The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
Can we have a conversation about rules? https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=760 |
Page 1 of 1 |
Author: | Monte [ Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:08 am ] |
Post subject: | Can we have a conversation about rules? |
Is it possible to have another candid conversation about forum rules? |
Author: | DFK! [ Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:13 am ] |
Post subject: | |
What about them? |
Author: | Monte [ Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:24 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Will your text remain this color throughout the thread? Because I would prefer to not start a conversation that suddenly ends with a ding for "armchair moderating" or some such. I want to be open and honest about my concerns, but I'm afraid that we're not allowed to be. I think the current set up is really pissing people off, for a number of reasons, me included. I don't feel like the community has a good grasp on what does and does not constitute a violation of the rules, despite how clear the rules seem to be as written, and the ban on actually *talking* about moderation makes everything happen below the table. That increases suspicion and creates bad blood. To be clear - I want to be certain that if a conversation is had, people can feel free to express their frustrations without fear of being sanctioned for doing so. If that's not possible, so be it. I'll delete this thread. |
Author: | DFK! [ Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:31 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Monte wrote: Will your text remain this color throughout the thread? Please, let me be clear, again... since you want to AGAIN imply that my ethics are problematic: I will post as a moderator in a different text. You'll note I even dinged Mookhow on not doing so today. Monty wrote: ... the ban on actually *talking* about moderation makes everything happen below the table. That increases suspicion and creates bad blood. No such ban exists. What exists is a rule against publicly refuting, rebutting, or undermining moderation decisions. Having just come off a ban placed, in part, for having done so, I would expect you to be crystal clear on that aspect of the rules. Now, can I go back to having a discussion with you, or would you like me to view the entirety of this thread from a moderators perspective? I can do that, but I'll bet you it's locked by page 2. |
Author: | Monte [ Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:31 am ] |
Post subject: | |
-edit clearly this was a mistake, DFK. |
Author: | Monte [ Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:34 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Edit - I'm angry, so this is not going to go anywhere. |
Author: | DFK! [ Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:39 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Monte wrote: -edit clearly this was a mistake, DFK. Would you care for me to lock the thread? I'd be happy to since you've acknowledged your mistake. An apology for your edited-out slight on my ethics would be nice, but I don't expect it. |
Author: | Monte [ Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:50 am ] |
Post subject: | |
What do you expect? I feel cornered by your red pen, and I feel I can't respond honestly. I want to have an honest, public discussion of the rules and their enforcement. It's clear that's not possible. I wish you would have responded with your red pen initially so we didn't have to go through this. |
Author: | NephyrS [ Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:02 am ] |
Post subject: | |
I will add that I feel moderation has been more on the heavy, hands on side than I would personally like to see, but it isn't bothering me all that much as of now. I think the issues I have seen are twofold: First, it seems that the 'vigilante moderation' rule might be one I would personally tone down a bit. It seems similar to trolling in that it is hard to separate someone trying to be a vigilante from someone pointing out that they think another's behavior is not acceptable. Not all conversations about what behavior is acceptable need moderation, and while having moderation on the forums is nice, it is also a good idea to let people try to work things out on their own, first- in some instances the 'vigilante moderation' rule seems to eliminate that chance. Second, I might suggest trying to warn posters via PM at first, as it will do less to disrupt the course of the thread than a blaring red post that draws attention/de-rails the topic. It would be nice to have the ban/suspension list include WHY the person was banned/suspended, however- since we're on the subject. Just a few thoughts. |
Author: | Monte [ Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:14 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
NephyrS wrote: First, it seems that the 'vigilante moderation' rule might be one I would personally tone down a bit. It seems similar to trolling in that it is hard to separate someone trying to be a vigilante from someone pointing out that they think another's behavior is not acceptable. Not all conversations about what behavior is acceptable need moderation, and while having moderation on the forums is nice, it is also a good idea to let people try to work things out on their own, first- in some instances the 'vigilante moderation' rule seems to eliminate that chance. I totally agree with you here. The Vigilante Moderation rule is way too heavy handed. I'd love to just tell Darksiege "Hey, I think it was disrespectful of you to call me Sparky instead of showing me the respect of using my board name", but I'm terrified that I'll be suspended for even that. My biggest concern is this paragraph in the Flame section - Quote: Any poster that openly attacks, insults, belittles, or abuses another poster will receive a warning or further disciplinary action. You can be critical of another poster's viewpoint in a debate, even going as far as to explain why you believe them to be mistaken and backing your points up with sources as appropriate, but the moment your criticism extends to the person who posted that viewpoint, it has crossed the line. I just don't feel it's being fairly enforced. DFK may call that an attack on his ethics, and there isn't anything I can do to change his interpretation of my concern. However, his objection or outrage does not change how I feel. |
Author: | DFK! [ Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:26 am ] |
Post subject: | |
The attacks on my ethics involve you stating or implying that I'm applying the rules differently to you than I do to the other posters. As to the "red pen," the timing is as follows: 1) You made a thread creating a conversation about the rules. 2) You did not request that moderators participate solely from that perspective. 3) I entered the thread from the perspective of a poster. 4) You implied that my dealings with you as a moderator have been less than straightforward. 5) Since, as a moderator, I have requested you not slight my ethics, I responded as a moderator. 6) Since there was confusion about some sort of "ban" on discussing moderation, I answered that as a moderator. 7) You insulted my ethics, blatantly 8) I restrained myself from coming down on that, because I felt that my bias might have made it seem like a bigger slight than it was. Instead, I made a private post to the other moderators asking them to review the situation. 9) You edited out your insult. 10) I asked if you wanted the thread closed, as a moderator, because I wanted to know if that's what you meant by "this was a mistake." 11) I asked for an apology, which is not required and I don't expect. 12) You have since made multiple additional implications as to my ethics, including whether I am arbitrary with you when it comes to viewing things from a moderators perspective. 14) I made this post. |
Author: | DFK! [ Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:29 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
NephyrS wrote: First, it seems that the 'vigilante moderation' rule might be one I would personally tone down a bit. Personally I think that's the most subjective area of the rules, applying it is therefore difficult, I'd say. |
Author: | Lenas [ Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:39 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
NephyrS wrote: I will add that I feel moderation has been more on the heavy, hands on side than I would personally like to see, but it isn't bothering me all that much as of now. Let me give you some statistics: Number of reports on the day Monte was originally suspended: 7. Number of reports the entire week that Monte was suspended: 0. Number of reports, today, since Monte has been back: 10+ To Monte: I'm letting this be known as an attempt of transparent moderation. If you don't tone down the arguments you are having, you're done. If I log in tomorrow, and I see another 10 posts reported, you're gone. That amount of problems is not a good thing and is a disturbance to the community that's been maintained for so long. We wouldn't need a team of moderators if it wasn't for all this bickering. You get "picked on" and "cornered" by the moderation, because (don't take this the wrong way), we only have to moderate because of you. |
Author: | Monte [ Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:47 am ] |
Post subject: | |
This is exactly what I was afraid of. Sigh. Sorry to bother everyone. |
Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |