In a new round of selective rule enforcement, Tiassa has decided to lock the threads regarding Syne's inappropriate behavior. While there are many angles from which one could snipe this self-serving practice into hamburger, I'd rather discuss the merits of the blanket rule that members are not allowed to complain (er, sometimes?) about moderators. The rationale given by Stryder is as follows: There are two corolarries that immediately come to mind: First, what problems? Next, who is to blame for the alleged lack of constructive outcomes? To the one, it seems the only negatives stemming from complaint threads befall the member, as they are labeled as complainers and are told outright that they won't be taken seriously, now or in the future. As someone who has been at this site for more than ten years, I can tell you that bringing concerns via PM has changed nothing. The best-case scenario seems to be that you'll speak to someone sympathetic, but unable or unwilling, to actually do anything about the problem. Raise multiple concerns, however, and you'll be dismissed as a troublemaker. To the other, I have to believe that the total absence of positive change resulting from publicly aired grievances is a problem within the moderator community, not the vocal membership. The alternative demands that the moderators are infallable. The easy solution to this is for the moderators and administration to take complaints seriously, and enact change when necessary--which, even under ideal circumstance, would be more often than never--but since there are agents involved who are too vested in their positions to allow for policies and practices that might jeopardize that order, it occurs to me that a public discussion of this policy is in order.
Maybe the mods are just tired of the whinning. If a member does not like the mods and the forum then stop participating in the forum. Seems pretty straight forward to me.:shrug: It seems some people just like to complain. Reminds me of a couple of my inlaws, everytime we would eat out they would send the food back for some picky made up reason, we don't go out to eat with them anymore. You realize that it gets real tiring to hear complaining over and over - I have often wondered how many 'loogies' those inlaw have eaten over the years.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Doesn't fly. I could just as easily counter that by suggesting those who don't like having their actions challenged get out of the business of taking actions that affect others.
There is a place for site feedback which is where I posted my complaint. I think it is right to have an open discussion about the forum which is presumabably why that place was created. I agree with Balerion - who has been very supportive, and I thank him for that. It is best that problems are discussed openly and then any necessary changes can be made. It is the members and not the mods who contribute to this forum and make it the lively place that it is. Origin, most forums don't have enough posters so discouraging people is not the way to go. There are precisely 19 members on line now, so how few do you want?
Sorcerer, I think there may be a great deal of members hanging about but not logged in. "Lurking", if you will. Supposedly, this is an advertising driven site but I never encounter ads (anymore, say the last year or so) whether I'm logged in or not. Do you? If not, I would venture to say that a lot of us only log in when we want to post. Does this observation have anything to do with complaints? Not really, but I wanted to point out that possibility to you. As to the topic, J, you know nothing much is going to change around here, FFS you've been here longer than me. It's not really that bad. I've found that having constructive suggestions gets one further than just waving a placard that says "FIRE SYNE". Not that I would oppose such a move...
Well if you're lurking you're not contributing. What's the point of that? You're supposed to give something back. There are enough different topics, after all, that you have something to say about something. I've never seen any ads here. Constructive? I tried ..... Whoops.
No one ever lurks here... Wtf are you on about?. Yeah right, of course many do...But seriously, I've been here close to four years, and complaints fall upon deaf ears...Geez, just remember Einstein's definition of insanity... But, ya know what? I frequent several forums... I even moderate a couple... I like it here, so do many of you... Enough bitching already.
re: Thread closures re: Thread closures There are a couple elements here, but both are pretty straightforward. (1) The rule was invoked; I have the keys, therefore I had the most immediate enforcement power. (2) Considering the obvious question, there are two reasons some complaint threads stay open: • The moderator in question has chosen to engage the complaint. • Democratic force of anarchy insofar as people keep opening complaint threads without climbing the ladder; it would seem unproductive, over the course of the six years we've had that standard in place, to have flagged or suspended every member who violated the protocol. Once the point of the rules was raised in staff consideration, closure was the only appropriate outcome.
Invoked by whom? And are you not interested in discussing the questions I raised? Or is this another case of "shucks, caint do nuthin about it?"
(Insert Title Here) Not I, said the Street-Level Rump-Shakin' Duck of Truth. Er ... um ... right. Anyway, it doesn't matter because that sort of detail isn't mine to give. I can only tell you it wasn't me. It's more of an, "I've got better stuff to smoke", sort of thing. I'm sure they're fine questions.
What is this, the Pentagon? Who invoked the rule? And who cares if a rule was invoked? This isn't a court of law. Were you powerless to resist? (Also, call me if/when one of your jokes ever lands.) I'll try a direct approach, then. Why do you think complaint threads are unproductive, and whose fault do you think that is?
That sort of detail would be mine to give. I brought up the subject in the moderator forum, but I left it open to at least two options (whether by consensus of the moderators or decision of a Super Mod/Admin). Either the sticky telling members that such threads would be locked needed to be deleted or it needed to be enforced. After that it was in the hands of those who have had more experience moderating here. As I stated in the mod forum, I actually did learn some useful things from some of the feedback, which is why I did not press the issue earlier. I suppose I could have invoked that policy immediately, but some people need time to vent. Others will not be exhausted no matter how much venting is allowed. Site Feedback and Open Government often seem to demonstrate which is which.
