Moderators

[patricknd]

This place went to crap a long time ago. The death knell was the original mods quitting en masse. Now the mods are intent on crushing the life out of the forum. Any spark of liveliness or controversy and they will make it disappear like it's 1984.

Robbie Canuck goes off the reservation and the Ministry of Truth sweeps in to expunge everything.

Here's a clue. Overmoderation makes the place boring.

this place went to hell when they banned good contributors like Dickwrench and Skandar Akbar

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The most ridiculous thing is that his posts are still there unedited. He insults people, writes clearly erroneous statements, and nothing happens to the posts. They are there waving in the wind like the flag to Trollville, and somehow addressing them is out-of-bounds.

Robbie is sitting back laughing. I have to say, bravo good sir. You were successful in accomplishing your goal and you got the moderators to bite as a bonus. Stuff it and mount it on your wall. That is a successful fishing trip.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

this place went to hell when they banned good contributors like Dickwrench and Skandar Akbar

Ain't that the truth...

 

[Eshnar]

The most ridiculous thing is that his posts are still there unedited. He insults people, writes clearly erroneous statements, and nothing happens to the posts. They are there waving in the wind like the flag to Trollville, and somehow addressing them is out-of-bounds.

Robbie is sitting back laughing. I have to say, bravo good sir. You were successful in accomplishing your goal and you got the moderators to bite as a bonus. Stuff it and mount it on your wall. That is a successful fishing trip.

If there are other insulting posts is only because I didn't notice them. Tell me what posts are you referring to. I deleted 10 posts and edited others, anyway, so stating that " his posts are still there unedited" is quite a manipulation of truth.

 

[spetsa]

The most ridiculous thing is that his posts are still there unedited. He insults people, writes clearly erroneous statements, and nothing happens to the posts. They are there waving in the wind like the flag to Trollville, and somehow addressing them is out-of-bounds.

Robbie is sitting back laughing. I have to say, bravo good sir. You were successful in accomplishing your goal and you got the moderators to bite as a bonus. Stuff it and mount it on your wall. That is a successful fishing trip.

Chewy, if he deletes the posts, how am I supposed to get the full context of the thread three days from now after going back and reading it from the start?

It was nice too see that you finally came around and found it in your heart to defend MarkVW. That should be deleted so as to not set precedent.

 

[BroDeal]

The most ridiculous thing is that his posts are still there unedited. He insults people, writes clearly erroneous statements, and nothing happens to the posts. They are there waving in the wind like the flag to Trollville, and somehow addressing them is out-of-bounds.

Robbie is sitting back laughing. I have to say, bravo good sir. You were successful in accomplishing your goal and you got the moderators to bite as a bonus. Stuff it and mount it on your wall. That is a successful fishing trip.

I'll lay bets that what brought the cavalry in from the woods, where they were probably toking the good stuff as they lazed away, was Canuck himself when he was being exposed as violent hothead.

If someone threatens to fight people but the mods disappear the post, did it really happen?

 

[Caruut]

In answer to that claim - which may be valid - and is certainly worth our consideration, I am going to say two things. First, just like other claims or problems - the individual posts, the actual events, should be reported. Generic complaining, as in this thread, is difficult or impossible to do anything with. Second, for this topic, I will say that the complaints have been noted and will be discussed. Beyond that, we are now taking TheGame's advice on this topic:

Topic has been noted and is under consideration. Future incidents should be flagged through the normal complaint channel - flag the post. Discussion closed. Thank you for participating. (And I am serious when I say that. I do appreciate your input, but unless you have something new to add, this has been done to death.)

This is not generic complaining, this is quite specific complaints.

It is ridiculous to go through the normal channel when the person you are complaining about is a moderator. Reporting a post is anonymous, so it's all too easy for you guys to ignore it or push it under the rug and say you've "discussed it" and that the matter is closed or has been dealt with.

Secondly, with this discussion the issue being discussed is not, for the most part, "Did Netserk break the rules?" but "Should what Netserk does be against the rules?" - two similar but very different questions. When it is a question of the community questioning the way moderation works, it seems to me that public discussion is necessary.

Can't see any reason to keep complaints about moderators in the official channels other than not wanting bad moderator behaviour discussed.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I'll lay bets that what brought the cavalry in from the woods, where they were probably toking the good stuff as they lazed away, was Canuck himself when he was being exposed as violent hothead.

If someone threatens to fight people but the mods disappear the post, did it really happen?

Dang, I missed that. Could it be Jackhammer/Carboncrank? I really hope so, that guy was a hoot!

And of course it was Robbie who flagged the post. I am laying bets it is our old friend and not Jackhammer, but we aren't allowed to pontificate about it being him. But I am sure flagging a post and having it deleted when his troll post is left standing is just what he wanted anyway.

