PDA

View Full Version : Third tPF Town Hall: 4/22-4/23



Green Arrow
04-21-2017, 09:49 PM
It's that time again! Tomorrow we'll be starting the third tPF Town Hall, so get your questions, comments, concerns, suggestions, and general gripes ready. This Town Hall will be different from the previous two, as this time it will be run entirely by the VIPs with myself (4/22) and Peter1469 (4/23) serving as your representatives to the VIPs. Moderators will serve only as the name suggests, and moderate the thread where needed.

Keep in mind as you prepare what you want to say, that questions/etc. toward moderators should be addressed to moderators. The VIPs will discuss all questions/etc. before providing a response.

Peter1469
04-22-2017, 09:05 AM
Bump

Green Arrow
04-22-2017, 09:58 AM
Alright, some basic ground rules before we get started:

Any moderation-related comments should be kept general (not specific) in this thread, though we'd prefer you just PM or report your comments to the mods as this is specifically a VIP affair.

Discussion should follow forum rules. No insults or anything like that. Keep it civil.

Peter1469
04-22-2017, 09:59 AM
Using the PM function should help as well. Remember the team will need time to discuss the questions and issues.

Cletus
04-22-2017, 12:15 PM
Alright, some basic ground rules before we get started:

Any moderation-related comments should be kept general (not specific) in this thread, though we'd prefer you just PM or report your comments to the mods as this is specifically a VIP affair.

Discussion should follow forum rules. No insults or anything like that. Keep it civil.

What good is it if you can't discuss moderation in the open? That is the single biggest issue on this board.

I suggested the VIP run town hall because supposedly the VIPs are the ones who make the policy decisions here. If you can't even discuss moderation, why bother?

Adelaide
04-22-2017, 12:26 PM
What good is it if you can't discuss moderation in the open? That is the single biggest issue on this board.

I suggested the VIP run town hall because supposedly the VIPs are the ones who make the policy decisions here. If you can't even discuss moderation, you are useless.

Generalized comments are allowed. For example:

Do not: "Adelaide is such a bitch because she warned me for X while member A gets away with murder here in this thread [link]." Too specific, attacking a mod and a member, and disputing a specific mod action.

Sure: I think we need to deal more with trolls. Or, suggest a rule or a change in the rules or whatever. General stuff.

If you have specific complaints, you need to use the PM function or report function.

Peter1469
04-22-2017, 12:28 PM
What good is it if you can't discuss moderation in the open? That is the single biggest issue on this board.

I suggested the VIP run town hall because supposedly the VIPs are the ones who make the policy decisions here. If you can't even discuss moderation, why bother?

I assume Green Arrow means specific gripes about a mod should be in PM. Discussion of policy ought to be fine.

Green Arrow
04-22-2017, 12:39 PM
What good is it if you can't discuss moderation in the open? That is the single biggest issue on this board.

I suggested the VIP run town hall because supposedly the VIPs are the ones who make the policy decisions here. If you can't even discuss moderation, why bother?
Cletus, you can discuss moderation in a general sense ("I think moderation is too strict/lenient/etc.," or "We need harsher penalties on trolls," or "This rule should be clarified/rewritten/eliminated"), but anything about specific moderators or moderator actions need to be directed to the mods themselves in PM or Reports. VIPs have no control over specific mods or mod actions so there's nothing substantive we can say or do about it.

Cletus
04-22-2017, 12:45 PM
Generalized comments are allowed. For example:

Do not: "Adelaide is such a bitch because she warned me for X while member A gets away with murder here in this thread [link]." Too specific, attacking a mod and a member, and disputing a specific mod action.

Sure: I think we need to deal more with trolls. Or, suggest a rule or a change in the rules or whatever. General stuff.

If you have specific complaints, you need to use the PM function or report function.


We went through that before and it was shut down. The discussion was about moderation and moderation policy and the mods shut it down. When I suggested the VIP run town hall to discuss moderation policy and moderation in general, I was told the VIPs would not be permitted to discuss that in their meeting because all matters concerning moderation were for the mods alone to discuss and act upon.

Another thing... if there is a specific moderation problem, member SHOULD be able to discuss in a format such as this. I am not talking about moderator bashing, I am talking about citing specific examples of moderation that made no sense or seemed completely arbitrary and sometimes, in violation of forum rules or actions taken when no violation of forum rules occurred. This business of the moderators policing themselves and being answerable to no one but themselves isn't working.

Cletus
04-22-2017, 12:48 PM
@Cletus (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1708), you can discuss moderation in a general sense ("I think moderation is too strict/lenient/etc.," or "We need harsher penalties on trolls," or "This rule should be clarified/rewritten/eliminated"), but anything about specific moderators or moderator actions need to be directed to the mods themselves in PM or Reports. VIPs have no control over specific mods or mod actions so there's nothing substantive we can say or do about it.

Well, if this place is really "member run", maybe whoever actually sets policy should set up something like a Moderator Oversight Board, run by the VIPs, which could review contested moderator decisions and actions and do so outside of moderator influence.

Common
04-22-2017, 12:58 PM
The only thing I have to say, is that I have no problems whatsoever or complaints

Adelaide
04-22-2017, 01:52 PM
We went through that before and it was shut down. The discussion was about moderation and moderation policy and the mods shut it down. When I suggested the VIP run town hall to discuss moderation policy and moderation in general, I was told the VIPs would not be permitted to discuss that in their meeting because all matters concerning moderation were for the mods alone to discuss and act upon.

Another thing... if there is a specific moderation problem, member SHOULD be able to discuss in a format such as this. I am not talking about moderator bashing, I am talking about citing specific examples of moderation that made no sense or seemed completely arbitrary and sometimes, in violation of forum rules or actions taken when no violation of forum rules occurred. This business of the moderators policing themselves and being answerable to no one but themselves isn't working.

ADMIN oversees moderation and complaints and will deal with it.

Private Pickle
04-22-2017, 02:43 PM
I'm good.

Cletus
04-22-2017, 02:48 PM
ADMIN oversees moderation and complaints and will deal with it.

We've seen how well that works.

How often is Admin even on the board?

Mister D
04-22-2017, 03:28 PM
I'm content. The staff took action against the most brazen trolls and that was, IMO, the biggest issue we faced here.

Peter1469
04-22-2017, 03:33 PM
We've seen how well that works.

How often is Admin even on the board?
If you hit the Forum tab at the top left, scroll down and you can see when people are logged on or have been recently logged on. You can also PM him.

Bethere
04-22-2017, 03:43 PM
ADMIN oversees moderation and complaints and will deal with it.

I disagree strongly. I can produce pms where admin agrees with me on a moderation situation but claims in the end that he could do nothing about it because he was outnumbered.

I think the world of ADMIN. But let's not pretend that he's inclined to over rule what are essentially unsupervised moderators.

Mister D
04-22-2017, 03:45 PM
I've appealed to Admin only once that I can remember. He acted promptly in overruling a rather blatant act of favoritism on the part of several mods. That could have been because my case was airtight but my experience has been a good one.

Bethere
04-22-2017, 03:48 PM
I've appealed to Admin only once that I can remember. He acted promptly in overruling a rather blatant act of favoritism on the part of several mods. That could have been because my case was airtight but my experience has been a good one.

Nothing personal, but it could also be because you are an original poster.

Mister D
04-22-2017, 03:53 PM
Nothing personal, but it could also be because you are an original poster.
Or a valued member who brings something to the forum. In any case, my experience was a good one. Again, I think he reacted so quickly because I was obviously right and what happened reflected very poorly on both the mods and the forum. That said, I have no trouble believing he doesn't like to wade into all the petty BS at tPF. I don't trouble him with petty BS. Nothing personal, but maybe that's why some complaints go unanswered.

