Ordered. Good work. If you could do the Bismarck profile on Grey, that would be cool too
Discussion for new forum policies
-
I just love how after all the snide comments, and shots that are given, the closing remarks were:
And yet again Kurt turned another thread into book reports dealing with German policies of killing opposition/ Holocaust/ Extermination program.
Another thread closed because it now has nothing to do with the French holding out in 1940.
Garbage.
-
Actually,
Here’s a really good example, and total failure to moderate effectively.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=27224.15
Kurt Godel gets called,
- one eyed
- a nazi apologist
- pathetic
Amongst a few other things…
And nobody paid attention to that thread until somebody hit the “report to moderator”. Once that happened the thread was closed, so nobody “let” anybody say anything what ACTUALLY happened is nobody knew anything till we got word.
And yes he did turn that thread away from “French holding out” What was not clear about that?
Funny thing is after reading more closely that link i see YOU were also involved in going off topic and arguing with other posters. Why didn’t you hit “report to moderator”?
Now you comment on what happened but you didn’t attempt to do anything at the time?Right. Blame others not yourself.
My last comment should actually read:
And yet again Kurt, Gargantua, and Lazarus involved in another off topic commentary where flames were posted.
Thread closed because it now has nothing to do with the French holding out in 1940.
The Thread was closed, because Kurt tried to defense himself. He was accused of “going off topic” for that, And NO MENTION, whatsoever, was made, about the fact that the personal attacks, which were spread out over several threads at the time, were inappropriate/unwelcome.
No wrong again. It was closed when we found out that it got off topic. Because a thread exists does not mean we are monitoring it, you don’t see any posts from me in those threads except at the end, when i was informed that it went off topic.
Yea and Lazarus was out of line too, but the person who derailed the discussion was Kurt, not Lazarus.
You probably need to get the facts straight.
-
The facts are right, And the moderation was wrong.
If anybody derailed the discussion, it was Lazarus, worse with his comments breaking the existing “rules/policy”, which drew no comment from you. (Unless you are suggesting you don’t even bother to read threads or portions of them before you arbitrarily close them) But the judgement was handed down on Kurt specifically.
Kurt did not attack those who’d attacked him. His defense was to point out what he saw as the flaws in their logic, while adhering to the list’s prohibition against personal attacks. Lazarus repeatedly violated the terms of service, while Kurt complied with them.
Ironically, the thread was off topic BEFORE Kurt had contributed his first post. It seems clear, that if anything, a snap judgement was made.; Again validating that community moderation is needed.
Case in point, the moderation served only to ADD to the harassment and beratement of a user.
…
More to the point it seems, that everytime the words “Kurt Godel” are seen in the thread, it is assumed by moderation that he is the culprit of all wrong doing.
The preconception has resulted in personal targetting.
-
That said, does anyone really care if/when a thread goes off topic? With the odd exception, of when the thread maker requests a return to the original discussion?
-
That said, does anyone really care if/when a thread goes off topic? With the odd exception, of when the thread maker requests a return to the original discussion?
Speaking only for myself, not really, unless it digresses into a flame war.
In regards to your example post, I was on vacation. A certain person got me to stoop so far into the gutter trying to clean up his act, I got disgusted and needed some time off. So I missed that one.
-
If anybody derailed the discussion, it was Lazarus, worse with his comments breaking the existing “rules/policy”, which drew no comment from you. (Unless you are suggesting you don’t even bother to read threads or portions of them before you arbitrarily close them) But the judgement was handed down on Kurt specifically.
It was not a “judgement” ( another value added word to make a point?) It was just a comment that the thread was closed because it was off topic. His name was only brought up because 4 other threads got closed where he was a key participant. They too got out of hand and i was alerted by “report to moderator”. After a few times you begin to find the common denominator and in 5 threads it was mostly him.
Kurt did not attack those who’d attacked him. His defense was to point out what he saw as the flaws in their logic, while adhering to the list’s prohibition against personal attacks. Lazarus repeatedly violated the terms of service, while Kurt complied with them.
The threads were closed for being off topic, which was in the description noted by the forum member who never posted in these threads. His intention was to notify me that a problem had occurred.
Ironically, the thread was off topic BEFORE Kurt had contributed his first post. It seems clear, that if anything, a snap judgement was made.; Again validating that community moderation is needed.
It might have been but i didn’t know about that thread until i showed up to close it. I guess you can read anything if it can sustain a faulty argument. I responded when i am called. I just take care of the problem when i am informed. Sometimes i can find the problems because i read the threads just like anybody else.
You can’t blame anybody for not responding quickly enough.
Case in point, the moderation served only to ADD to the harassment and beratement of a user.
No not really. Harassment is more how you responded in the thread, which jumped up the discussion to another level. Moderation just closed the thread which you and others caused problems.
-
It’s not a matter of “missing” it.