 

[ferryman]

I'll lay bets that what brought the cavalry in from the woods, where they were probably toking the good stuff as they lazed away, was Canuck himself when he was being exposed as violent hothead.

If someone threatens to fight people but the mods disappear the post, did it really happen?

No good stuff going around here at the moment Besides, work all day, nightmare train journey home, life to live, late on here. AND if you really think Canuck was suggesting a fight you are wrong. It went from Court Room steps to back alley in a flippant way in response to other posts. Tis not always black and white

 

[Race Radio]

AND if you really think Canuck was suggesting a fight you are wrong.

He was clearly suggesting a fight.

 

[ferryman]

He was clearly suggesting a fight.

Not really, it was a repost to an earlier post. But I would like to make it clear I'm not defending anyone here. Certainly not.

 

[hiero2]

I will change my statement from "bye bye", which implies a ban, to "sanction", which is a broader term and can include warnings, etc. I maintain my stance that your posting style is, at times, and IMHO, prone to provoke sanctionable behaviour in other users. And that, in compliance with your duties as a mod, you would have to sanction said behaviour.

Furthermore as a gesture of good will and in an effort to promote rational discussion on this matter, I can formally announce that I will retire the term "moder-baiter". I would, however, appreciate a formal acknowledgement that that was a clever play on words.

I will respond to hiero2 later, possibly tomorrow

I think you already have responded. Anything further is not necessary, and would not be in the spirit of "discussion closed".

I will note that "moder-baiter" has some cleverness, in a crude fashion. I also note that your above post will stand as an apology, and I applaud your changes and a return to more rational discussions. This is "new", and thus I am leaving it in place, in spite of having closed the discussion. If you have anything further to say on the topic to me, send me a PM. Otherwise, please re-read the section of my last post where I said to flag future posts, if you felt them to be objectionable.

 

[hiero2]

Chewy, if he deletes the posts, how am I supposed to get the full context of the thread three days from now after going back and reading it from the start?

It was nice too see that you finally came around and found it in your heart to defend MarkVW. That should be deleted so as to not set precedent.

You didn't miss a thing. There was no "context" in the deleted posts, none whatsoever.

I'll lay bets that what brought the cavalry in from the woods, where they were probably toking the good stuff as they lazed away, was Canuck himself when he was being exposed as violent hothead.

If someone threatens to fight people but the mods disappear the post, did it really happen?

I'll take that bet, and tell ya right now to pay up.

This is not generic complaining, this is quite specific complaints.

It is ridiculous to go through the normal channel when the person you are complaining about is a moderator. Reporting a post is anonymous, so it's all too easy for you guys to ignore it or push it under the rug and say you've "discussed it" and that the matter is closed or has been dealt with.

Secondly, with this discussion the issue being discussed is not, for the most part, "Did Netserk break the rules?" but "Should what Netserk does be against the rules?" - two similar but very different questions. When it is a question of the community questioning the way moderation works, it seems to me that public discussion is necessary.

Can't see any reason to keep complaints about moderators in the official channels other than not wanting bad moderator behaviour discussed.

Caruut: it is never specific unless specific posts are used as evidence. Anything else is general. And your contention that it is senseless to go through the normal channels is without basis. Complaints are not anonymous, and they aren't ignored.

I and others "get" the difference you point out in the questions - we got it before. You are repeating yourself. The public discussion has been held - and it turned into what has been noted by others in the community to be a ****ing contest. The discussion was no longer productive.

 

[BroDeal]

The public discussion has been held - and it turned into what has been noted by others in the community to be a ****ing contest. The discussion was no longer productive.

So what is so hard about just telling people that they have had their fun and to move on instead of using a sanitation team to turn a thread into a antiseptic borefest?

 

[hiero2]

So what is so hard about just telling people that they have had their fun and to move on . . .

I didn't think it was hard. Did you read my post a couple above?

. . .)

I'm pretty sure that is the point I already made, eh?

. . .instead of using a sanitation team to turn a thread into a antiseptic borefest?

Now you lost me. You must be talking about a different thread and topic. But I don't think the FDA would approve your idea of antiseptic. Eric Cartman might agree with your sense of "borefest". I'm not sure who else would. But I'm an amateur in comparison, eh? So I imagine you will manage to out do that.

TTFN!

 

[Caruut]

Caruut: it is never specific unless specific posts are used as evidence. Anything else is general. And your contention that it is senseless to go through the normal channels is without basis. Complaints are not anonymous, and they aren't ignored.

