amethyst08
Registered Senior Member
(alpha) Reinventing Sciforums -1- Choosing New Mods
- Thread starter Avatar
- Start date
amethyst08
Registered Senior Member
I see that you add this paragraph to your post after I reply. No, Shorty has done no personal attack on you. Carry on.
I think you're making this more complicated than it needs to be amethyst08. What recently happened with the Tiassa-Baron Max case reflects poorly on Tiassa and Tiassa alone. Three other moderators, including one administrator, objected to Tiassa's reasoning for a ban. And other moderators, such as S.A.M., are still able to maintain fair moderating standards against people they personally dislike in their respectinve subforums. I don't see why the whole system needs to be retooled because of one offense by one moderator.
Inzomnia, there was a women here a long time ago called "lady" (though she was anything BUT a lady). At the time tiassa wasnt a mod and i was running ethics and we were having quite a similar situation to the one baron max is having except in her case it was that she kept spewing religious dogma all over my section in order to demonise homosexuality. She was just as unable to produce any empirical evidence to surport her claims as barron is in the gay frey and MetaKron (and clones) are being in the RSPCA thread.
I had members complaining left right and center most paticually tiassa and we looked like losing alot of quite productive members and threads over 1 poster. This was as unaceptable to portfiry as it was to the rest of the mods and the members in general and in the end i was left with no choice but to hack a fair percentage of the open threads in ethics, either spliting them, deleting them out of hand or locking them.
I doubt there was any posts of lady's left in ethics by the time i was done yet this was no personal vendeta but rather the course of action forced on me
Now for me this was compleatly inpersonal but do you think it remained so for her?
what your suggesting is that i should have kept hacking till i recived a complaint from her and then left it at that because she would have cried "personal atack" and i would have been unable to further mod her. Now at the time there was no banning procidures set in place, ALL bans were no second chances and they were all done by dave quite reluctantly. There for i think i ended up having to take this course of action twice before i THINK she was banned in the end. Even if i got through the whole thing without complaint after the first she would cry "personal atack" and be free to spam at will
What your sugesting would hamstring all action at this site, you would be left with only the ability to moderate those who "liked" you, which would mean those who dont stir up enough trouble to REQUIRE moderation.
I had members complaining left right and center most paticually tiassa and we looked like losing alot of quite productive members and threads over 1 poster. This was as unaceptable to portfiry as it was to the rest of the mods and the members in general and in the end i was left with no choice but to hack a fair percentage of the open threads in ethics, either spliting them, deleting them out of hand or locking them.
I doubt there was any posts of lady's left in ethics by the time i was done yet this was no personal vendeta but rather the course of action forced on me
Now for me this was compleatly inpersonal but do you think it remained so for her?
what your suggesting is that i should have kept hacking till i recived a complaint from her and then left it at that because she would have cried "personal atack" and i would have been unable to further mod her. Now at the time there was no banning procidures set in place, ALL bans were no second chances and they were all done by dave quite reluctantly. There for i think i ended up having to take this course of action twice before i THINK she was banned in the end. Even if i got through the whole thing without complaint after the first she would cry "personal atack" and be free to spam at will
What your sugesting would hamstring all action at this site, you would be left with only the ability to moderate those who "liked" you, which would mean those who dont stir up enough trouble to REQUIRE moderation.
Don't feel inhibited inzomnia, what I explained to you through my posts are some of the problems we moderators face when attacked. Sometimes, no matter what you do, there is no solution. So inspite of several discussions, we tend to try and err on the side of caution. If you have any suggestions, we will discuss them [as we will discuss your letter when Plazma comes]. Contrary to popular opinion, problem posters are not treated unkindly out of personal grudges, but are allowed to continue posting in the interest of the community and a sense of fairness.
One major problem is that the term\title of moderator is a misnomer on an internet forum. Mods are basically biased administrators.
Would have been better off using something like this:
Adminstrator Level 1
Adminstrator Level 2
Adminstrator Level 3
This way when one is particularly troublesome they can say "what do you want me to tell you, they are a Level 3 Admin".
Would have been better off using something like this:
Adminstrator Level 1
Adminstrator Level 2
Adminstrator Level 3
This way when one is particularly troublesome they can say "what do you want me to tell you, they are a Level 3 Admin".
amethyst08
Registered Senior Member
I am merely responding to this thread, which is a proposal from Avatar (see the opening post). My first respond was, I don't think there is a need to completely done house cleaning. In my opinion, the problem are only arises in some particular subforum, or to be exact, with certain moderators, so why waste energy to completely doing house cleaning?