Shocking! Syne wants to moderate people for speaking their mind! It's interesting that Tiassa bent to your will, however. And then went as far as to protect you on the public forum. I guess you aren't as unpopular as I've been told. Or, perhaps this is just another example of the "us" versus "them" mentality you guys seem to harbor. It appears the most relevant lesson you learned is that all calls for change are considered nothing more than "venting" and are to be ignored by the staff. We've all known it for years, but it's interesting to have such an admission made in public. How unintentionally enlightening of you, Syne.
This thread is designated as an official venting thread. Please place your rubbish valued opinions here. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You do see the world through rose tinted spectacles don't you? Let me try to explain why we put forwards that rule some time back. Sciforum's back then was undergoing a kind of mutiny, no so much out of misappropriation of powers or through moderators being disrespectful, but purely because some people were bored and others had some discrepancies against one particular administrator at the time and they would take it in turns to create bashing threads in SFOG. This doesn't just look bad to potential new members of a forum, it also slowly drives away old members that just grow tired of hearing the same loud complainer, complaining for the sake of complaining. It was also counter-productive as it attempted to drive a wedge further between those that attempt to keep the forums in some sort of order and member base. It caused some moderators to "bite back" at transgressors which made the situation appear far worse than it actually was. Usually when people have transgressions it can be resolved amicably. for instance if someone's post is deleted by a moderator because it was rude or abusive, a member "could" PM the moderator to ask if they could change their post, rather than get an infraction. That's how it should be operated here, however the problem is that some people get one infraction and end up imploding like it's the end of the world and the next thing they do is go on a path of wanton destruction, caring not for the consequences of their actions and eventually causing enough trouble to be banned permanently. If you want some respect, then be respectful (and no I'm not saying this while waving a nightstick in your general direction, it's not meant with that attitude, it's just a common courtesy observation.) There is far more psychology involved in addressing problems than acting on a face value. Moderators could just act without thinking and do whatever a person expects in response to whatever complaint they have, The problem with that is it allows a number of sociopathic individuals (manipulative trolls etc) to "rule the roost". After all if everyone is bending over backwards to please them and fix anything they have a problem with, then they will take complete advantage of it. The forums is suppose to be open to mostly all, it's not intended to become some Gimp Coven for the intellectually distraught. Let's attempt to understand what model we could base ourselves or conduct ourselves to, how about Business Customer Service model. In business it might be presumed that the customer is always right. It can also be presumed that the management has the right to refuse admission or service, without needs to give grounds for why. Do we argue with a business over why they choose to adopt such practices? Do we boycott them or picket their store fronts? (Rhetorically "no".) Business if you didn't know is about staying in business. While a good Customer Support System is crucial to any business model to maintain good relations for the average customer that needs support, it can also become a huge pitfall due to people that are time wasters, people with an affinity for moaning and complaining (The sorts of people that no matter if you did everything right it would never be good enough), then there are people that are literally just after a "free lunch". (Where they hope if they complain enough that a company will reimburse them for stress and trauma of trying to deal with them, albeit the stress and trauma is actually usually endeared by the support staff. This likely then hurts the company further by having staff taking sick days and playing hooky to the point where they hate the company they work for because there dealings with the ex-customers, trolls and freeloader's embitter them so. So we aren't just dealing with a consumer base (in the case of the forum that would mean membership), we are also dealing with trying to keep the moderator team functional enough to do the job without wanting to run off, break down or cause more problems than they solve. That's where the "Lack of Constructive outcomes" can be queried, after all a number of you (that might read this) might have problems with various moderators on the forums and those moderators might well be reacting similar to those abused support staff. There is no simple solution. I mean don't get me wrong I can put forwards an entire "plan" to seed the winds of change with the help of the member base, however what I don't want to do is rile everyone up with some predisposition towards actually making a difference and have that plan fail or not materialise. In some respects It would be a decent exercise in futility, for instance if we had an "open" project for the redevelopment of this forums and the community who lay within, what set of skills or methods would you bring to the table? Would you volunteer your aid? or would you just prove to be a person that complains and whines disruptively with no intention of attempting to get into a community spirit of making this a better place... a better Sciforums?