“Report to Moderator” worked, and “Moderation” arrived.
Person A, then got blamed for one of the exerts of Person B, whilst Person B was free to continue his ill-standard in other threads.
For all we know, it was Kurt Godel who clicked “Report to Moderator”. Â If he’d been able to comment to that effect, his coments would then most likely have been deleted as “flame” against moderation. Â I know I’ve seen many of my threads and posts end up in this category.
A vicious cycle that’s stupid and needs to stop.
-
hat said, does anyone really care if/when a thread goes off topic? With the odd exception, of when the thread maker requests a return to the original discussion?
Well this thread is off topic, and the cause came from you alone IMO.
They are part of the rules and for good reason. Most people who are interested in something want to click and find the topic being discussed. In off topic threads, it turns into a waste of time because it degenerated into flames, garbage, and children arguing about Wikipedia. The rules try to protect all people for their own good.
Person A, then got blamed for one of the exerts of Person B, whilst Person B was free to continue his ill-standard in other threads.
The comments rather than the reason why the thread was closed is what you incorrectly assign as the reason for action. The thread was closed for being off topic, not unlike this one. Again Kurts name was only brought up because recently 4 other threads got closed and in each case Kurt was actively involved. The person B would be who?
For all we know, it was Kurt Godel who clicked “Report to Moderator”. � If he’d been able to comment to that effect, his coments would then most likely have been deleted as “flame” against moderation. � I know I’ve seen many of my threads and posts end up in this category.
You assume too many things. You assume that person cares what kurt says because if they did, you would find that person actively engaged in threads where he posts. That might show that somebody was “against him” So basically you came up wrong again. :roll: Perhaps if Lazarus was the moderator, it might be plausible but it isnt.
NO he didn’t do it. I know for a fact it was somebody who didn’t post in any of those threads. I have a number of people looking out and notifying me because they want decent forums.
Lets just stick with “forum policies here”, not another “leaving the forum thread” :mrgreen:
-
Yea and Lazarus was out of line too, but the person who derailed the discussion was Kurt, not Lazarus.
So lets see here… Being off topic is a worse ‘crime’ than flaming.
And even in this seperate thread NOW, almost a month later, you’re still point the finger at Kurt for the closed discussion, even though he didn’t join the discussion until AFTER it was already off topic.
Are you sure you don’t want to blame Kurt for this thread (in your INCORRECT opinion) of going off topic, aswell?
For the record IL, undeniably, This Thread IS on topic. The Topic is the rules and policies of this forum, which you personally break when you have powers, and which you abuse, as you fail to moderate properly. It’s why we’re having this discussion.
It’s so the public can come to a compromise with your disposition, and so that clear boundaries can be set for YOU, and so that users of this site are no longer harassed and belittled, by the likes of yourself.
For example in your post above:
children arguing about Wikipedia
You refer to users of the site being “children”. A disposition and comment trail I often see you post; And I have to admit that it’s disappointing behaviour and commentary to be seen coming from site moderation, another “Policy” which should be discussed, in this ON TOPIC thread.
I emplore anyone reading this to disagree if I’m wrong.
-
IL…
Just for the record, and -in your own words- The title of this thread is:
Re: Discussion for new forum policies
Well this thread is off topic, and the cause came from you alone IMO.
They are part of the rules and for good reason.
So by discussing forum Rules… and having you in turn discuss forum rules. We’ve gone off topic?
-
I guess you turned your posts into another flame war. I don’t care to respond to this “garbage”
Discussion for new forum policies so provide them, not bring up poor Kurt or the same issues as that thread.
-
I propose a policy of no moderation by Imperious Leader.
Can we call a vote?
-
Another flame?
-
Oh I mean it.
That’s a very dead-serious request, and I’m not alone.
-
That’s a very dead-serious request, and I’m not alone.
I would have to agree with this statement. Though there is one thing i’ve never understood about the moderators and that’s why there a forum specific ones? When going into the WW2 history thread it lists three members as moderators, dezrtfish, DarthMaximus, and Guerrilla Guy, yet it seems any moderator can go into these threads and delete posts and lock threads, so why are the three aforementioned members listed as moderators? Perhaps only allowing the stated moderators to police the certain forums they’re attached to would resolve this. Otherwise this seems to allow a small vocal group of moderators of wield a large amount of control and influence on the forum.
just my 2 cents
-
@Cmdr:
In regards to your example post, I was on vacation. A certain person got me to stoop so far into the gutter trying to clean up his act, I got disgusted and needed some time off. So I missed that one.