And then I suggested that, as part of problem solution, even the moderator under the spotlight doesn't need to be replaced, because their moderation are just fine, except some personal problem here and there (Tiassa vs Baron Max, SAM vs Shorty/M*W, Asguard vs Lou/Kadark, etc). And hence I suggest some problem solution.
amethyst08
Registered Senior Member
I only suggested the idea for the moderator who has personal problem with particular members. For example, Ben can continue to moderates Reiku, it is perfectly fine as there is nothing personal there. I also won't insist, I merely offering solution.
amethyst08
Registered Senior Member
In your case, though, I think you work too slow. You have received a lot of personal attack (attack on your moderation, but can not be proven), but I don't see you do anything about it. Take randomly post from M*W or Shorty which attack you, is it about your moderation or personal? If it is personal, it breaches forum rules, why don't you report to admin for personal attack then? According to forum rules, it warrants bans. Or are you happy when people hijacking thread into SAM vs Shorty or M*W cat'sfight?
I don't have to do anything about it. The onus is up to the accusers to report unfair moderation. If they don't follow the guidelines [provide links, threads, examples of unfair moderation], they are ignored. Or asked to provide them.
I have discussed it with Plazma.
amethyst08
Registered Senior Member
What about the attack from otheadp? Did you report it as personal attack, SAM? Or you just accept it because you are afraid people will say you misuse your power? Or are you just happy and accept every attack?
amethyst08
Registered Senior Member
:soapbox: Please, John.... :bawl:
I have PM'ed otheadp about it. Truth to tell, I was surprised it was not deleted. But then I was surprised when the "Muslims lie" thread was not closed either. I guess people have different ideas of what constitutes insults and stereotypes. You cannot force anyone to see your point of view. Most likely only reported posts are dealt with and I rarely report posts.
amethyst08
Registered Senior Member
Please hold on.. (going to use search function for a moment)
Bells
Staff member
How did he misuse his mod powers against Baron? He brought up a discussion in the moderator's forum and said what he wanted to do. He neither warned or banned Baron. He simply vented his frustration over the issue in a private forum. Sometimes, we do vent to our compatriots and they offer suggestions on how to handle the situation. We are after all human. And yes, sometimes we get angry and/or frustrated. He did not act on his frustration or his anger. What he did do was to bring forth his frustration to the moderator's forum for discussion. How is that an abuse of his moderation powers? Is he not allowed to have an opinion? Is he not allowed to state his frustration on a private forum and allow other moderators to help find a solution to his problem?
He was soundly vetoed by the other moderators and the administrators. And another solution was sought. Unfortunately, Avatar jumped before discussion could even get properly on the way on the matter to find another solution. Baron's position was always safe. I reiterate.. Baron was never in danger of moderator abuse of power. So how exactly did he abuse his power? What? Because he got angry and said that he should have just done it anyway? You do realise he wouldn't have, don't you? He could have turned around and banned Baron immediately then and there. But he did not. Do you know why? Tiassa is a stickler for the rules and always.. and I mean always.. discusses such issues before he acts (when it comes to bannings especially).. so that he can use others as sounding boards and try to find a solution that might be better than his own. That is what Avatar did not inform you all of.
So to say that Tiassa abused his moderator powers is in this case, absurd. And frankly it angers me when you are only presented with one side of the argument and you base your opinion on just that one side and completely disregard what the rest of us know and were privy to and tried to inform you of. We are unable to copy and paste what was said because we respect the privacy of that forum and we respect the fact that the owners expect us to not disclose private discussions to the general membership of this forum. So you can believe what you want to believe. But before you accuse Tiassa of abusing his mod powers, I would suggest you actually get both sides of the story first.
I am not angry at you Inzomnia. I am just tired of the finger pointing and the accusations that are completely unfair. Not only is Tiassa not able to defend himself (again, to do so would mean he would have to disclose what was said in a private forum), but none of us moderators or administrators of this site are able to speak out against the accusations that we are all somehow untrustworthy and liars.. because again, to prove our side, we'd have to disclose too much private information that is posted in the private forum.
Then I would suggest you make this wish known to the owner of this site when he returns. I have no problem with being replaced if the owners of this site think that someone else can do better. On the contrary, they should get the best person they can for the position and if that isn't me, then so be it.John99 said:
amethyst08
Registered Senior Member
Here, SAM, post #96 in this thread:
What do you do to that post? Do you just accept it and let it blow in the wind? Do you accept all accusation? or have you reported it as personal attack which could warrant warning or ban?
What do you do to that post? Do you just accept it and let it blow in the wind? Do you accept all accusation? or have you reported it as personal attack which could warrant warning or ban?
I have discovered that all personal attacks against me devolve into power issues. ie why is she a mod. As if being a moderator of Biology should dictate your ethical, religious and political opinions.
As such, I see them as fear rather than anger or revenge. And no I don't report such attacks.
As such, I see them as fear rather than anger or revenge. And no I don't report such attacks.