I and others "get" the difference you point out in the questions - we got it before. You are repeating yourself. The public discussion has been held - and it turned into what has been noted by others in the community to be a ****ing contest. The discussion was no longer productive.

People have been quoting posts and highlighting specific posts.

I should have said that it's ridiculous to go only through the official channels when it concerns a moderator. Complaints might not be anonymous to you, but they are to everyone else. From the moment I click "send" neither I nor any other non-mod user knows about the outcome of a complaint. We can check the "banned users" thread, but unless a ban comes out there's no evidence of anything ever even having happened. Reporting a mod for a perceived infraction is not an accountable process from where I'm sitting. You probably all act in good faith, but when one of your own is involved I don't think good faith can just be assumed like it is for regular reporting.

I think if you "got" what I was saying you wouldn't be saying take it to the official channels next time. What I am saying is that the official channels are not actually adequate for issues like this, where it concerns a general attitude and longer history and also questions about whether the rules work. Let's look at the facts of the case as they appear to me - nothing at all has happened.

The issue hasn't been addressed at all by any mod other than Netserk, and I respect him for the fact that he's come here to defend himself. No mods have commented on whether they think his posting was or wasn't acceptable given his position. Neither have any mods made any comment on whether they believe that a higher standard should be required of them. The issues raised in public haven't been addressed, so why should I assume they will be addressed in private? All that's really happened is you've come here and said that the discussion is over. I like you as a poster and a mod, but this just feels a bit like trying to shut down a discussion that isn't really over.

Netserk, if you're reading this, my problem is not with you as a person or a poster. You're a forceful and opinionated poster, and it's good to have them around. However, in my personal opinion, you are just a bit too divisive to be a mod.

 

[hiero2]

People have been quoting posts and highlighting specific posts. . (and a lot more)

<sigh> Why are we still discussing this? Ok - I'll take your word for it that there were some quotes - I do remember some references to particular threads, but I also recall a LOT of posts where nothing specific was mentioned.

As for the complaint process being anon to you - can you imagine what this place would be like if we started airing the dirty laundry thoughts of every person who complained? Can you imagine the hours that would be involved if we started acting like a company's complaint dept, and sending out an automated "gee thanks for the comment, yada yada, so valuable to us we let our computer send this email yada yada", followed by a form letter from a mod with our name at the bottom? Even at 1.5 minutes per complaint - we just aren't set up to do that.

The "official" channel is quite suitable to complaints of this sort. I wouldn't be doing my job as mod if I believed everyone who tells me that "this guy has a history of this". If I don't SEE that history, I can't, won't, and shouldn't act on it. The "official" channel establishes that history.

Like you, I also respect netserk for coming and answering all questions, and maintaining productive conversations. But if you think he was the only mod who has responded, then we aren't having this conversation, and you haven't read the thread.

Lastly, although you think nothing has happened, I would advise patience. Even though a seeming infinity of time may have passed on the forum, if you check your watch, you may find it closer to a few hours. Expect things to happen in real life time. In the meantime, the rules will suffice. If a post does not follow the rules, it will be deleted or edited at the least. That includes any reported mod posts.

If a complaint doesn't get responded to, you may assume that we did not see the issue in the same light as the complainer did. We would not be acting responsibly if we just acted when somebody complained, would we?

I have watched as netserk has grown and changed how he does things, just in the short time since I have known him as a mod. He listens, and he learns, and he is rational. {Forget that he has some stupid opinions } Because of this, I am sure we will come to some mutually agreeable conclusion on this matter.

 

[sittingbison]

Caruut, mods posting is a bit of a conundrum. I believe that (in order of precedence):
1) moderators should maintain a certain standard
2) moderators should be allowed to post their opinions
3) moderators posts be held to the same standards as other posters as far as forum "rules" apply.

Netserk to his credit has said he is happy for his posts to be moderated and if warranted be given a sanction or even a ban. The issue then becomes should a mod be making a post that results in a sanction or ban? see point 1. However even with the best of intentions mistakes and emotions can come into play, which leads to the issue of should mods make posts at all? see point 2.

I have edited and deleted other mods posts, and I suspect some of mine have been as well. See point 3. However I don't really think that moderators should publicly voice their opinions on other moderators posts.

 

[Race Radio]

Not really, it was a repost to an earlier post. But I would like to make it clear I'm not defending anyone here. Certainly not.

I suggest reading the deleted posts. Asking someone to step outside and settle it the alley is pretty clear

Still split on the trolling though, he could have just been a moron. Hard to tell the difference.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I suggest reading the deleted posts. Asking someone to step outside and settle it the alley is pretty clear

Still split on the trolling though, he could have just been a moron. Hard to tell the difference.

No, it was trolling with a capital "Mentally ill."

