Response to "Forum Rule Update: moderators actions"

[wintermute]

If every thread i nthe end turns into moderator bashing, there is usually a reason for it, and I've stated that reason BK. When ever we address an issue with a Moderator, our issue gets blown off but yourself, or other moderators.
What I've suggested is not to blow it off, but to actually adress it civilly so we can resolve it.

I don't see it as being "blown off," but rather, as I stated, the moderators forming a unified front in public. The importance of a unified moderatorship can't be understated, as public disagreement among moderators undermines every single one's authority and respect.

Giving the users a person to go to, where they don't have to worry about the public front of the moderator team, is a great step towards giving the users a better voice in their complaints about moderators. No, it's not a public voice. But I'd guess that you'd be more likely to break through that unified front in private rather than public. That's not to say that valuable conversation doesn't take place in some of those conversations. I'm doubt the intent is to stifle those conversations.

'mute

[HyeMew]

I think only private mod complaints is only fair.
I was put in a difficult position where I was being unfairly attacked and yet unable to publically defend myself against it. And then after not making a comment for awhile I finally did, and then was put far more under fire for daring to respond to these attacks since I am a mod instead of dealing with it in some other way which I'm sure would not have yielded many results anyway. Talk abaout a Catch-22 for the mods, thus public attacks on mods should not be made in public. (Note that this differs from mere criticism.)

[Samara]

A moderator cannot do their job if they are constantly worried about fans piling on and calling them out without knowing even a portion of the facts.

There's a reason for this, BK...and you guys have actually created that paranoia yourselves:

As for the Moderator Guidelines, I believe those are to remain between the moderators, admin, and Creators.

Let's face it, the few public rules you guys do have posted are vague and can be interpreted several ways, including by moderators and admins. There are also quite a few "habits" that have developed that may or may not actually be rules...but how are we supposed to know if you: a) don't give us a better idea of the guidelines and b) turn the concern and complaint process into a "behinds the scenes" affair to be adjudicated by essentially one person?

How are people then supposed to know what, if any, rules are being broken or if a moderator is exercising favoritism or undue power? We can't. You're making the process completely hidden where it should be somewhat transparent.

Look, some of us are active in other online communities. Some of us actually moderate there. I am a moderator at a community of nearly 50K members...many of them far more outspoken and rude than the LG15 fans, that's for sure. I get "bashed" on a daily basis for moderating decisions I make, but I don't let it bother me because we have a set of rules that dictate what will and will not happen given certain situations. Those guidelines are published for all the users to see. Amazingly enough, it helps the community be more self-policing. I don't need to tell people to take their complaint elsewhere and to cry to an admin...all I need to do if refer them to the guidelines where it is explicitly lined out. If it even gets that far...since often, other community members will do the referring for us.

Do we have behind the scenes discussions? Sure...but we also allow a great deal of public discussion, and yes, even some testy words flow...and we let it go unmoderated because the community itself often steps up to help handle situations.

By hiding the whole process, BK, you are in essence, treating us like children. Either that, or you guys are serious control freaks and can't handle the criticism. I'm not saying that to be mean or as an attack...because I am a control freak myself and I recognize that kind of behavior...because I do it myself. I struggle with it daily. I want constructive criticism, but in reality, I don't like it when I'm wrong and I don't like people telling me I'm wrong. I know what controlling behavior is, and this...whther you want to admit it or not...is controlling behavior. It isn't fostering a trusting community.

There seems to be an impression in this discussion that moderators are trying to hide something or sneak something by the members, but that’s not true.

No, there doesn't seem to be that impression, BK...there IS that impression. Frankly, quite telling us it's not true and prove it.

As they say, actions speak louder...and right now your actions are screaming at us so loudly that we couldn't hear your words if we wanted to.

In the grand scheme of things, this will not diminish your experience on the forums.

No offense, BK, but who the hell are YOU to tell us what our experience will or will not be here?

[Samara]

Talk abaout a Catch-22 for the mods, thus public attacks on mods should not be made in public.

Yes, they should. If moderators are "attacked" for something, there's a reason for it...especially if there are several people bringing up the concern. If you guys had a more visible policy to defend your actions rather than vague, hidden policies...a lot of the "attacks" would actually go away. A good moderator will be consistent with a well-written policy that people can refer to.

Without a reference, you are doing nothing but asking for these "attacks" to continue. It's a vicious cycle and you're really only doing it to yourselves.