I'm currently got something in the pipeline that should help with future problems. I'll post back about it shortly after I've got some things established. [Edit:] I've setup a Ticket Support system for issues to be dealt with. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...com-Unofficial-Support-sciforums-modshell-com
I admit to having a penchant for pessimism at times. I guess it depends on how you define "bash," but it seems to me that you're suggesting there was a problem with members flaming moderators. That doesn't explain how you reached the decision to ban all complaint threads. A more reasonable solution would have been to deal with the malcontents on a case-by-case basis; if a person flamed a moderator, then that would have been a violation of the rules as they were already written. Complaints that did not violate rules could be left open, and discussed or not discussed. (Remember, it's ultimately up to the mods or admins if they want to engage a member on the forum). The point is that I don't see a benefit to closing complaint threads. You say it drives members away and deters potential new members from joining, but given the current state of the site, that seems to be a problem you're having anyway. I mean, I've been here a long time, and I don't remember any such mutiny. The SFOG forum is one of many, and is located at the bottom of the list, meaning it isn't in a prominent place. I sincerely doubt that it's where many people spend their time, member or no. That's my read, anyway. Are you certain that none of the complaints had merit? I mean, it's plainly obvious that several moderators currently on the team are not suited for their roles. If you promote people like this, there are naturally going to be complaints. And if the administration defends them like this administration has, giving no credence to issues raised by members, then the problem is only compounded. I suppose locking those threads is one way to respond, but it's certainly not an effective response, as you can clearly tell. Year after year, the same group of moderators cross the line and draw the ire of members, and nothing changes. Now you guys have even promote a known homophobe to your ranks. Do you really think the best solution to the discontent over these decisions is to tell people to shut up? The problem with this argument is that you're ignoring the fact that most people get upset over deletions because the moderator deleting a post has usually posted worse things themselves. It's a problem of double-standards, and of moderator credibility. Of course people are going to explode when Tiassa deletes a post for being insulting when the bulk of the content of Tiassa's responses to other members take the form of personal insults. I think if you held moderators to the same standards to which other members are held, you'd have a lot less trouble. That, more than moderators abusing powers, is this site's problem. I absolutely have things I need to work on. I don't consider myself a finished product by any means, and I know I could handle some of my interactions here better, and not just for my own benefit, but out of common decency. I don't think people are asking for that. At least, I know I'm not. I understand that bowing to every demand is a quick path to chaos. What I'd like to see is more of an open dialogue between members and the administration, rather than simply being told "no" and having all complaints about moderator behavior shut down without regard to their validity. I mean, aside from a few problem moderators, there aren't a whole lot of problems with this site. I really don't think you'd have too many headaches if you guys were a bit more open to suggestion. I'm not sure I follow. Businesses are not allowed to refuse service for any old reason. They can't turn people away based on their race or gender, for example. Yes, but those businesses take into account time-wasters and things of that nature. Their solution to complaints isn't to shut down the customer service line. I understand that complaining about moderators is a specific complaint, and not the entirety of your open government project, but I feel like not addressing what is clearly an issue only creates more problems down the road. And, frankly, if you have moderators who can't handle criticism, then they probably shouldn't be moderators. I mean, this is a chat forum. Dealing with unhappy people is part and parcel with that. I think blaming members for moderator misbehavior is part of the reason we're here now, since it effectively excuses abuse by moderators and widens the divide between them and regular members. The whole idea that there is an "us' and a "them" is, in my view, the fault of certain moderators who go out of their way to reinforce the distinction. We're all members here, but many non-mods feel like second-class citizens. Don't be afraid to fail. Trying is better than not trying. Heart of a champion. Margarine hat. Of course I'd volunteer to help. I think quite a few of us would, and I'm probably the least qualified of the bunch. But yeah, I'd do it. As to my skills, well, I don't know what would be relevant. I can type. I can read. Does that count? lol. As for methods...I won't pretend making sciforums better is as easy as snapping your fingers. I concede that moderators have tough jobs, and James' role as most active admin seems especially thankless, given that he has to deal with malcontents on both sides (usually me and Tiassa). But I think there are some good ideas out there that can help. I also think this place needs a good flush, but I don't know how willing you are to do that. But even with the people I consider to be a detriment to the site, I think there are changes that could be made that would put them in a better position to succeed. Like making the implementation of the rules more consistent across all forums, for example. Or demanding that the mods adhere to the rules they enforce. Or giving members more of a voice when a hot-button issue comes up--such as what just happened with LG. Setting aside the fact that I found it to be a travesty, the method by which LG's ultimate fate was decided was a crock. Many members disagreed with the ban, and the extent of their involvement was being told that there would be a vote. We weren't told who voted for what, or what rationale was given for those votes. We simply weren't included, and I think we should have been. I'm not saying that every ban requires a public vote, but this was a special circumstance, with obvious mod misbehavior, and I think we should have had a voice in the outcome. Even if LG was ultimately banned anyway, it would have been a positive resolution solely because the forum got together and solved a problem as a unit. Instead, we were told to shut up (literally, in the case of Kittamaru) and given literally no explanation for why the vote went the way it did. No one was accountable. I would hope that you've noticed by now that I'm actually making recommendations rather than simply venting. Yeah, maybe asking for a moderator to lose their stripes sounds inflammatory, but I believe that some moderators are a huge part of the problem. I also believe there are solutions to be found in policy change, so it's not like I'm just out to see heads roll. I've been here for over ten years, dude. Obviously I want to see this place get better. I can't promise that I"d never complain again, though. lol. Anyway, thanks for the response. I'm glad you took the time.
I noticed this response to Balerion - I certainly would. I'm on here enough, certes, that I would be useful and my editing, writing and logical skills are excellent. If you're genuinely interested in making some alterations, I'd be happy to help out. No reason to think that such changes would be inflammatory - I believe, on the contrary, that it has enormous potential.
