Response to "Forum Rule Update: moderators actions"

Post by **Broken Kid** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Please stay on topic folks...thanks.

ApotheosisAZ · Post by **ApotheosisAZ** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 3:05 pm

Broken Kid wrote:Please stay on topic folks...thanks.

Witness the hand of our beloved and Owen-Admiring Administrator gently yet firmly guiding us all back to the subject at hand.

It reminds me of the gentleness of Neutrogena Men® Razor Defense® Post Shave Lotion , a "long-lasting post-shave moisturizer" which "relieves and helps prevent razor irritation for clear, healthy-looking skin."

As we return to the topic of the recent policy change here at the forum, I would also like to point out that it is a fan-driven change. So, it is only fitting and on topic to express deep admiration for all the fans who are participating here in this discussion.

Without their input, this forum would not remain the fantastic place we all love so much.

longlostposter · Post by **longlostposter** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 3:13 pm

BK, can we look forward to a posting of the mod guidelines, or has that been marked as something the posters don't need to know?

Post by **Broken Kid** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 3:56 pm

As I've mentioned, please keep all posts constructive. Inappropriate or attacking posts here will be removed in order to keep the conversation on track. Future off-topic posts will be removed as well. Thank you.

BrightSilence · Post by **BrightSilence** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 4:04 pm

I actually think this is a great idea appart from 1 minor point. Why should we directly contact trainer101 instead of the moderater who acted in a way we don't think is suitable. It seems only reasonable to give the mod in question a chance to explain himself without immediately going to his/her 'superiors'.

To keep the discussions private instead of public has multiple pro's:
1. People tend to nag more easilly on the public forums than in pm's
2. It keeps the board from being clutterd up with off-topic posts.
3. It makes the life of the mods one hell of alot easier.
4. You are way more likely to get a reasonable respons if you pm people.
5. The good name of the mods wont be questionned in public (this seems like a stupid rule, but they do have a rolemoddel function. You don't see the president telling you all about his mistakes either. To keep the order(not the OoD) you need a 'flawless' image up to some level.)

I don't really get the negativity. It's not like you're unable to state your complaints, just do it in a respectfull manner in a pm.

Edit: Put quotes around the word superiors. It's not exactly what I mean, but you see what I'm getting at...

Killthesmiley · Post by **Killthesmiley** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 4:10 pm

Broken Kid wrote:Please stay on topic folks...thanks.

it's hard to debate something when the other side is soooo quiet.

deagol · Post by **deagol** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 4:29 pm

I love this rule.

I really do. I love it so much that I want it extended to apply to all forum members. That is, no one is to publicly post anything critical of any other forum member.

The justification for this is simple: if I were to be criticised by any forum member, I would have to defend myself in likeness and I would pretty much have to recourse to ad-hominem, personal attacks (I believe that is the premise by which moderators are not allowed to defend themselves). Since regular forum members are not held to such a high ethical standard as moderators, it seems to be accepted that it is inevitable that we will engage in such flame wars, despite the fact that it is not allowed per the public forum rules and guidelines. However, if the rule in discussion here were to apply for everyone, moderators and regular members alike, then flame wars can't possibly ensue, and those that attempt to start one by making public critical posts to anyone would be easily dealt by reporting them to the mod manager, the admin, or the creators, whatever the case requires.

I think this would be the most effective way to deal with flame wars, given the accepted premise that to defend from a flame bait post you have to respond in kind. I think it's unfair to offer such a sanctuary for moderators because, as per the rules, we are not supposed to engage in such personal attacks either, so we are left with no possible defense other than tell mommie... I mean the mod manager. That same course of action would be ratified as the sole appropriate defense if this new rule is extended to all members.

So, it seems to me a consistent, coherent, clarifying, and supercalifragilisticexpialidocious step in making this a peaceful, civilized, and all-around loving and caring community.

Post by **Broken Kid** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 4:37 pm

BrightSilence wrote:I actually think this is a great idea appart from 1 minor point. Why should we directly contact trainer101 instead of the moderater who acted in a way we don't think is suitable. It seems only reasonable to give the mod in question a chance to explain himself without immediately going to his/her 'superiors'.

You are correct, of course. I think in my mind, that was inferred, but a person's first step if they have a problem should always be the person with whom they have the problem. If you have a question about a particular moderator's actions, contact that moderator. Typically it's a simple and straightforward reply.

The step of escalating an issue to Trainer101 (as Moderator Manager) should be if you have a problem with a moderator's actions and do not receive what you feel is an appropriate response from that person.

I'll amend the rules accordingly.

Samara · Post by **Samara** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 4:43 pm

Broken Kid wrote:As I've mentioned, please keep all posts constructive. Inappropriate or attacking posts here will be removed in order to keep the conversation on track. Future off-topic posts will be removed as well. Thank you.

My post wasn't attacking, BK. I was making an honest observation based on my opinion. You guys are NOT addressing our suggestions here. That's very clear. It's not an attack, it's a statement of FACT. TO be perfectly honest with you, if you remove this again, it will only solidify my point that you guys aren't addressing the issue, not listening to us and you have a need to be in total control. This is constructive criticism...not an attack. I really wish you guys could figure out the difference.

There is no "conversation" going on here...because as KTS said, one side is remaining awfully quiet.

Killthesmiley · Post by **Killthesmiley** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 4:43 pm

I would just like to stress the point again:

while the idea is great in theory, when the moderator actually exercise the rule it looks like they are abusing their power.

For someone who doesn't take notice of the rules, or just learns of the rules when this happens it can cause a big flame war between users and moderators.

All I'm saying is a better understanding of moderator policies among the users may avoid this problem of more arguing between people.

spaciegirlreturn · Post by **spaciegirlreturn** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 5:55 pm

I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's great in theory. It doesn't even really make sense.

TOSG · Post by **TOSG** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:32 pm

deagol wrote:I love this rule. I really do. I love it so much that I want it extended to apply to all forum members. That is, no one is to publicly post anything critical of any other forum member.

That would be a tremendous mistake. As a whole, this community is tremendously positive and supportive - every other message board that I've ever posted at has been FAR more adversarial. To make such a rule would be to compromise the integrity and sincerity behind this positivity, replacing it with mere compulsion.

deagol · Post by **deagol** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:35 pm

TOSG wrote:
deagol wrote:I love this rule. I really do. I love it so much that I want it extended to apply to all forum members. That is, no one is to publicly post anything critical of any other forum member.
That would be a tremendous mistake. As a whole, this community is tremendously positive and supportive - every other message board that I've ever posted at has been FAR more adversarial. To make such a rule would be to compromise the integrity and sincerity behind this positivity, replacing it with mere compulsion.

Well, then that's exactly the way the rule applied only to moderators should be viewed, don't you think? Hasn't there been the same support, integrity, sincerity and positivity with modertors, in general, other than a couple of incidents? Doesn't this rule compromise that, then?

At least you caught the point I was trying to make. I always have trouble planting my tongue firmly enough in my cheek so everyone knows I'm trying to be sarcastic.

TJ Marsh · Post by **TJ Marsh** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 9:49 pm

I like the new idea, lets all wait and see whats happens with it.

Taig · Post by **Taig** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:24 pm

TJ Marsh wrote:I like the new idea, lets all wait and see whats happens with it.

deagol wrote:I love this rule. I really do. I love it so much that I want it extended to apply to all forum members. That is, no one is to publicly post anything critical of any other forum member.

brilliant! both of them! My god the ability totake such acomplicated issue and boil it down like that...! Amazing!

Thank you gentlemen