Bethere
04-22-2017, 04:00 PM
Or a valued member who brings something to the forum. In any case, my experience was a good one. Again, I think he reacted so quickly because I was obviously right and what happened reflected very poorly on both the mods and the forum. That said, I have no trouble believing he doesn't like to wade into all the petty BS at tPF. I don't trouble him with petty BS. Nothing personal, but maybe that's why some complaints go unanswered.

I'm not here to seek your approval or argue. I stated my case. I trust admin more than you can know.

But I won't pretend, either.

If anyone relevant wants proof and it's ok with admin I would provide it in private.

Mister D
04-22-2017, 04:03 PM
I'm not here to seek your approval or argue. I stated my case. I trust admin more than you can know.

But I won't pretend, either.

If anyone relevant wants proof and it's ok with admin I would provide it in private.
We're not arguing and no one asked you to pretend. I'm just giving you my opinion: many of the complaints I see here are petty and I am not surprised that Admin doesn't like to get too involved.

Bethere
04-22-2017, 04:16 PM
We're not arguing and no one asked you to pretend. I'm just giving you my opinion: many of the complaints I see here are petty and I am not surprised that Admin doesn't like to get too involved.

I think the almost total lack of response to this thread speaks volumes. Our fellow posters don't view this as a forum run by members just because some unelected posters are in charge.

Peter1469
04-22-2017, 04:20 PM
A lot of people claim that they no longer have problems.

I have one observation: since the few bans it seems as if a bit more quibbling among the members is allowed in the parts of the Forum not part of the serious side or marked tPF. To include long rounds of name calling.

That arraignment seems fine to me. Although I know that some disagree.

Mister D
04-22-2017, 04:23 PM
I think the almost total lack of response to this thread speaks volumes. Our fellow posters don't view this as a forum run by members just because some unelected posters are in charge.
Or it could be that most of the membership is satisfied.

Mister D
04-22-2017, 04:23 PM
A lot of people claim that they no longer have problems.

I have one observation: since the few bans it seems as if a bit more quibbling among the members is allowed in the parts of the Forum not part of the serious side or marked tPF. To include long rounds of name calling.

That arraignment seems fine to me. Although I know that some disagree.
I don't read any of it.

Green Arrow
04-22-2017, 04:38 PM
Well, if this place is really "member run", maybe whoever actually sets policy should set up something like a Moderator Oversight Board, run by the VIPs, which could review contested moderator decisions and actions and do so outside of moderator influence.

And that's a valid suggestion. We'll discuss it and get ADMIN's opinion.

Bethere
04-22-2017, 04:42 PM
And that's a valid suggestion. We'll discuss it and get @ADMIN (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1)'s opinion.

How about a vip/mod oversight board run by elected representatives of the membership?

Green Arrow
04-22-2017, 04:42 PM
We've seen how well that works.

How often is Admin even on the board?

Does it matter? He established moderators and VIPs specifically so he didn't have to micromanage the forum. When asked, he always responds promptly and excellently to questions and concerns.

Green Arrow
04-22-2017, 04:43 PM
How about a vip/mod oversight board run by elected representatives of the membership?
We'll discuss that, too, and get ADMIN's opinion.

Cletus
04-22-2017, 05:48 PM
If you hit the Forum tab at the top left, scroll down and you can see when people are logged on or have been recently logged on. You can also PM him.

I can stay logged in for months at a time just by not logging out. That doesn't mean I am around or aware of what activity is taking place.

Mister D
04-22-2017, 05:50 PM
How about a vip/mod oversight board run by elected representatives of the membership?
That's an interesting idea.

Private Pickle
04-22-2017, 05:51 PM
I'm content. The staff took action against the most brazen trolls and that was, IMO, the biggest issue we faced here.
Still one left.

Mister D
04-22-2017, 05:51 PM
I can stay logged in for months at a time just by not logging out. That doesn't mean I am around or aware of what activity is taking place.

It must be a setting of mine but the site logs me out when I close the browser window.

Bethere
04-22-2017, 10:35 PM
That's an interesting idea.

It is, but a better idea would be the popular election of vips.

William
04-22-2017, 10:58 PM
As a VIP member, I'm not totally sure if I'm allowed to post in this thread, but I just want to say that AFIK, there is a balance of right-wing and left-wing mods (maybe more right-wing now that Dr.Who has resigned, but they never let their political leanings affect their modding,) and all decisions are by consensus - so no one is going to be dinged just cos of his/her political views.

resister
04-22-2017, 11:13 PM
One of the things that irks me, is when, after being insulted and trolled by multiple people, the pileon-ee gets TB'ed, while the offenders laugh it off, am I missing something? Other than that, no complaints.

Captain Obvious
04-23-2017, 12:32 AM
State of the forum:

Moderation is great, no issues on my part.

Content, not so much. A while back I pushed expanding the "serious discussion" section and making a sort of romper room for all the junk. And I get it, how do you define "junk"? At the same time logging in and seeing a dozen "don cheeto" threads posted that day from Bo - how do I respond to that? Naturally I respond negatively like most people. Or I guess I could ignore it but consider the new member, a solid poster looking to find a new forum because that persons forum is just junk. Is that person going to want to post here when the majority of threads is mindless garbage?

That's my only beef.

Cletus is full of shit with his vendetta on moderation, my only other point. Sorry Cletus, grow a pair.

resister
04-23-2017, 12:34 AM
One of the things that irks me, is when, after being insulted and trolled by multiple people, the pileon-ee gets TB'ed, while the offenders laugh it off, am I missing something? Other than that, no complaints.My only irk ^

Cletus
04-23-2017, 01:46 AM
Cletus is full of shit with his vendetta on moderation, my only other point. Sorry Cletus, grow a pair.

I don't have a vendetta against moderation. I just don't like bad moderation. Moderators serve an important purpose on a forum. Their job is not only to enforce the forum rules, but to do it in a manner that encourages discussion. What we have here are a bunch of chest thumpers who kill more threads with their heavy handed tactics than they salvage. The whole system sucks.

YOU could do a better job of moderating than what we've got. That shows you how simple it really is.

Cletus
04-23-2017, 01:46 AM
My only irk ^

Uneven moderation is a problem.

Green Arrow
04-23-2017, 03:52 AM
I don't have a vendetta against moderation. I just don't like bad moderation. Moderators serve an important purpose on a forum. Their job is not only to enforce the forum rules, but to do it in a manner that encourages discussion. What we have here are a bunch of chest thumpers who kill more threads with their heavy handed tactics than they salvage. The whole system sucks.

YOU could do a better job of moderating than what we've got. That shows you how simple it really is.

This forum is highly successful and we have little problem engaging in serious discussion. The problem is hardly anybody patronizes the serious threads.

Common
04-23-2017, 04:03 AM
It is, but a better idea would be the popular election of vips.
Its already a popular electiion, if the VIPS like you they choose you, thats basically the criteria, the only c hange in having a forum vote is that you would screw the process up with even more personal feelings.
I believe its unnecessary myself, it wont change anything

Theres more chiefs than indians here already

William
04-23-2017, 04:55 AM
I don't have a vendetta against moderation. I just don't like bad moderation. Moderators serve an important purpose on a forum. Their job is not only to enforce the forum rules, but to do it in a manner that encourages discussion. What we have here are a bunch of chest thumpers who kill more threads with their heavy handed tactics than they salvage. The whole system sucks.

YOU could do a better job of moderating than what we've got. That shows you how simple it really is.

Basically the mods here don't allow too much bullying and piling-on to go unnoticed. In that they do a very good job and without political favour. You simply can't have everyone saying what they like (usually with no supporting evidence,) to and about anyone they choose, and expect a civil and constructive discussion. You can disagree with opinions politely without calling people names, and that encourages discussion and investigation of issues - the other way just makes people put the barriers up and refuse to listen.

