Response to "Forum Rule Update: moderators actions"

[Renegade]

[...] While I do not intend at this time to make the full guidelines public, [...]

Why, the hell?

I know of no other forum anywhere where the reasons to be moderated are held secret. It's totally useless and counterintuitive.

"OMG, the users know when we'll discipline them! What now?! They might even avoid breaking the rules now!!"

[Killthesmiley]

I've had three posts deleted, and I know of two others that were deleted. I'm sure that is just a fraction of the number actually deleted.

I had just one post deleted I think, maybe two. And I knew they probably would be, as they responded to posts by LLP which were also strong candidates for deletion. I don't think anything I've seen deleted was actually discussing the topic of the new dont-attack-mod-action-publicly rule.

too bad there wasn't a kickass video released last night.

I've noticed at least three posts that are completely missing, like i can't even find them anywheres on this forum, that shouldn't have been at all.

They just used the hyemew situation as an example

[wintermute]

They just used the hyemew situation as an example

This is why they were deleted. Why continue to beat that dead horse? It's not necessary to make your argument.

'mute

(sorry, hyemew. I didn't mean to imply that you're a dead horse )

[Killthesmiley]

I get that, but no one was arguing it. They used it as an example of Moderators looking like ... well... people who ignore other people (to put it nicely) and how practicing this new rule (which, in essence it was) would have essentially began an even larger flame war.

It wasn't about what Hye did, it was about how the public complaints were handled, could have been handled and possible outcomes.

eta: i don't know who posted this, but it was basically, and outline of what happened in the threads, the moderators actions both public and rumored privately, the reaction from the posters. Then out lined what the mod's would have done if this rule was in place, and the possible outcomes both private and public. It was a really good post, proving that in the end it this rule causes more Flame wars on the board and in PM's then intended. It was really really good.

[matsie]

This forum kind of reminds me of Vietnam era America. It doesn't really matter how often you protest, what happens will happen. Perhaps they'll throw you a bone?

I dunno. This policy seems disproportionate to the actual need of the community. Also, the reasoning behind this new policy seems to reflect very poorly on the moderator community here, to me. It looks to me as if this policy wants to portray the moderator community as one that cannot take criticism nor can they effectively deal with issues when criticism is given.

I am NOT referring to any acts of character assassination. That is a different issue all together. Pretty much ever suggestion given on this thread OTHER than newly placed policy is better than the newly placed policy. I just don't see what made anyone think this is actually a solid good idea.

[Taig]

Alright, alright...I have tried to remain calm through this discussion by contributing dumb smartass remarks when I felt like raging but I just can't sit here and watch this.

Bear with me now...

This is not a new battle. It has been fought before by different players and they are always started when a moderator "spanks" someone for some real or imagined offensea and they are always ended with the moderator pronouncing the matter settled, then locking the thread and then going about enforcing the "new rule"or ignoring the original complaint.

Life goes on. A good episode is released* and everyone forgets about it. When it happens again it's always as though it is brand new.

With the exception of creating the empty position of a first line moderator, the recent "rule change" is just the codification of what the moderators have been doing all along.
I have never really understood this whole moderator "Star Chamber" thing. Why even have a Concerns and Complaints thread if only approved concerns and complaints are going to be allowed?

The easy answer of course is that it makes people think they have some influence. Just like the authors like to make the viewers think they have some influence on the plot development (or lack thereof). That makes people feel invested and that makes them stick around. It's a great scam. Machiavelli wrote it down a long time ago and it has been used succesfuly in innumerable situations from cradle to grave.

Your mom and dad did it, they did it to you in school, and they do it to you at work. Poltiticians do it, your spouse probably does it and I bet you do too.

After some years of legitamate employ with and study of government and its machinations I am of the solid opinion that:

If voting could change anything it would be illegal.

So sit down, shut up.
You got a complaint?
Write it down and put in the box.
If we feel like it we will deal with it.
If we don't have to or don't want to we wont deal with it.
You don't like it?
Beat it.


==================
* it should be noted I guess that the length of time between good episodes has increased dramatically so we can expect the argument to live a little longer in proportion to that....hmmmmm this one could go on for a loooong time now that I think about that

[wintermute]

This new policy is, I think, a result of much history. I know that towards the end of my second run of moderating here, I was absolutely sick of the abuse the moderators have to take. And no one ever had a single complaint about my moderator ability that I'm aware of. It was more a result of the abuse some of my fellow mods were taking from a very small, but vocal, minority.

I applaud the effort of trying to address a very real problem here. I might not totally agree with the policy, but it's a step towards a solution.

