Notice how things changed when Silverstriker said which Forum Moderator post was written by him? People started acting a lot more civilised in this thread. Think about that.
Having anonymous moderators means that we don't know who the mods are, and if we don't know who they are, they won't get any respect, and a lack of respect means more complaints. Silverstriker, CFT, Crowley, and the other named mods get some respect, they're human. The rest of the mods are invisible janitors doing a bad job and making everyone angry.
Anonymous Mods: Fail.
Next we have this "learning the ropes" quandary. We have threads being removed that shouldn't be removed. We feel like we're being TOO moderated for our own comfort. Simple reason:
Employing 4 new mods at once: Fail
Two bad ideas there bearing some rotten fruit and all the public forum posters have to put up with it and shut up.
🙂
The post that was quoted here has been removedAll I have ever asked for is consistency with everyone being treated the same. I have probably been more out spoken than most on the subject, but it was never to 'test the mods'.
It is a delicate line it seems at times depending on who is doing the modding that is the real issue at hand. It appears on this occasion I am not alone, and some of the braver posters are speaking up which is nice to see.
First let me say that this thread has won my respect for User 422457.
Furthermore, I don't notice the moderation happening to me often; but I do notice it
falling on the heads of others, sometimes it seems without much provocation. To me
it would seem most of the issues behind moderation and the unhappiness it stirs, are
directly affected by; the misunderstanding of morality.
I use the word morality similarly to Socrates in Plato's "Republic". Where the very
morality guiding each characters principle communication; must be defined. Each
user here, should have an understanding of what is acceptable, and what is not. While
there is a clearly written "TOS" and "FAQ" they do not describe the value of morality.
Perhaps a document, a white paper if you will, should exist to help
define the appropriate conduct and communication between and of players on the
site.
Such a document would depend on a very discipliend approach of edification. Where
the public is represented and identified as the creative portion; and the moderation
team itself is in control of pruning it. morality must be defined; and it must
be a value appropriated by those whom inhibit the fora where its value is of any
lasting consequence. Certainly, we cannot forget that the site is a dream of another.
The site itself belongs to the administrators true enough. However, there dream
does not exist tangibly without the successive agreement of hundreds - thousands,
of personalities whom as of current; disseminate from the morality of said
administrators.
Any attempt to define morality without the contribution of those to be effected,
is effort placed in vain. This thread in itself, may contain the beginnings of such an
architecture. The question becomes whether or not the moderation team can become
a catalyst to help move the community to such a goal; or if they'll remain purveyors
of consequence. The best leadership comes from example, as we all know.
I'd be willing to look to the example of a team which recognized the value in
dedicating itself to such a project. I'd be willing to follow a cast which has openly
decided to birth a community in which each can opperate in full illumination of each
characters known morality. When morality becomes a project of true
definition, and moderation itself lends to the idea that is morality, then we'll
truly have something we can call progress. Until then, its a chaotic cycle of each
character walking the beach, leaving his imprint, and a succession of random waves
wiping away the footsteps of the unlucky.
-GIN
Originally posted by Forum ModeratorI thought the site welcomed the creation of an online community. That is a bit harsh on divegeester who is discussing this in a civil way, on the forum the administrators created for users voicing their suggestions.
The flaw in what you're saying is that you're claiming it's your site. Red Hot Pawn is not your site, it belongs to the administrators. When moderating happens the moderators are following the wishes of the site administrators. There are plenty of times where the wishes of the administrators conflict with the wishes of the community in terms of forum t's "ours". Ours to the extent that subscription allows it to be ours, that is.
Anyway, I have only had one case where (I think) one of the new mods was overzealous, so I can't comment much. I definitely appreciate the time and effort they give to the site and it is human to err.
That said, it appears that closing threads and modding them altogether has become more common. If true, this isn't a good development. Why close/mod a whole thread if people are still interested in posting in them? If some individuals are misbehaving then they should be dealt individually. Note, however, that one of the things that most helped creating the existing community was a relatively libertarian posting environment. It is why I spend much time here.