And moderating is not a simple job - it is a thankless job, and we are very lucky to have the mod team we do.

Bethere
04-23-2017, 04:59 AM
Its already a popular electiion, if the VIPS like you they choose you, thats basically the criteria, the only c hange in having a forum vote is that you would screw the process up with even more personal feelings.
I believe its unnecessary myself, it wont change anything

Theres more chiefs than indians here already

It's not even close to a popular election. It's hard to believe that I would have to explain that at a forum dedicated to politics.

Our system is like the British experience would be if they didn't have a house of Commons. Would you consider the house of lords an elected body or a selected one? How responsive would it be without the house of Commons to the needs and wishes of the people?

Why don't you appreciate democracy? What we have now is a system that preserves power for a select few. That it does anything else is purely a stroke of luck.

Here in America why don't we get rid of elections and just let Congress and the supreme court select their own replacements? What would the result of that be?

We have a king. There is nothing we can do about that as @ADMIN (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1) owns the forum. The good news is that he is a benevolent monarch.

I have no issues with that.

But let's not pretend we have a forum run by its members. What we have instead is a forum run by its original ravers. It is responsive to their needs, not ours. Our system is designed to preserve their power and influence.

Most of the vips are part time posters. That cannot be disputed. Nor can it ever be changed as they self select their own replacements. Who represents the people who actually use this forum?

No one, and as things stand now no one ever will.

Common
04-23-2017, 05:32 AM
It's not even close to a popular election. It's hard to believe that I would have to explain that at a forum dedicated to politics.

Our system is like the British experience would be if they didn't have a house of Commons. Would you consider the house of lords an elected body or a selected one? How responsive would it be without the house of Commons to the needs and wishes of the people?

Why don't you appreciate democracy? What we have now is a system that preserves power for a select few. That it does anything else is purely a stroke of luck.

Here in America why don't we get rid of elections and just let Congress and the supreme court select their own replacements? What would the result of that be?

We have a king. There is nothing we can do about that as @ADMIN (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1) owns the forum. The good news is that he is a benevolent monarch.

But let's not pretend we have a forum run by its members. What we have instead is a forum run by its original ravers. It is responsive to their needs, not ours.

Most of the vips are part time posters. That cannot be disputed. Who represents the people who actually use this forum?
First of all if the vips dont like you then you dont get to be a vip PERIOD thats a popular vote and were not popular. If you think a forum wide vote would get you VIP you are sadly mistaken, they could take an internet vote and you and I wont be VIPS.

Having said that this forum isnt a democracy, its set up to be exactly what the admin wants it to be.

Heres where I agree with you, there are many vips that are hardly ever here, some are almost never here. They should be REMOVED from the VIP list. Thats the biggest problem I have with VIPS that almost never here posters could possibly be here the day of a vote an vote on the direction of the forum. To me that is dead wrong. Part time VIPS should be removed and replaced. If you are going to be a VIP on this forum, this forum should be your main forum and you should support this forum the most.

There are more vips that arent here regularly and post often then there are

Common
04-23-2017, 05:34 AM
It's not even close to a popular election. It's hard to believe that I would have to explain that at a forum dedicated to politics.

Our system is like the British experience would be if they didn't have a house of Commons. Would you consider the house of lords an elected body or a selected one? How responsive would it be without the house of Commons to the needs and wishes of the people?

Why don't you appreciate democracy? What we have now is a system that preserves power for a select few. That it does anything else is purely a stroke of luck.

Here in America why don't we get rid of elections and just let Congress and the supreme court select their own replacements? What would the result of that be?

We have a king. There is nothing we can do about that as @ADMIN (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1) owns the forum. The good news is that he is a benevolent monarch.

But let's not pretend we have a forum run by its members. What we have instead is a forum run by its original ravers. It is responsive to their needs, not ours.

Most of the vips are part time posters. That cannot be disputed. Who represents the people who actually use this forum?
First of all if the vips dont like you then you dont get to be a vip PERIOD thats a popular vote and were not popular. If you think a forum wide vote would get you VIP you are sadly mistaken, they could take an internet vote and you and I wont be VIPS.

Having said that this forum isnt a democracy, its set up to be exactly what the admin wants it to be.

Heres where I agree with you, there are many vips that are hardly ever here, some are almost never here. They should be REMOVED from the VIP list. Thats the biggest problem I have with VIPS that almost never here posters could possibly be here the day of a vote an vote on the direction of the forum. To me that is dead wrong. Part time VIPS should be removed and replaced. If you are going to be a VIP on this forum, this forum should be your main forum and you should support this forum the most.

There are more vips that arent here regularly and post often then there are. Its apparent or should be to everyone that the NON VIPS support this forum the most and participate far more on the forum than most of the VIPS.

Bethere
04-23-2017, 05:39 AM
First of all if the vips dont like you then you dont get to be a vip PERIOD thats a popular vote and were not popular. If you think a forum wide vote would get you VIP you are sadly mistaken, they could take an internet vote and you and I wont be VIPS.

Having said that this forum isnt a democracy, its set up to be exactly what the admin wants it to be.

Heres where I agree with you, there are many vips that are hardly ever here, some are almost never here. They should be REMOVED from the VIP list. Thats the biggest problem I have with VIPS that almost never here posters could possibly be here the day of a vote an vote on the direction of the forum. To me that is dead wrong. Part time VIPS should be removed and replaced. If you are going to be a VIP on this forum, this forum should be your main forum and you should support this forum the most.

There are more vips that arent here regularly and post often then there are. Its apparent or should be to everyone that the NON VIPS support this forum the most and participate far more on the forum that most VIPS.

Where on earth did I express interest in being a vip? I am interested instead in the vips being at least partially an elected body.

Our king would select his own replacement. Our supreme court, the mods, select their own replacements. Our Congress, the vips, select their own replacements.

There is nothing that even looks like a democratic component in our system. Pretending otherwise is self serving and frankly delusional.

Common
04-23-2017, 05:49 AM
Where on earth did I express interest in being a vip? I am interested instead in the vips being at least partially an elected body.

I explained and this is the last post about this, the VIPS are chosen anyway the admin desires. This isnt a democracy, he pays for you to come here and post and interact

This whole vip thing convolutes the forum enough as it is. Why would we want a forum wide cluster "F" to have those that would never be chosen to be a vip, vote for who are going to be

Bethere
04-23-2017, 05:56 AM
I explained and this is the last post about this, the VIPS are chosen anyway the admin desires. This isnt a democracy, he pays for you to come here and post and interact

This whole vip thing convolutes the forum enough as it is. Why would we want a forum wide cluster "F" to have those that would never be chosen to be a vip, vote for who are going to be

You are never going to be elected to congress either, so using your logic, why should you even get a vote?

Common
04-23-2017, 06:09 AM
You are never going to be elected to congress either, so using your logic, why should you even get a vote?
Go reread my post

Captain Obvious
04-23-2017, 09:09 AM
I don't have a vendetta against moderation. I just don't like bad moderation. Moderators serve an important purpose on a forum. Their job is not only to enforce the forum rules, but to do it in a manner that encourages discussion. What we have here are a bunch of chest thumpers who kill more threads with their heavy handed tactics than they salvage. The whole system sucks.

YOU could do a better job of moderating than what we've got. That shows you how simple it really is.