What he did was claim to be an attorney (ethos) and then make up legal arguments based on fictitious legal references (logos), and the mods buy it as legitimate discourse because none of them is willing to go read the references he is making and just assume that someone who says he is an attorney and is citing things must know what he is talking about because he strung it together in coherent sentences and insulted everyone while doing so. (breathe)

This is most likely BPC. In fact, yesterday after he posted his last post, I went to his twitter account to see if he was active. Interestingly, right after the last post by Robbie here, BPC began tweeting profusely about Boston.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Hiero - You've just very recently 'appeared' for the first time (while I've been looking) in the Cafe, and you immediately set about making at least one entirely unnecessary edit, and possibly a deletion too. What's your problem?

I realize that Alpe has other things on his mind right now, so perhaps you have been asked/delegated to keep an eye on the Cafe. Let me tell you, as a Cafe regular, that we could count the number of times that a mod has been 'required' in there on our fingers.

You may not be aware of the fact that a great deal of generally friendly banter goes on in there between posters who, on the whole, have 'known' each other for years, and are capable of dealing with their difference without mods editing their posts. I'm not quite sure what you edited out of my post, but I guarantee you that it was not 'offensive' by any standards used here, and that Scott will not have been offended.

I saw that Rhub had made the last post on the Boston topic, so I opened the thread to read it - gone - presumably deleted by you. We really don't need this kind of petty modding in there Hiero. If you're going to be a regular in the Cafe, I strongly urge you to follow Alpe's example and keep your finger off the edit/delete button unless absolutely necessary, or you will most assuredly p!ss off every Cafe regular, and quite unnecessarily so. You can't just waltz in there as a relatively new poster in that forum, and start imposing your, entirely different, standards on the place. What you have done today is already highly objectionable. There was no abuse, no offense, no name calling, no trolling, no aggravation. No modding was required.

 

[hiero2]

. . .There was no abuse, no offense, no name calling, no trolling, no aggravation. No modding was required.

Quite the contrary. Every one of the posts I deleted was because of personal attacks, and as personal attacks and comments, they were off topic. They were/are abuse by the rules of the forum. You may think Scott was not offended, but his replies were becoming increasingly inflammatory. It would not be consistent for me to leave these posts here, and then delete similar exchanges in a different sub-forum.

What I deleted from your post was this: " in your usual misguided way".
Perhaps the mildest example from the edits, but still an attack, and given that arguing was started, not advisable.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Quite the contrary. Every one of the posts I deleted was because of personal attacks, and as personal attacks and comments, they were off topic. They were/are abuse by the rules of the forum. You may think Scott was not offended, but his replies were becoming increasingly inflammatory. It would not be consistent for me to leave these posts here, and then delete similar exchanges in a different sub-forum.

What I deleted from your post was this: " in your usual misguided way".
Perhaps the mildest example from the edits, but still an attack, and given that arguing was started, not advisable.

I obviously didn't see what you deleted, so cannot comment on your justification. When I last looked in the topic I saw nothing whatsoever out of the ordinary, and certainly nothing that I, with more than 10 years experience as mod and admin in other places, would have deleted. If you think that " in your usual misguided way" is an attack that infringes forum rules, then you will either need to grow some thicker skin, or return to whence you came and leave the Cafe in Alpe's capable hands. If you carry on, you will ruin the place, and ensure that even more people rise up against prissy, unwarranted, modding in a sub-forum where we are not accustomed to such practices.

Seriously.

 

[Daniel Benson]

Amster, there's no need for the animosity, the deletions were simply made because the moderator thought it was in the best interest of the forum community. If you disagree, that's fine, state why and we'll try and approach the thread next time with an approach that takes on board your comments and feelings.

Remember not all mods work with exactly the same style, each brings their own personality to the job, but lets try and incorporate that and work together.

Cheers

Daniel

 

[thirteen]

i agree with Amsterhammer completely, hiero2. don't mess with the Cafe!

if the individual that is "attacked" personally comes whining to you, that's another story. but don't just go in and change posts because of what you perceive are slights. we are big girls and boys in the Cafe and understand the risks when politics are involved.

Alpe never would have touched it, don't change things now. besides, there should be more than enough to keep you busy in Clinic where personal attacks and obvious trolling are rampant.

please, stay out of the Cafe. we can take care of ourselves.

eta: after reading Dan's post -- i'll explain myself further... i do not always agree with posters, but i am always interested in their opinions. some of the most vocal (on both sides of the coin), tend to insult each other. it's their style... no harm, no foul.

if you start deleting and/or editing their posts, they lose their meaning. i don't go to the Cafe ever day but, if i do, i know what to expect. if you start changing that, well... please leave it alone so we can see both sides.