So don't see it as 'us' vs 'them'. Criticism can also be constructive and can help the new mods gauge what is best for the community of which they are an important part of.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 23322
i agree with hops and cft on some points.
i think 4 new mods at once was too much and asking for, well what happened in the past month or so. but if there is one of two of the new mods that just aren't getting it they should be removed as soon as possible, it's those mods who give the rest a bad name. especially now that they're all under one.
if you wanted to in the past it was quite easy to work out who send you an pm under forum mod but it was annoying not being able to reply directly, so i like that part of the new system. what i don't like about it though is the possibility of one mod making what i think is a bad call and after replying to forum mod get a different mod answering my query... i want an explanation from the mod who sent it not someone else.
as for anonymous, i was one of the ones who asked for it but it is human nature to want to uncover a secret. but tbh as long as the mods are doing a good job (which clearly one or two of them are not) then it doesn't matter if we know who they are or not.
if one of the mods were showing any sort of bias that mod should be removed. personally i didn't see any bias with the old team.
The post that was quoted here has been removedI don't believe that Phlabs was ever targeted. I do believe he was very easy to talk to. (Reason everyone went to him with their problems) That is probably why Phlabs is the face of the Mods here at RHP. I would have no idea on the abuse Phlabs got if any, but personally I can't see him taking much crap from ANYONE!
(Lets keep in mind that all the Moderators were shown under Volunteers up untill recently.)
Do you seriously think that regular posters don't have a good idea on who the 4 new mods are? I am pretty certain I do. 😉 Yes, Mods can be bias, we just can not call them out on it, instead we have to "Send Feedback" which may or may not get answered.
I do like the new feature now where you can reply to the Mod. Exception that it may or may not be the same mod that gave you the Warning, or removed a post or thread that is answering you back. I think this kind of defeats the purpose of the reply feature. Personally I would like to reply directly to the Mod who sent it.
This is better than nothing though I have to admit.
Keep in mind users are also open to bullying & asinine comments from the Mods. Only when it is said by a mod it is just a joke, and the user should lighten up, before they develop crows feet and scowl lines. You get complaints from a minority probably because it is only a minority affected, OR others are afraid to express their views. Do these people exist you ask? Of course they do.
I believe it is good to discuss the modding as is being done here. I thank the Moderators for allowing us to voice our opinions and comments.
This is an excellent example of a mod taking action outside the forum guidelines and also sending a statement outside the forum guidelines. Thread 124573
I find the statement by philabs that admins ignore site feedback over forum moderation very strange and a "systemic failure". For example in case any of you have telescopic eyes, where does it state in the forum guidelines that bumping a thread constitutes spamming?
Originally posted by cheater2Forum Guidelines are just that, guidelines. They aren't intended to cover every possible circumstance that could happen in the forums. Russ has indicated in the past that he prefers not to see wholesale bumping of old threads, rather that a link to the old thread be provided. Possibly something to do with the actual site functioning.
This is an excellent example of a mod taking action outside the forum guidelines and also sending a statement outside the forum guidelines. Thread 124573
I find the statement by philabs that admins ignore site feedback over forum moderation very strange and a "systemic failure". For example in case any of you have telescopic eyes, where does it state in the forum guidelines that bumping a thread constitutes spamming?
Spamming covers a multitude of behaviours, including starting many threads on the same topic, repeated postings in different forums, creating multiple new IDs who cross-post, etc, etc. Your constant harping on this one theme seems like spam to me.
Please note that the title of this thread is worded "a sensible debate". Have a nice day.
Originally posted by cheater2Where did I say they ignore it? They read it, and if they see that a moderator decision was sound they move on to better things. I'd prefer they just told you the post was removed with good reason, but the admins don't want to be tangled up with users who complain about silly things.
This is an excellent example of a mod taking action outside the forum guidelines and also sending a statement outside the forum guidelines. Thread 124573
I find the statement by philabs that admins ignore site feedback over forum moderation very strange and a "systemic failure". For example in case any of you have telescopic eyes, where does it state in the forum guidelines that bumping a thread constitutes spamming?
That's just my best guess anyway. Perhaps he never read it and just trusts the mods?
Either way, I offered an explanation to you only since you seemed confused why your post was removed, but you've turned it into some kind of a personal battle with me.
Serves me right for even trying to help you out.
P-