Maybe there should be a more formal mod action review process usung VIP's (and not ADMIN)

William
04-23-2017, 09:41 AM
Let me tell those of you talking about the VIPs, what it is to be a VIP. VIPs are not privileged members, and VIPs have no power. VIPs are simply members who have been appointed to act as good examples to the other board members. Believe me, it's not always easy to be a VIP - life on the board would be simpler for me if I could attack all the people here who seem to want to attack me. But I can't if I want to remain a VIP, and while that sometimes sucks, I think it is a good system. In fact I recently suggested that no mods or VIPs should be allowed to continue if they even have one infraction. Sure it means people like me have to take some flak without responding, but people get tired of attacking you if you don't give them the satisfaction of getting mad, and they move on to the next easy target.

So no, VIPs are not chosen from people's mates, and it's not all beer and skittles being a VIP. :wink:

Green Arrow
04-23-2017, 10:17 AM
It's not even close to a popular election. It's hard to believe that I would have to explain that at a forum dedicated to politics.

Our system is like the British experience would be if they didn't have a house of Commons. Would you consider the house of lords an elected body or a selected one? How responsive would it be without the house of Commons to the needs and wishes of the people?

Why don't you appreciate democracy? What we have now is a system that preserves power for a select few. That it does anything else is purely a stroke of luck.

Here in America why don't we get rid of elections and just let Congress and the supreme court select their own replacements? What would the result of that be?

We have a king. There is nothing we can do about that as @ADMIN (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1) owns the forum. The good news is that he is a benevolent monarch.

I have no issues with that.

But let's not pretend we have a forum run by its members. What we have instead is a forum run by its original ravers. It is responsive to their needs, not ours. Our system is designed to preserve their power and influence.

Most of the vips are part time posters. That cannot be disputed. Nor can it ever be changed as they self select their own replacements. Who represents the people who actually use this forum?

No one, and as things stand now no one ever will.

This forum is not a government, and if it was, it would not be a direct democracy. ADMIN owns this forum, it is his private property. What goes on here is HIS personal prerogative, and he has set up the leadership system the way it is. Moderators choose who joins their ranks, with ADMIN's input, so they can work together as a cohesive team and so ADMIN can trust who serves. VIPs choose who joins their ranks for similar reasons, so we can work together as a team without constantly being so at each other's throats that nothing gets done.

If you think changes should be made to the forum that are within the power of VIPs to change, PM a VIP and make a proposition. I can promise that I will bring it to the others for discussion and a vote and tell you if it passes or fails. If you make that proposition to another VIP and it never gets brought to the VIP room, tell the mods or ADMIN.

But ADMIN has made his opinion known on the subject of direct elections of mods and VIPs and it isn't something that is going to happen.

gamewell45
04-23-2017, 10:54 AM
I'm very pleased with the moderation on this forum. My only suggestion (And it's only a minor issue) is that we try to stay on track when debating issues; too many times people are more concerned with quibbling as opposed to discussing/debating the original thread. I understand that sarcasm or a jab is part of debating in a forum but once it becomes personal it takes all the enjoyment out of posting.

I don't come in here to insult or name calling of the posters; there have been many times when I see a topic that would be enjoyable to debate but It's tough to inject my opinion or debate the issue when posters are busy insulting each other back and forth, so I just read the posts and move on.

Aside from that minor issue, I think this is one of the better-run forums on the net; its like a small family sitting around a dinner table discussing the days events.

Bethere
04-23-2017, 11:08 AM
This forum is not a government, and if it was, it would not be a direct democracy. ADMIN owns this forum, it is his private property. What goes on here is HIS personal prerogative, and he has set up the leadership system the way it is. Moderators choose who joins their ranks, with ADMIN's input, so they can work together as a cohesive team and so ADMIN can trust who serves. VIPs choose who joins their ranks for similar reasons, so we can work together as a team without constantly being so at each other's throats that nothing gets done.

If you think changes should be made to the forum that are within the power of VIPs to change, PM a VIP and make a proposition. I can promise that I will bring it to the others for discussion and a vote and tell you if it passes or fails. If you make that proposition to another VIP and it never gets brought to the VIP room, tell the mods or ADMIN.

But ADMIN has made his opinion known on the subject of direct elections of mods and VIPs and it isn't something that is going to happen.
I am looking for a democratic component to the vips, to ensure that there are members who are responsive to the wishes and needs of the membership. I'm not seeking revolution or even democracy. I seek only to have limited representation in the room when discussions are held.
Ok, I just told you, mr vip. You started this thread to seek out our input. Here's mine. Please advance my argument in committee. Keep me up to date on your progress. Thanks for volunteering.

Your friend, bethere.

Green Arrow
04-23-2017, 11:13 AM
Ok, I just told you. Please advance my argument in committee. Keep me up to date on your progress. Thanks for volunteering.

Your friend, bethere.

I've already told you ADMIN has final say and does not support the direct election of mods and VIPs.

Bethere
04-23-2017, 11:15 AM
I've already told you ADMIN has final say and does not support the direct election of mods and VIPs.

So your promise to advance my argument was hollow. I wasn't seeking an advocate.

This thread was a waste of time.

Have a great day.

resister
04-23-2017, 11:17 AM
I've already told you ADMIN has final say and does not support the direct election of mods and VIPs.Thought I would repost this^ for good measure.

Bethere
04-23-2017, 11:20 AM
Thought I would repost this^ for good measure.
"I can promise that I will bring it to the others for discussion and a vote and tell you if it passes or fails. If you make that proposition to another VIP and it never gets brought to the VIP room, tell the mods or ADMIN. "--green arrow.

resister
04-23-2017, 11:22 AM
ADMIN has final say and does not support the direct election of mods and VIPs.
Sounds like he told you the issue has been decided by ADMIN alreay.

Green Arrow
04-23-2017, 11:35 AM
So your promise to advance my argument was hollow. I wasn't seeking an advocate.

This thread was a waste of time.

Have a great day.

No, it wasn't. I had already brought up the issue in the VIP forum after the last Town Hall. ADMIN said no, and even if he hadn't, the idea was not favored by any other VIP.

Chris
04-23-2017, 11:41 AM
"I can promise that I will bring it to the others for discussion and a vote and tell you if it passes or fails. If you make that proposition to another VIP and it never gets brought to the VIP room, tell the mods or ADMIN. "--green arrow.

Noticed you left part of GA's statement out: "...If you think changes should be made to the forum that are within the power of VIPs to change, PM a VIP and make a proposition. I can promise that I will bring it to the others for discussion and a vote and tell you if it passes or fails. If you make that proposition to another VIP and it never gets brought to the VIP room, tell the mods or ADMIN...."


(And some of you need to learn how to use ellipses...)

Cletus
04-23-2017, 12:06 PM
This forum is highly successful and we have little problem engaging in serious discussion. The problem is hardly anybody patronizes the serious threads.

There is of course, a reason for that. Too much structuring kills discussion.

There are lots of things that sound good in theory that simply don't work when put into practice. A thread is a thread is a thread. When you take one and make it "special" by requiring people to tiptoe their way through it in order to avoid violating the rules, they are not going to participate as freely as they would in an unrestricted one. That is just human nature. That is why the tPF feature is such a failure. Who wants to get engaged in a thread knowing they can be banned just because the person who started it says "off with his head". The rules say there must be a violation of forum rules for someone to be banned from a tPF thread, but we all know that isn't true. The Mods have even admitted that. You can be banned for any reason or no reason at the will of the thread starter.

Do away with the tPF feature.

Do away with the "serious" threads and apply the same standard of conduct in every thread.

Do away with the thread owned by the mods in which they post member infractions. The last time I looked at that, it was like 14 pages long. It is nothing more than a trophy wall and serves absolutely no useful purpose.

Establish an oversight board to review contested moderator decisions. It would be best to do in full view of the forum, but I know people here like their secret little star chambers, so that is probably too much to ask. Either way, full view or secret handshake, someone needs to watch the watchers.

