO BEING TITLEIST'S *badgeress*"

 

Is this your idea of a good way "to tackle an issue head-on, in full view of the rest of the forum"? Really? REALLY?

 

they shouldn't be punching bags, as you seem to think I suggest by saying, "they shouldn't be obligated to put up with being spoken to disrespectfully." But if they open that door they get what they asked for, and they shouldn't be allowed to get all mad about it.

 

L4byr1nth this isn't a restaurant. If it were We would come to mods and ask them to dredge up all the info on a certain topic (as thats what is provided here info) as if ordering from a waiter. That is of course what the search function is for, and while some members seem incapable of using it, that doesn't mean your job is to serve what this forum is.

 

This is a discussion forum, ad your job is more along the lines of a police officer, who ARE MEANT TO BE held to a higher (actually the highst) Standard, and are also obligated to put u with being spoken to disrespectfully.

 

If this same thing happened in the justice system.

LIKE:

Cop calls someone loitering to "Stop loitering and go back to being an *albatross* kisser."

 

Someone else says to the cop, "Wow that was professional"

 

Cop puts that person in jail for 2 weeks.

 

Do you know what would happen? The person would sue the municipality, and the Cop. The cop would lose his job, and probably his pension. There would be a media circus over Civil rights violations etc.

 

Even if that man was a convicted convict nothing in that situation I described makes the out criers actions illegal or unjustified, and even in this era of states taking more and more police power, no department would stand by this officer through the whole thing.

 

L4byr1nth You don't seem to be able to separate yourself from the issue here. Just because you don't have an interest in something doesn't make it less valid. I have no interest in sniping, but I don't want the sniping haven community to go away.

 

For someone who talks of respect and Cliquy atmospheres I think is speaks volumes about your post. Not only are you incredibly disrespectful tward those of us who partook in the RS thread by marginalizing our place of discussion as "a useless Off-Topic thread" full of "circlejerks" (not very PG13 BTW) You are basically confirming what I fear, that the mods are the exclusive Clique themselves. Without oversight or the ability to take what is a real and pressing complaint seriously.

 

"The moderating team are all trusted members of the forum"

 

Trusted to do the right thing? Or trusted as friends of the mods?

 

 

 

Why did Anteater get banned? Hmmm?

Edited November 21, 2009 by MCXL

[catfishsalesco]

TL:DR

 

Wind your neck in son.