Are mods kept an eye on? How are they selected? Any vetting?

Page 8 of 11 [ 174 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Campin_Cat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

07 Oct 2016, 11:34 am

B19 wrote:

A general reminder to self and others that the rules preclude discussion of locked topics:

This also includes discussion of locked topics, discussion of banned members and why they were banned

If moderators are going to be challenged to justify each decision, there won't be any moderators here, and though that may be desirable for some, I for one would be out of here licketysplit, as both a moderator and a member.

My interpretation of that rule, is: If someone were to start a thread, entitled: "Christians are stupid", and because that thread is in CLEAR violation of the rules, was locked, and then someone else came-along and started a NEW thread, that said: "So, about these stupid Christians"----THAT, IMO, would be "discussion of locked topics", and I have put a call in to Alex, to give us an official interpretation.

As for Moderators being challenged to justify each decision..... No one, on THIS thread, has asked for justification for EACH decision, made by a Mod. Here's the thing..... If someone asks a question..... Well, maybe I shouldn't speculate about OTHERS----so, I'll say..... When *I* ask a question, it is because I want to LEARN. If a thread gets locked, and it isn't obvious to me, WHY, I want to know, so that I don't repeat whatever it was, that made it get locked.

Campin_Cat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

07 Oct 2016, 11:36 am

B19 wrote:

Moderators have no mandate to make new rules whether they want to or not, our role is to apply the existing ones, as best we can. There is accountability, (we are accountable to Alex and to peer review on the modteam).

If the "no mandate" thing was a good explanation, then the two-thread-per-day rule wouldn't have gotten made. (I feel the rule was justifiable, BTW.)

As for accountability: It's a shame I don't see "we are accountable to the PEOPLE", in that statement. Of COURSE, a Mod should be accountable to Alex----if, for no other reason, than because they don't wanna lose their job; but then, isn't it sad, that when / if a Mod is ONLY accountable to Alex (and the "modteam"----which, I don't get, either), that Alex's very own vision in starting / maintaining this site (to support ASDers----the PEOPLE), isn't being upheld.

Like I said, when I ask a question, I am NOT saying "Why are you Mods such lock-happy slime-balls?"----I'm saying: "I don't understand why this thread was locked, could you please help me out, here?".

Campin_Cat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

07 Oct 2016, 11:38 am

dcj123 wrote:

Speaking of the largely absence Alex, how would a person who was raised Christian and grew up in a southern state feel about using religion as a means to offer support in the context of not harming anyone else's right to believe what they want?

I think I know what thread you're talking-about----and, I understand / agree with why you are questioning it----and, have included this, in my plea to Alex, for official interpretation.

_________________
White female; age 59; diagnosed Aspie.
I use caps for emphasis----I'm NOT angry or shouting. I use caps like others use italics, underline, or bold.
"What we know is a drop; what we don't know, is an ocean." (Sir Isaac Newton)

Campin_Cat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

07 Oct 2016, 11:40 am

The_Walrus wrote:

I agree that transparency is good, but it gets extremely frustrating to have to explain every decision twice.

I've recently taken the policy of not explaining why I am locking a thread if it is obvious, and there is no ongoing discussion. When I'd post in the thread, it would get it bumped up to the top of the forum ahead of legitimate threads. Seems people would prefer that I change that, so I will.

In regard to "I agree that transparency is good": I have found a whole new respect for you, The_Walrus, because, IMO, only someone whose intent is NOT that of a dictator / one who needs to wield power / has an ego as big as Texas, would say something like that, and I am very glad you feel that way (that transparency is good).

As I have said, before, I know how frustrating the job of a Mod, can be. Here's the way I look at it----and, you've, most probably, already thought-of this, but just-in-case..... If, when a Mod makes a decision, and the same two people (using your example) are always questioning it, I'm thinking it's a "flaw" (for lack of a better word) with those two people----if, however, a Mod is getting, say, 3 or 4 different people questioning their decision, every time, I'm thinking the Mod should probably look at what they (the Mod) are doing, that these different people, every time, don't understand.

As for your own new policy, for yourself, in not explaining why you've locked a thread, cuz it'll bump the thread, ahead of "legitimate" threads (which was a good thought, and VERY understandable, IMO, now that you explained it, BTW): What if you put the explanation in a time-stamped edit, on the post, ITSELF? You know how, when a Mod writes "This post was edited, because..." and it says "Edited by The_Walrus, August 25, 2016" (or, whatever it says), that doesn't bump the thread.

As for: "Seems people would prefer that I change that, so I will.": Again, I have an ADDITIONAL whole new respect for you / your moderation, for the reason I stated, before----AND, because this tells me that you ARE willing to look in the mirror, and I have GREAT respect for ANYBODY who does that. GOOD JOB!!

Campin_Cat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

07 Oct 2016, 11:43 am

Adamantium and Campin_Cat wrote:

Campin_Cat wrote:

When I read what Adamantium said about the thread being reported, that concerns me / reminds me of what I said several pages, ago, about the Mods allowing a user(s) to "direct" them. IMO, if it was determined that ONE user (or, 3 or 4, or whatever) was the most constant / consistent reporter(s) of threads / posts, I would begin to question the REPORTER'S intentions.

Any attempts to game the system in the way you describe are going to be treated as a form of trolling and put someone on the fast track toward a temporary ban and then a permanent one if they can't reform.

That's very good to know, cuz that tells me you ARE considering more than just the complaint.