Do away with moderation by committee. That is inefficient, counterproductive and just plain silly. Allow the mods to act independently and immediately when they see a violation. If they can't be trusted to fairly and evenly apply the rules, they shouldn't be mods in the first place. I think this moderating by committee nonsense is the root of most of the problems the board faces.

Moderation by committee should be reserved to someone be considered for a ban. In that case, it makes sense to to have all the mods provide input on the decision.

Do NOT allow mods to come by after one moderator has taken an action and stack punishment on top of it. When a mod makes a decision, it needs to stand unless it is appealed and a review decides it was inappropriate. That review needs to be done by someone other than the moderators (an oversight board).

I don't know by what process and by what criteria mods and VIPs are chosen and don't really care. However, the issue has been raised more than once by other members more than once, so maybe an explanation of how one is chosen for either of those positions would be in order. I know there are some members who would love to be in the VIP club, but have no idea how to go about paving the way. I don't see how explaining the process could do any harm.

Okay, unless there is some reason to come back and elaborate or comment on anything I suggested here, I will get off my soapbox and let you guys go back to doing whatever it is you do.

Cletus
04-23-2017, 12:09 PM
Basically the mods here don't allow too much bullying and piling-on to go unnoticed. In that they do a very good job and without political favour. You simply can't have everyone saying what they like (usually with no supporting evidence,) to and about anyone they choose, and expect a civil and constructive discussion. You can disagree with opinions politely without calling people names, and that encourages discussion and investigation of issues - the other way just makes people put the barriers up and refuse to listen.

And moderating is not a simple job - it is a thankless job, and we are very lucky to have the mod team we do.

I have been moderating forums longer than you have been alive. It is a simple job.

Cletus
04-23-2017, 12:11 PM
It's not even close to a popular election. It's hard to believe that I would have to explain that at a forum dedicated to politics.

Our system is like the British experience would be if they didn't have a house of Commons. Would you consider the house of lords an elected body or a selected one? How responsive would it be without the house of Commons to the needs and wishes of the people?

Why don't you appreciate democracy? What we have now is a system that preserves power for a select few. That it does anything else is purely a stroke of luck.

Here in America why don't we get rid of elections and just let Congress and the supreme court select their own replacements? What would the result of that be?

We have a king. There is nothing we can do about that as @ADMIN (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1) owns the forum. The good news is that he is a benevolent monarch.

I have no issues with that.

But let's not pretend we have a forum run by its members. What we have instead is a forum run by its original ravers. It is responsive to their needs, not ours. Our system is designed to preserve their power and influence.

Most of the vips are part time posters. That cannot be disputed. Nor can it ever be changed as they self select their own replacements. Who represents the people who actually use this forum?

No one, and as things stand now no one ever will.

As distasteful as this is for me to say... Excellent post.

Well said.

Ethereal
04-23-2017, 12:12 PM
It's not even close to a popular election. It's hard to believe that I would have to explain that at a forum dedicated to politics.

Our system is like the British experience would be if they didn't have a house of Commons. Would you consider the house of lords an elected body or a selected one? How responsive would it be without the house of Commons to the needs and wishes of the people?

Why don't you appreciate democracy? What we have now is a system that preserves power for a select few. That it does anything else is purely a stroke of luck.

Here in America why don't we get rid of elections and just let Congress and the supreme court select their own replacements? What would the result of that be?

We have a king. There is nothing we can do about that as @ADMIN (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1) owns the forum. The good news is that he is a benevolent monarch.

I have no issues with that.

But let's not pretend we have a forum run by its members. What we have instead is a forum run by its original ravers. It is responsive to their needs, not ours. Our system is designed to preserve their power and influence.

Most of the vips are part time posters. That cannot be disputed. Nor can it ever be changed as they self select their own replacements. Who represents the people who actually use this forum?

No one, and as things stand now no one ever will.
And who will get to vote in these elections?

Cletus
04-23-2017, 12:13 PM
Maybe there should be a more formal mod action review process usung VIP's (and not ADMIN)

I certainly concur.

Ethereal
04-23-2017, 12:16 PM
I am looking for a democratic component to the vips, to ensure that there are members who are responsive to the wishes and needs of the membership. I'm not seeking revolution or even democracy. I seek only to have limited representation in the room when discussions are held.
Ok, I just told you, mr vip. You started this thread to seek out our input. Here's mine. Please advance my argument in committee. Keep me up to date on your progress. Thanks for volunteering.

Your friend, bethere.
There is a democratic component to the VIP's. They hold a vote in order to decide who gets in; the original franchise was granted to them by the king of the forum, ADMIN. All power and authority flows from his august personage.

Cletus
04-23-2017, 12:20 PM
I'm very pleased with the moderation on this forum. My only suggestion (And it's only a minor issue) is that we try to stay on track when debating issues; too many times people are more concerned with quibbling as opposed to discussing/debating the original thread. I understand that sarcasm or a jab is part of debating in a forum but once it becomes personal it takes all the enjoyment out of posting.

I don't come in here to insult or name calling of the posters; there have been many times when I see a topic that would be enjoyable to debate but It's tough to inject my opinion or debate the issue when posters are busy insulting each other back and forth, so I just read the posts and move on.

Aside from that minor issue, I think this is one of the better-run forums on the net; its like a small family sitting around a dinner table discussing the days events.

That should be part of the moderator function. Steer threads back on track when they start veering off course. Instead of showing up with these big ridiculous banner warnings, a good mod will just inject himself into the thread and try to steer in a positive direction. If people are getting a little too rambunctious, come in and talk to them instead of screaming at them. A lot of moderation can be done by PM.

Those big warning banners are really classless and they are thread killers. Talk to people instead of yelling at them. Sometimes, you have to yell to get their attention, but most of the time you don't.

Ethereal
04-23-2017, 12:24 PM
As distasteful as this is for me to say... Excellent post.

Well said.

What was so excellent about it? The VIP's don't run the forum. ADMIN and the MODs do. The VIP's are largely symbolic.

As for an election, how would that work? Many of this forum's "members" hardly ever post; many of this forum's members show up for a couple of weeks and then leave forever; and how would we prevent election tampering via multiple accounts? If your answer is that we should have a minimal activity level, then the question becomes: How will that be decided?

resister
04-23-2017, 12:26 PM
How many infractions and temp bans does it take to be banished? Perhaps if it was known it would benefit the forum.

Common
04-23-2017, 12:28 PM
What was so excellent about it? The VIP's don't run the forum. ADMIN and the MODs do. The VIP's are largely symbolic.

As for an election, how would that work? Many of this forum's "members" hardly ever post; many of this forum's members show up for a couple of weeks and then leave forever; and how would we prevent election tampering via multiple accounts? If your answer is that we should have a minimal activity level, then the question becomes: How will that be decided?
That was well said

Common
04-23-2017, 12:30 PM
Forum votes arent going to happen so at this point its moot. Green Arrow already stated the owner of the forum is against it.

Ethereal
04-23-2017, 12:31 PM
The forum holds an "election" every day, just like every other firm in the market. If it fails to satisfy its membership, then they will choose to patronize another forum. It's about as pure a form of democracy as there is.

Green Arrow
04-23-2017, 12:34 PM
There is of course, a reason for that. Too much structuring kills discussion.

There are lots of things that sound good in theory that simply don't work when put into practice. A thread is a thread is a thread. When you take one and make it "special" by requiring people to tiptoe their way through it in order to avoid violating the rules, they are not going to participate as freely as they would in an unrestricted one. That is just human nature. That is why the tPF feature is such a failure. Who wants to get engaged in a thread knowing they can be banned just because the person who started it says "off with his head". The rules say there must be a violation of forum rules for someone to be banned from a tPF thread, but we all know that isn't true. The Mods have even admitted that. You can be banned for any reason or no reason at the will of the thread starter.
If you can think of some ideas let me know. I'll take it to the group, assuming we haven't already addressed it.

Do away with the tPF feature.
That is already in the works.


Do away with the "serious" threads and apply the same standard of conduct in every thread.
I will bring this to the group for discussion. It's something I favor, too.

Do away with the thread owned by the mods in which they post member infractions. The last time I looked at that, it was like 14 pages long. It is nothing more than a trophy wall and serves absolutely no useful purpose.
We do it for transparency purposes, same as the "Members Banned for Inability to Follow Forum Rules" thread.

Establish an oversight board to review contested moderator decisions. It would be best to do in full view of the forum, but I know people here like their secret little star chambers, so that is probably too much to ask. Either way, full view or secret handshake, someone needs to watch the watchers.
We will discuss this and I will inform you of the results.

Do away with moderation by committee. That is inefficient, counterproductive and just plain silly. Allow the mods to act independently and immediately when they see a violation. If they can't be trusted to fairly and evenly apply the rules, they shouldn't be mods in the first place. I think this moderating by committee nonsense is the root of most of the problems the board faces. ADMIN has already addressed this and it's not something that will change, unless you want to lobby him to change his mind.

Do NOT allow mods to come by after one moderator has taken an action and stack punishment on top of it. When a mod makes a decision, it needs to stand unless it is appealed and a review decides it was inappropriate. That review needs to be done by someone other than the moderators (an oversight board). Hal Jordan, if you would be so kind, discuss this with the other moderators. Cletus, it would help if you could PM Hal some examples.

I don't know by what process and by what criteria mods and VIPs are chosen and don't really care. However, the issue has been raised more than once by other members more than once, so maybe an explanation of how one is chosen for either of those positions would be in order. I know there are some members who would love to be in the VIP club, but have no idea how to go about paving the way. I don't see how explaining the process could do any harm.
That is completely fair. VIPs nominate members that they feel meet a behavior standard befitting a forum leader who shows an investment in the future of the forum. VIPs vote on the nomination, and then PM the nominee (if they pass) and ask them if they are interested. If they are, they are made a VIP.

Moderators are almost identical in the selection process, though ADMIN exercises a more direct say too in who gets chosen.

Cletus
04-23-2017, 12:45 PM
Thanks for the point by point response, GA.

It doesn't always get expressed, but that kind of response is much appreciated.

AeonPax
04-23-2017, 01:08 PM
`
`
I come here to pass the time and enjoy myself. I read a lot more than I comment on. When it stops becoming enjoyable, I leave. No announcements, I just leave......never to return....doomed to wander online from forum to forum, never knowing the peace and tranquility that comes with belonging to a close knit community.

DGUtley
04-23-2017, 01:15 PM
FYI: i was asked to explain the progression of infractions. It is basically if you don't heed warnings and TBs over a time, moderation will escalate to begin infracting you. If infractions don't work, moderation escalates to 24 hour temp ban, then 3 days, then 7, and finally permanent ban. DGU

Peter1469
04-23-2017, 01:22 PM
That should be part of the moderator function. Steer threads back on track when they start veering off course. Instead of showing up with these big ridiculous banner warnings, a good mod will just inject himself into the thread and try to steer in a positive direction. If people are getting a little too rambunctious, come in and talk to them instead of screaming at them. A lot of moderation can be done by PM.

Those big warning banners are really classless and they are thread killers. Talk to people instead of yelling at them. Sometimes, you have to yell to get their attention, but most of the time you don't.

The serious side and the tPF came about in part because we had two broad groups: ones that wanted little moderation, and ones that only wanted serious conversation.

OTSS and tPF solve that issue. With OTSS now being watched closer there really is not a need for tPF.

On another forum, the two types of groups were reached separately from a main page. So the ones that were not interested in the serious stuff never had to see it.

Ravens Fan
04-23-2017, 01:39 PM
I have been moderating forums longer than you have been alive. It is a simple job.

Two questions for you Cletus

First, what kind of forum is it that you have been a moderator at?

Second, at the forum where you moderate, or used to moderate, do/did you allow the questioning of moderation on the main forum?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Scrounger
04-23-2017, 01:49 PM
I have but a few concerns so let me articulate them:

1) It is unfair for a poster to start a serious discussion only to have the thread moved to another forum for reasons beyond the control of the individual that starts the thread

2) Some moderators are not fluent in the English language. For example:

"Trolling a poster or a thread is against the rules. Trolling is defined by forum leadership as "deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them."

Some posters specialize in needling their fellow posters with the aim of getting them to respond in a negative manner. Although the victim may report it, if the mod doesn't feel offended, they refuse to act in many instances. That only sends the message that conduct is acceptable. Bottom line here: If someone is trying to elicit a negative response from a fellow poster, it is trolling by the pure definition of the word. Once reported, mods do not need to take sides. They should step in and end the needling whether the mod personally agrees or not. Once reported - act on it... even if in just a PM to tell the offending poster that they are now trolling and it won't be tolerated henceforth

3) When a poster disagrees with an OP, they should state their opinion and, at some point, move forward. If you have nothing new to add to an existing thread, you should be able to respond, make a point and move along. This insanity of is too and the next poster saying is not kind of exchange is not entertaining, enlightening, or informative and serves no purpose. If you can't add anything new to the thread, consider moving along at some point

4) WHEN mods make a mistake and lock a poster out of a thread, they should apologize and lift the thread ban

5) I realize I'm a guest on the board, but if the mods can reprimand a poster publicly, they should be held accountable publicly. A simple PM to a poster that is taunting his / her fellow posters, trolling them, knowingly lying about something and / or making false allegations ought to be employed before the emotional stuff gets out of hand.

6) Finally, if a poster IS lying or misrepresenting something, we should be able to state such as a matter of fact

7) Finally, when mods take sides, refuse to enforce the rules equally across the board, and allow those they agree with to have a greater degree of latitude, it calls the integrity of their jobs into question.

None of this singles out anyone specifically and no thread in particular.

Cletus
04-23-2017, 02:15 PM
Two questions for you @Cletus (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1708)

First, what kind of forum is it that you have been a moderator at?

Political forums similar to this one, but much larger and more active.

Second, at the forum where you moderate, or used to moderate, do/did you allow the questioning of moderation on the main forum?

It was discouraged, but it was not an actionable offense. The biggest problem here is fact that so much is done behind closed doors. On most forums, mods within certain limits, act independently but not without oversight. On every forum I have moderated, in addition to the mods, there was a forum administrator who was an active member and to whom an appeal could be made if it was thought a mod made a bad call. The Admin, and there was usually more than one, was on the forum every day as an active member and poster. Because he or she was there regularly, he was able to see moderation actions in real time and in context. On some forums, (it probably wouldn't work here because this is a relatively low activity forum) mods are assigned specific subforums to moderate. When that is done, there are generally a couple of Global Moderators who can moderate in any thread on the board. That came in handy if the assigned mod was offline.

This format is dying. There is no doubt of that. I think that is unfortunate, but it is a reality. Social Media formats like Twitter and killing this type of forum. I tend to be more critical than most of what I see mismanagement or poor moderation for that very reason. If this format is going to survive, it needs to be made as attractive as possible to potential and existing members. Ruling with an iron fist turns more people off than it draws in. That doesn't mean no moderation, it means sensible moderation. I believe moderators need to be active, but not just as punishers. They need to be guides and stimulate discussion instead of putting a muzzle on it.

Ravens Fan
04-23-2017, 04:27 PM
Political forums similar to this one, but much larger and more active.