We are not trying to quash public debate over just anything; we're just trying to keep the public flamewars over moderator actions - most of which end up having little to do with the original concern - from resulting in the bashing of moderators and the reduction of their ability to do their job. This is not a direct response to the recent discussion of a particular moderator; rather, it's because virtually every thread about a moderator action turns into bashing the moderators. This cannot happen if a moderator is going to do their job

Same thing, and there's really a much more simple solution to this and I'[ totally serious. Write up a clear, detailed set of rules and policies. Make them available to everyone. Get someone who is good at technical writing to write it up...since they handle policies and procedures. Do not let a creative writer do it...they may be good, but policies are a different beast and need to be very clear.

That way, if there is ever a question about moderation, let the user attack the policy rather than the moderator.


Let's say user A did something that was against the rules. The rules are clearly outlined, and the moderator can say, "Please refer to rule xyz." Case closed.

Without that rule, you've got user A getting into trouble for a rule that may or may not be written, and a moderator doing something they may or may not be with the policies that apparently exist somewhere. It's confusing, and the moderator has no published guideline to refer the user to, except to say, "Because I said so." Of course the moderator is going to get "attacked" -- because it's vague and it ridiculous and it's stinks of power hungry people trying to "quash public debate".

[Dejajeva]

Hi Folks!

Okay, you know that I love all of you. But you also know how I can't stay out of an argument.

I believe the following:

This website belongs to the creators. They can do whatever they choose to do with their website. They are like no-fault employers. They can kick whoever they want off for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all. They can implement whatever policies they choose to, good, bad, stupid, pointless, helpful, whatever. They can delete the whole damned thing if they want. They can choose to make it simple or make it confusing...they can like or dislike whatever they want.

It's their website, and frankly they are being a lot more open and accommodating than a lot of people I know and a lot of websites I've been on.

You know while I sit here, my grandparents are both visiting with the Hospice nurse. And I realize how absolutely inconsequential this argument really is in the whole scheme of life. There are more important things to bitch and moan about than this. My grandparents will die in six months or less, and we're all sitting here bitching about some stupid forum decision. Shouldn't we all try to support each other instead of tearing each other down over how the moderators deal with stuff?

I consider you guys my friends, just as much my friends as I do my real life friends, and I just think it's more important to be friends than to argue with eachother.

[immortal1]

Hey everyone I've sent some thoughts to Trainer via PM but I just wanted to say something publicly.

If the moderators weren't themselves the source of any issues, there wouldn't be a need for this policy.

[milowent]

If the moderators weren't themselves the source of any issues, there wouldn't be a need for this policy.

this isn't necessarily true. when someone like my good friend taig rips BK a new one, this policy does set a reasonable framework for dealing with it.

some forum members are going to challenge even the most reasonable mod actions.

[Killthesmiley]

alright I stepped back, and have read again everything...

and I still feel the same.

there are some issues on this entire web site that need to be address, this being a big part of one of them.

I really applaud Samara in everything she wrote. She made some great points. And I really think everyone, including the moderators and creators need to read them.

The biggest point I feel, that she made is how are we supposed to know how to react to moderators actions if the rules aren't available to us? Without the rules to guide our reactions of course we are going to be outraged at them locking our threads. Of course we are going to be outraged when they delete our posts. And of course we are going to be upset when they confront us, when we think it's not right.
If we don't know their rules and regulations then what do you expect us to do? Sit back and allow ourselves to be completely walked over? No. That is not the way things work in the world.

Every orginization has a clear and publicly documented state of rules and regulations for everyone, available to everyone so they know right from wrong. The fact that you are not displaying these rules and policies for the public to have is in turn, having th e effect of confusion and the inability to tell the difference from right and wrong.


ETA: I would like to state that I completely understand and agree with the idea behind this new rule, right now. HOWEVER I know what it looks like, and I know how this rule is in turn going to be used and how it's going to look like it is being used.
Without the moderator rules clearly being published for the public to refer to, the enforcement of this rule is forever going to look like a complete abuse of power.

ETA: I'm not talking about rules in general I'm talking about the moderator policies. I know we have rules and regs for members

ETA (again) : Just so we are clear, this to me is no longer whether they abuse their position. It is about how we as members perceive them abusing their position because the rules are no where clearly stated on how to handle certain issues.

[Perky]

Okay, I am not a forum heavyweight, but I do have some notoriety of my own on this site, especially over open discourse issues, so in this one instance I find it appropriate to participate here.

Every regular here should know by now that the prevailing MO of conflict resolution on this site, from the top down, is "say whatever it takes to get the argument to PM's, then hide your head in the sand long enough and it will go away." It should be no surprise that moderation is being embraced in the same manner.

I talk to a lot of people who have spent more hours on this site over the past year than they have with their families. What used to be a stress-free means of entertainment and distraction from real life for a lot of people has changed drastically. This problem of de facto censorship is just one more reason for the growing group of dissatisfied fans to find other alternatives.

The fact is, the regular fan trusts the mods (as a general group) to make good decisions in private as much as he trusts his Congressman not to be corrupt in private. The motives or intent behind this policy are irrelevant - perception is everything, and by (at minimum, the perception of) censoring the input of the fans, the mods are neither instilling faith in fans that their complaints WILL be addressed in private nor making a compelling argument that they have nothing to hide - "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

The issue can be debated for the next six months and it will not change the fact that decreasing visibility (from virtually nonexistent visibility to begin with) is guaranteed to disgruntle good fans, who will find their entertainment elsewhere. Yes, the site belongs to the Creators, and yes, they can do whatever they want with it, but the fact of the matter is they need the fans here - on all areas of the site - and by all indications, the fans all the way around are increasingly unhappy with decisions made regarding their participation. This entire site is bound for an unfortunate future - soon, by all indications - if the people who make decisions don't get off of their ego trips, start HEARING the complaints of the fans who give them roles of responsibility to be stressed over in the first place, and act upon the real issues in an appropriate manner instead of sticking with the old "everybody else does it" solution. To quote a comment made on the blog regarding the issue (thanks b-man):

LG15 has always been about creativity, being different. Using other internet forums as an excuse to do it here is downright shameful. Be original, its the lg spirit.

[curiousGeorge]

I will stay out of the fray (for once) but would like to second the observation that things seem to get really heated up here at the phorum when the quality of the show seems to nose dive.

Perhaps this is just human nature, I dunno...

[longlostposter]

Well, I haven't been around much, and just came across this little doozy, and saw that the threads where I (and several others) had expressed opinions that were not popular with the powers that be were removed.

Anyway, I think we all know what the issue was that necessitated this rule change.

Juli>>>>>

Forumites/fans>>>>>

Oh, and thank you QtheC, for this.

[longlostposter]

Here is my problem with the whole situation:

This whole situation stems from a problem of certain moderators not being to admit to wrong doings. It happened, we all know it did, but no one can fess up to it. I don't know why, because really there is no such thing as pride on the Internet.
All of a sudden, after people point all this faults out, we have this rule. It's not surprising, but it's concerning.

The whole situation reaks of "We screwed up, we know it, but we don't want to hear you anymore, so...pm trainer. Not me." I know it reaks of that, because I know the way some of these people think, because I used to be close to them until I started pointing out faults in private and started stating "fix it or the back lash will be big." Low and behold ....

My bigger problem is the fact where this is coming from:

It's coming from a huge argument about net-ego's getting in the way. And unfortunately this whole rule proves our point. It's not that people were "bashing" moderators, we were just trying to point out the rule breakers, and we wanted some consequences. But all we got in return was a silly remark of gratitude towards the rule breakers and a stupid reason why they were still allowed to do what they do.

"Moderators are choosen for loyalty"

B.S.

Whats unfortunate about this rule IS the fact that it quiets public debate. It becomes this complete and utter sour taste in everyones mouth. People have been complaining about certain moderators and their rule breaking for months to not on BK, but to the creators. And no one wants to deal with it anymore. This is where it comes from, and what do I want to say about it:

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT ANY MORE, THEN MAYBE YOU SHOULD WALK AWAY.

Extremely accurate, and very succinctly put, Kelly. <3

[silverblue]

I think only private mod complaints is only fair.
I was put in a difficult position where I was being unfairly attacked and yet unable to publically defend myself against it.

Why were you unable to publicly defend yourself?

Edit: Removed a quote removed by the original author.

[milowent]

Isn't that against the rules?

the rules are private. but i gather mod's are not supposed to respond if they get attacked in a post.

[ApotheosisAZ]

Isn't that against the rules?

the rules are private. but i gather mod's are not supposed to respond if they get attacked in a post.

Minor correction: they were not supposed to respond. Now, there is no longer any reason for them to be tempted to do so. It is a good thing, protecting their integrity and authority.

This was hardly a private rule here in the past.

The Forum Administrator has always publicly advocated private measures in this regard.

Apo, shameless former mod.