Reports about this kind of topic usually come in two types. One is a reported personal attack--something like, "Member X attacked me!"
Investigating the reported post, we might find something like this.
"Member X: You are so wrong! You are a stupid poopy head!"
At this point, a warning goes to Member X--"personal attacks are against the rules, don't do it"

EXCELLENT!! In the example given, it seems pretty straight-forward, but..... I have seen people reprimanded, but have gotten the feeling that the Mod (I don't remember which one) didn't really go-back and consider, from WHERE the whole scuffle started----for instance, like I said, the example you gave is pretty clear, but, there have been times where I've seen people bait others, for several posts, and then the other person finally cracks, and lashes-BACK; then, the person who lashes-back, is the one who gets reprimanded. If the post where the user lashes-back was reported, do you go-back (even if it's several pages) to see how it all got started? I AGREE that the person who lashes-back should get a reprimand----but then, if it is determined that someone ELSE was egging-them-on, I would think it would be fair to reprimand THEM, as well.

This isn't a situation that is subject to that much subtle interpretation. Member X may be a partisan of Sylvania and the reporter may be a partisan of Freedonia, but that is irrelevant detail. The attack is what it is and it really doesn't matter if the reporter has an agenda.

I DO believe it matters if the reporter seems to have an agenda----for instance, if the reporter is ONLY, seemingly, reporting the SAME person's posts / threads, then it would seem like the reporter has something against that particular poster, and maybe, is trying to get them banned; or, is only reporting posts in the SAME forum, all-the-time----like, PPR, maybe the reporter needs to stay out of PPR, cuz they're too thin-skinned, for instance. I AGREE that an "attack is what it is"----but, what if the person being attacked isn't the one reporting it? Even though there's a rule against it, I'm thinking that (the rule) is there to protect people who NEED it (need to be protected against an attack). If someone's just being a tattle-tale, all-the-time, seemingly, for "SPORT"----again, I would be looking at THEM (the reporter)----if, for no-other-reason, than to question if they (the reporter) IS, in-fact, trying to "run the show" (this site / direct the moderators), and would "counsel" THEM (the reporter), as WELL as, the attacker in the post, reported.

dcj123
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,796

07 Oct 2016, 12:09 pm

Campin_Cat wrote:

dcj123 wrote:

I think I know what thread you're talking-about----and, I understand / agree with why you are questioning it----and, have included this, in my plea to Alex, for official interpretation.

Well I think I have the wheels turning cause the mods haven't killed me yet and I have pleaded my case a few times over but I am expecting a full reply at some point. I am terrified to be clear cause I don't like authority but I am more curious to find out if God is unacceptable in society. Its a bold move on my part, maybe the most bold I have been in recent years, but it is a subject matter I want addressed.

QuillAlba
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Jul 2015
Age: 49
Posts: 2,739
Location: Scotland

07 Oct 2016, 12:51 pm

Which God?

Is it Thor?

Please be Thor please be Thor

dcj123
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,796

07 Oct 2016, 1:01 pm

QuillAlba wrote:

Which God?

Is it Thor?

Please be Thor please be Thor

I am okay with praising Thor, it doesn't violate anyone's rights :mrgreen:

I say if this ends badly for me we open a worship thread towards a light bulb, might be less offensive. Or replace every instance of God with light bulb... or Thor... or Donald Trump lulz

QuillAlba
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Jul 2015
Age: 49
Posts: 2,739
Location: Scotland

07 Oct 2016, 1:08 pm

Thor encourages us all to drink massive amounts of ale.

He's just the better God.

dcj123
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,796

07 Oct 2016, 1:20 pm

We'd probably be less offended if we were all drunk :twisted:

QuillAlba
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Jul 2015
Age: 49
Posts: 2,739
Location: Scotland

07 Oct 2016, 1:21 pm

exactly.

I say we have at least 350 gods, and they all have a day a year where we honour them by getting drunk.

Religious holidays are the best.

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,835
Location: London

07 Oct 2016, 4:49 pm

dcj123 wrote:

Campin_Cat wrote:

dcj123 wrote:

I think I know what thread you're talking-about----and, I understand / agree with why you are questioning it----and, have included this, in my plea to Alex, for official interpretation.

I'm quite confused about what's going on here, but criticising religions or systems of belief is absolutely fine in PPR. The issue comes if you insult Christians, but you can insult Christianity or God as much as you like (well, don't be childish about it).

If you're talking about existing threads then please PM me, and be explicit.

dcj123
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,796

07 Oct 2016, 4:53 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

dcj123 wrote:

Campin_Cat wrote:

dcj123 wrote:

I think I know what thread you're talking-about----and, I understand / agree with why you are questioning it----and, have included this, in my plea to Alex, for official interpretation.

Incoming PM and its going to be blunt...

Give me a few minutes,

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

09 Oct 2016, 8:39 pm

I think this thread is actually a pretty good example of transparency, I think a lot of people just have absolutely no idea how the moderation is done around here or what goes into the decision making processes, so just talking about it out in the open is very helpful.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Campin_Cat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

11 Oct 2016, 5:44 am

Why was this thread, locked?

http://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=330450

@ The_Walrus: I'm guessing you missed my two previous questions:

http://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=326902&p=7317932#p7317932
http://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=326902&p=7319592#p7319592

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,835
Location: London

11 Oct 2016, 6:34 am

Answers to all three questions have already been posted.

Page 8 of 11 [ 174 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Next

Jump to:

Are mods kept an eye on? How are they selected? Any vetting? Post Reply New Topic

Are mods kept an eye on? How are they selected? Any vetting?