It was discouraged, but it was not an actionable offense. The biggest problem here is fact that so much is done behind closed doors. On most forums, mods within certain limits, act independently but not without oversight. On every forum I have moderated, in addition to the mods, there was a forum administrator who was an active member and to whom an appeal could be made if it was thought a mod made a bad call. The Admin, and there was usually more than one, was on the forum every day as an active member and poster. Because he or she was there regularly, he was able to see moderation actions in real time and in context. On some forums, (it probably wouldn't work here because this is a relatively low activity forum) mods are assigned specific subforums to moderate. When that is done, there are generally a couple of Global Moderators who can moderate in any thread on the board. That came in handy if the assigned mod was offline.

This format is dying. There is no doubt of that. I think that is unfortunate, but it is a reality. Social Media formats like Twitter and killing this type of forum. I tend to be more critical than most of what I see mismanagement or poor moderation for that very reason. If this format is going to survive, it needs to be made as attractive as possible to potential and existing members. Ruling with an iron fist turns more people off than it draws in. That doesn't mean no moderation, it means sensible moderation. I believe moderators need to be active, but not just as punishers. They need to be guides and stimulate discussion instead of putting a muzzle on it.

So your forum was set up quite different than this one. Moderating only one section does sound pretty easy.

I am surprised that discussing moderation was allowed at all. From what I have been told and heard, most forums have rules against it.

We have a system that involves working as a team that we feel works best to keep personal prejudice and politics out of moderation. While it is not perfect, it seems to work well for us and the owner of this forum, who is much more involved than you assume. You, of course, are free to disagree, but I don't see minds changing on this.

^My opinion, and not necessarily that of the whole Mod team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tahuyaman
04-23-2017, 05:15 PM
I assume Green Arrow means specific gripes about a mod should be in PM. Discussion of policy ought to be fine.


Some seem to get very defensive when you do that in a PM.

Cletus
04-23-2017, 05:32 PM
So your forum was set up quite different than this one. Moderating only one section does sound pretty easy.
It makes sure all threads get read.


We have a system that involves working as a team that we feel works best to keep personal prejudice and politics out of moderation. While it is not perfect, it seems to work well for us and the owner of this forum

Perhaps... but not so much for the general membership.

Cletus
04-23-2017, 05:34 PM
Some seem to get very defensive when you do that in a PM.

That is often quite true.

The big problem with everything being done behind closed doors is that you have no real way to know if your concerns are really being addressed. They can and I suspect often do, get the PM, wait a while and send off some canned response.

Ravens Fan
04-23-2017, 05:42 PM
It makes sure all threads get read.


We tend to rely much more on reports. There are some threads that just aren't worth reading, IMO, so unless something is reported from it I will steer clear.



Perhaps... but not so much for the general membership.

Actually, based on the feedback I have seen and been sent, just the opposite is true. No system is perfect, no Mod is perfect, but we do everything we can to be fair, including having these town halls to allow you guys to critique us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cletus
04-23-2017, 06:40 PM
We tend to rely much more on reports. There are some threads that just aren't worth reading, IMO

It goes with the territory. You have no way of knowing what is in a thread unless you read it.


Actually, based on the feedback I have seen and been sent, just the opposite is true.


Not according to the messages I have received or from what I have observed.


No system is perfect, no Mod is perfect, but we do everything we can to be fair, including having these town halls to allow you guys to critique us.

Yeah, except you don't. If anyone here had tried to critique a specific mod or a specific action, you would have shut this thread down in a heartbeat.

Common
04-23-2017, 07:12 PM
If I was as unhappy as some seem to be, I would leave for the forums that have much better moderation.
Thats just me personally

Cletus
04-23-2017, 07:22 PM
If I was as unhappy as some seem to be, I would leave for the forums that have much better moderation.
Thats just me personally

Fortunately, that is all it is.

Common
04-23-2017, 07:26 PM
If you go to the infraction thread and the ban thread and count those on the left and right Im betting everyone would find the moderation has been quite even handed.

The problem with this forum and the few mod complaints come from moderation that moderated no one. To moderation thats makes members toe the line and there are some that did not acclimate to that very well.
I personally like it a whole lot better the way it is right now

Ive been on a few forums and ive never seen one that allowed anyone to criticize moderators publically.

Captain Obvious
04-23-2017, 07:52 PM
We need a titty thread

resister
04-23-2017, 08:08 PM
We need a titty thread
:boobs:Make one!

William
04-23-2017, 08:57 PM
I have been moderating forums longer than you have been alive. It is a simple job.

Well, I respect your age and experience, but not all forums (or should that be fora?) are the same. I have only been a member of a games forum before this and the moderation was much stricter, and less even-handed, than here. I left cos I got dinged for questioning a moderator on a question which had nothing to do with moderation.

What happened was - he posted a photo of his gun collection (which I found quite interesting, as he had some vintage pistols and stuff,) but he also posted a warning that anyone who questioned gun ownership in that thread would be infracted. While I had no problem with his interesting gun collection, I challenged his right to dictate what members may question (without trolling or breaking the forum rules,) on a discussion forum, and called it an abuse of his position as a mod. I got a thread ban, and made no comment or fuss about that, but never went back to that forum. That's what happens if moderation is bad.

So what I'm saying is - moderation actually seems a quite difficult job if it is done without personal bias for or against a topic. That you did it for longer than I have been alive is a great credit to you, and to your even-handedness and patience. My congratulations. :smiley:

Tahuyaman
04-23-2017, 09:03 PM
It looks to me as though when some here enter the ranks of the moderators, he or she suddenly thinks that they are above reproach. Some people can not handle having their authority questioned. Some believe they are above explaining something to the underlings.

That's certainly not the case with all of them, but it is with some. There have been some recent changes for the better, but some not in every case.

Dr. Who
04-23-2017, 09:09 PM
I have been moderating forums longer than you have been alive. It is a simple job.
What was the nature of those forums? Were they political forums and if so equally balanced politically?

Tahuyaman
04-23-2017, 09:13 PM
What was the nature of those forums? Were they political forums and if so equally balanced politically?


Why is it so hard for some to set their bias aside and apply the rules equally? I don't get it.

Still moderation can only go so far. If you use words like Obummer, Rethuglican, libtard, agent orange and other juvenile words and phrases, you will not foster an intelligent discussion.

Dr. Who
04-23-2017, 09:23 PM
Why is it so hard for some to set their bias aside and apply the rules equally? I don't get it.
I didn't say it was. I was asking a question which had nothing to do with moderation bias, but the nature of the forum. The dynamics of a gun forum are different than a political forum and the dynamics of a right leaning or left leaning forum are different than that of a balanced forum.

Scrounger
04-23-2017, 09:27 PM
If you go to the infraction thread and the ban thread and count those on the left and right Im betting everyone would find the moderation has been quite even handed.

The problem with this forum and the few mod complaints come from moderation that moderated no one. To moderation thats makes members toe the line and there are some that did not acclimate to that very well.
I personally like it a whole lot better the way it is right now

Ive been on a few forums and ive never seen one that allowed anyone to criticize moderators publically.
The deal there is that it is not a left / right thing. It can be issues based, personality based, and sometimes it is based upon a certain pecking order. There are instances where a poster can needle someone into fighting back and get an immediate thread ban for the victim. The violators are sometimes professional trolls that know how to stroke the mods and get away with whizzing off a lot of posters simply because they know how.

I've personally gotten PMs from people on the left and the right regarding the same professional trolls. Report them and nothing happens. Yet they post for the purpose making their fellow posters mad and / or feel insulted. We just have to keep telling the mods and the admin that this situation exists. If they're serious, they will do something about it. If not, threads like this will simply be a joke. They asked. We're giving them the feedback.

Crepitus
04-23-2017, 10:24 PM
We need a titty thread

Most sensible post in the whole thread.