Also, as a former moderator, I'll reveal one of the guidelines originally given to me by twjaniak: "be fair and impartial." As BK and I originally became moderators at the same time, I'm sure he was given the same guidelines as I was. I do not know what guidelines BK gives out to new moderators, but I'm guessing it's somewhat similar. I'm also guessing that Bukanators prior to twjaniak gave a similar instruction to their moderators. It's a pretty flexible guideline and makes the transparency that has been asked for difficult. I applaud BK for addressing the transparency concerns at all.


'mute

[curiousGeorge]

I'm also guessing that Bukanators prior to twjaniak gave a similar instruction to their moderators. I

'mute

Great post and double P. Monkey points for correct nomenclature.

[HyeMew]

Well I don't know what all the fuss is all about, but it sure seems to have staying power. Can't we just put this to rest- it appears to be a tempest in a teapot with eyes on ripping the forum appart, which is just not right at all.

[milowent]

Well I don't know what all the fuss is all about, but it sure seems to have staying power. Can't we just put this to rest- it appears to be a tempest in a teapot with eyes on ripping the forum appart, which is just not right at all.

yeah, i'm just kinda sad now.

avatar and sig reverting ...

[curiousGeorge]

As always, I follow the Sage. He is indeed my Man in the Yellow Hat.

Give it a rest, go back to searching for clues, solving puzzles, and shipping to your heart's content. It's just not that important of an issue.

Now, about that so called plot....

[deagol]

I support it, and I want to add a suggestion of my own. I was hoping that the forum would consider using this font color for the section of the rules that covers the new policy. I like this color. By sheer coincidence, it reminds me of the color of the banner at the website for Neutrogena®.

I know this is only distinction regarding the appearance of the new policy, and not really relating to the content, but I feel the soothing color might actually make the policy more agreeable to some of the people who seem to dislike it.

Apo's font color
Neutrogena's® banner color

very close Apo, very close.

Now to say something on topic. I noticed a few recent posts have discussed the specific actions taken recently by moderators on this very same thread. I understand those posts were at fault for this new rule. However, not only were those posts left in public view, questioning and possibly diminishing the power of the moderator that removed them, but on top of that their questioning was addressed by the forum admin.

To clarify, I'm not discussing the moderator actions taken (which would put me at fault with said rule). I support their action and submit to their power to do their job and make this a happy, friendly place. What I'm concerned here is the clear breach of this rule by others, and the condoning of that behavior by the very same power that made the rule.

I'll also move on to puzzling and poking fun at the plot, but would like to leave this thread with a mystery as well, milo.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Samara]

I get that, but no one was arguing it. They used it as an example of Moderators looking like ... well... people who ignore other people (to put it nicely) and how practicing this new rule (which, in essence it was) would have essentially began an even larger flame war.

This seems to happen a lot. One posts an example of the problem just to have it removed, even though it's in an effort to further the discussion, people think it's continuing an issue. That isn't always the case. That's why courts have this thing called "precedence" --- they uses past examples to help fortify current discussion.

I've had posts removed in this thread, too...and for no reason that I can ascertain to be legitimate. I was on topic, and did not attack. And nobody contacted me by PM to tell me why, either.

Instead of deleting threads willy-nilly...it's really best to simply edit a post. It helps retain the flow of the thread and lets people see when and why a post was removed...without having it *poof* out of existence.

Also, I think it would be a good idea for the users of this forum to see which moderators are editing posts, and why. The benefits are two-fold here. This can serve as a lesson to other users not to repeat the actions, and also sit as a method of accountability for the mods. They need to stand behind their actions, not hide behind their powers.

And I don't really care how much you guys say you're not trying to hide behind your powers...words are meaningless. Hidden actions are worth even less. Seriously, if I had a problem, I wouldn't even bother takling to Trainer or anyone else for that matter. Why? Because I simply don't trust you to make a fair decision. That may sound harsh, but it's the way I feel. I'm not saying anything bad toward any particular person...I'm just saying that with everything being done behind the scenes, there's no possible way for me to know that I would be heard or dealt with fairly. There's no visibility to the process...and I just don't trust it. Sorry.



edited to clarify

[Taig]

As always, I follow the Sage. He is indeed my Man in the Yellow Hat.

o brother

[Marbella]

Samara, the new policy actually gives us all greater accountability. We are able to privately come to consensus on decisions and run them by Trainer for approval if needed.

We usually discuss our actions privately with other moderators, to make sure they would do the same thing under the same circumstances. It's really not "willy-nilly," and the new system gives you three levels to "vent" if you do not agree. It's one thing to distrust one person, but this way, the complaint is heard by three different people if you choose.

Your complaint can go all the way up to the Creators if need be, just not here on the board. It's a lot more effective to have a channel like this to go through. I think the new way is more efficient and will really give your concerns the recognition they deserve.