Cletus
04-23-2017, 10:44 PM
Well, I respect your age and experience, but not all forums (or should that be fora?) are the same. I have only been a member of a games forum before this and the moderation was much stricter, and less even-handed, than here. I left cos I got dinged for questioning a moderator on a question which had nothing to do with moderation.

What happened was - he posted a photo of his gun collection (which I found quite interesting, as he had some vintage pistols and stuff,) but he also posted a warning that anyone who questioned gun ownership in that thread would be infracted. While I had no problem with his interesting gun collection, I challenged his right to dictate what members may question (without trolling or breaking the forum rules,) on a discussion forum, and called it an abuse of his position as a mod. I got a thread ban, and made no comment or fuss about that, but never went back to that forum. That's what happens if moderation is bad.

You are exactly correct. Bad moderation makes for a bad posting experience.

That doesn't mean the job isn't really simple to do. It just means that he abused his position. If you continue to participate in this form of communication, I suspect you would make a pretty good moderator. You just need to get some more time under your belt to help you see what needs to be moderated and what doesn't.

Probably the most difficult thing about the position is being able to avoid moderating a dumbass and calling him a dumbass when you do it. :wink:

Cletus
04-23-2017, 11:17 PM
What was the nature of those forums? Were they political forums and if so equally balanced politically?

They were political forums. I would say one of them was more Conservative in nature, although the balance tended to shift a bit as members came and went. It always had a strong Liberal presence, but the members who had been there and posting together forever were largely Conservative. It was the kind of place where members knew about each others' kids and spouses, where members, Conservative and Liberal often transcended politics to celebrate the good times and help each other through the bad. At its peak, it had probably several hundred active members with over a hundred threads being posted on on any given day.

That doesn't mean there weren't some epic battles there. There certainly were. It was just that most of the members saw the place as a community of sorts and knew when to set the partisanship aside. Like any community, it had its misfits and malcontents, but considering its size, extreme moderation was the exception rather than the norm.

One difference between here and there is that the mods were very active posters as well. They moderated independently. They didn't have to take things to committee to take action. There were two active admins who were also active posters who watched the watchers and would yank them back in line if it appeared their own political views were beginning to influence their moderating actions. The actual owner of the forum also posted there regularly, but with the exception of major policy announcements, he stayed pretty much out of the actual day to day moderation. He was a software developer and his biggest interest was in the technical operation of the forum.

The other one that was most active was without doubt a Liberal board and made no attempt to achieve any kind of balance. That one was hard to moderate. I don't think I ever saw so much maneuvering for position or so many little cliques fighting against each other. You had Liberals accusing other Liberals of not being liberal enough. That place, more than anything else until the recent activities of the Left regarding the election of Trump convinced me that Liberalism, as practiced to day is indeed a mental disorder. I was asked to moderate there by the owner in an attempt at least a little balance to the board. It was a noble idea, but there was just too much extremism in the ranks to ever find balance.

Dr. Who
04-23-2017, 11:52 PM
They were political forums. I would say one of them was more Conservative in nature, although the balance tended to shift a bit as members came and went. It always had a strong Liberal presence, but the members who had been there and posting together forever were largely Conservative. It was the kind of place where members knew about each others' kids and spouses, where members, Conservative and Liberal often transcended politics to celebrate the good times and help each other through the bad. At its peak, it had probably several hundred active members with over a hundred threads being posted on on any given day.

That doesn't mean there weren't some epic battles there. There certainly were. It was just that most of the members saw the place as a community of sorts and knew when to set the partisanship aside. Like any community, it had its misfits and malcontents, but considering its size, extreme moderation was the exception rather than the norm.

One difference between here and there is that the mods were very active posters as well. They moderated independently. They didn't have to take things to committee to take action. There were two active admins who were also active posters who watched the watchers and would yank them back in line if it appeared their own political views were beginning to influence their moderating actions. The actual owner of the forum also posted there regularly, but with the exception of major policy announcements, he stayed pretty much out of the actual day to day moderation. He was a software developer and his biggest interest was in the technical operation of the forum.

The other one that was most active was without doubt a Liberal board and made no attempt to achieve any kind of balance. That one was hard to moderate. I don't think I ever saw so much maneuvering for position or so many little cliques fighting against each other. You had Liberals accusing other Liberals of not being liberal enough. That place, more than anything else until the recent activities of the Left regarding the election of Trump convinced me that Liberalism, as practiced to day is indeed a mental disorder. I was asked to moderate there by the owner in an attempt at least a little balance to the board. It was a noble idea, but there was just too much extremism in the ranks to ever find balance.
The mods on this forum work very hard to remain impartial, but moderating a balanced forum has its challenges. Both sides tend to see any moderation as being biased. It's very easy to assume that a mod's politics on the forum translate to biased moderation. However, I can assure you that the infighting of cliques that you referred to is not happening here. However because it is a balanced forum, the need to moderate by committee becomes more important, because perceptions can be different as between liberal and conservative. Perhaps it is less efficient, but more fair.

Captain Obvious
04-23-2017, 11:54 PM
What's the purpose of this thread anyway?

Just a bitch fest?

Is anything constructive ever going to come out of these things or is this just a pacifier?

resister
04-24-2017, 12:36 AM
I propose a rule, if you edit your post after having been responded to, there should be a readily, viewable record of it.

People get called on bullshit, delete half their post, then their pal comes in and asks the caller of BS about it, well, now it is gone.

Only works with no witnesses , though! :wink:

Cletus
04-24-2017, 12:42 AM
The mods on this forum work very hard to remain impartial, but moderating a balanced forum has its challenges. Both sides tend to see any moderation as being biased. It's very easy to assume that a mod's politics on the forum translate to biased moderation. However, I can assure you that the infighting of cliques that you referred to is not happening here. However because it is a balanced forum, the need to moderate by committee becomes more important, because perceptions can be different as between liberal and conservative. Perhaps it is less efficient, but more fair.

I agree that it is less efficient, but I strongly disagree that is more fair.

What good does it do to make a correction on the forum hours after the offense has been committed? How is it fair for a mod to take action, then several hours later, another mod comes along and adds to the sanctions already issued? That is an accepted practice here. Why do the mods need big banners and strong arm language to get posters back on track?

It is because it is done in committee instead of allowing the mod to just moderate the forum as he should.

As I said, this format is rapidly dying. Why speed the process up when it is not that hard to moderate in a civil manner instead of coming on like stormtroopers?

resister
04-24-2017, 12:44 AM
I agree that it is less efficient, but I strongly disagree that is more fair.

What good does it do to make a correction on the forum hours after the offense has been committed? How is it fair for a mod to take action, then several hours later, another mod comes along and adds to the sanctions already issued? That is an accepted practice here. Why do the mods need big banners and strong arm language to get posters back on track?

It is because it is done in committee instead of allowing the mod to just moderate the forum as he should.

As I said, this format is rapidly dying. Why speed the process up when it is not that hard to moderate in a civil manner instead of coming on like stormtroopers?
Double Jeapardy?

Tahuyaman
04-24-2017, 08:17 AM
What's the purpose of this thread anyway?

Just a $#@! fest?

Is anything constructive ever going to come out of these things or is this just a pacifier?

No, nothing constructive will become of it. People will dig-in deeper.

Tahuyaman
04-24-2017, 08:24 AM
.....What good does it do to make a correction on the forum hours after the offense has been committed? How is it fair for a mod to take action, then several hours later, another mod comes along and adds to the sanctions already issued? That is an accepted practice here. Why do the mods need big banners and strong arm language to get posters back on track?...


There's the "I'm important" syndrome happening on most Internet forums.

This could be the only place some of them feel important. Some people want to have authority over others then exert that authority every chance they get. Specially when they are new to the job. They want to make their presence known and gain recognition.

Chris
04-24-2017, 09:51 AM
Closing this TH. Likely another will be coming.