As far as I’m concerned, no apologies are necessary. My understanding is that you and other list moderators donate your time on a volunteer basis. I certainly don’t expect every moderator to read every thread. I for one appreciate the work you and other volunteers do for this site. And I’m sure your vacation was much-deserved! :)
My earlier comment on this subject should be taken to mean that when a moderator does become aware of a personal attack, that moderator must take action of some sort if civility standards are to be maintained. At very least, the offending person should receive a warning. I’d like to thank Gargantua for bringing up a specific example in which a moderator did not take action after having become aware of personal attacks. Unfortunately, the example Gargantua referenced is part of a larger pattern.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that djensen will probably look at the raw data (the thread that Gargantua referenced), and form his own conclusions, independently of what anyone might write here. That being the case, I’d encourage both Imperious Leader and Gargantua to return to the original topic of this thread. That incident has been discussed enough, and further discussion would diverge from David’s original purpose in having created this thread.
To return to the subject of David’s original purpose, I’d suggest the following process.
1. David and others should envision these forums not as they are, but as we would wish them to be.
2. David will need to make decisions about the steps necessary to implement the vision in step 1.
3. One of those steps is to select the right list moderation policies to create the kind of list envisioned in step 1.
4. Another of these steps is to select the right list moderators to implement that vision.
Earlier, I’d mentioned another, very well-run discussion list of which I’m a member. That list only had one rule: don’t engage in personal attacks. Be as polite on the list as you would be at a social gathering at someone else’s home.
A good group of list moderators was chosen to enforce that one rule. These list moderators were known as level-headed, rational people. People who’d keep their cool, who could be trusted to remain impartial. The sort of people who did not pick fights with other list participants, and who reacted in a restrained, disciplined way when someone picked a fight with them. (They’d shown themselves to be this on other, more rough-and-tumble lists, which is why they were selected to moderate this list.) These people could also be trusted to enforce the list policies as written. They never abused their moderator powers, or took unwarranted action. Nor did they ever fail to oppose any violation of that list’s one rule.
Ultimately, it’s up to David to decide on an overarching vision for these fora. But to the extent that vision includes a place in which people can discuss things about which they feel passionately, without resorting to personal attacks or flames, he could do a lot worse than to choose moderators like the ones described above.
Once David has decided on the list’s new moderation policy, he’s going to need people he trusts to implement that policy, and only that policy. Jennifer, from what little I know of you, I get the sense that you have the kind of restraint and self-discipline necessary to fit into that plan.
-
Can we call a vote?
Fortunately this is not a democracy. If it were, the site would die out in chaos.
@Cmdr:
In regards to your example post, I was on vacation. A certain person got me to stoop so far into the gutter trying to clean up his act, I got disgusted and needed some time off. So I missed that one.
As far as I’m concerned, no apologies are necessary. My understanding is that you and other list moderators donate your time on a volunteer basis. I certainly don’t expect every moderator to read every thread. I for one appreciate the work you and other volunteers do for this site. And I’m sure your vacation was much-deserved! :)
My earlier comment on this subject should be taken to mean that when a moderator does become aware of a personal attack, that moderator must take action of some sort if civility standards are to be maintained. At very least, the offending person should receive a warning. I’d like to thank Gargantua for bringing up a specific example in which a moderator did not take action after having become aware of personal attacks. Unfortunately, the example Gargantua referenced is part of a larger pattern.
Keep in mind that we moderators communicate with each other, at times, to ensure our behavior does not get tainted with personal vendetta. I’ve asked IL and DM a few times to review a ruling I’ve made, at least once in regards to Mr. Gargantua himself, though he never knew it, as we came to the mutual agreement that, while skirting the line that specific time, he did not cross it.
My, albeit singular, view on moderators might not be the same as for all others. Some might think those with the longest tenure on the forums should be moderators, others only personal friends of the owner should be moderators, still others only those who play the game should be moderators, or whatever. I am not going to say any of them are “right” because I don’t get to make that determination. Djensen has chosen his moderators - some are not overly active anymore but retain their rank nonetheless - some are hyper vigiliant in the cases of IL and DM. The more vigiliant the moderator (defined as closest to omnipresent on the forum) the more chance of crossing someone and earning the distinction of overly zealous. It is quite unfortunate at times, but “it is, what it is.” (A phrase I am becomming intimitely familiar with for personal reasons.)
As for what the “process” is (your term, not mine.) I disagree with number one. Djensen should envision these forums as HE wants them to be, not what his moderators want them to be, not what his public want them to be, but as HE wants them to be. Would it be wise to seek the council of those he has entrusted with power on his forums? I feel it would be. It would it both tactical and strategic of mind to seek the council of his public on what they want to see? Again, I feel it would be. Should he be required to do so? Should he even be pressured into acting in other than his own self actualization? I adamantly, and emphatically say no.
In regards to number three, I do not necessarily agree with all of Djensen’s rules, but that is not my job here. Do I feel they are functionable and for the best interests of the site? Perhaps. I’d like to see political discussion return one day, but I also remember the days of some that twisted and turned the site into a den of slandering monkeys and why all political discourse had to be ended here. I, happened, to like the KARMA system, but again, it was abused - first there was a group of 7 who made sure to log in every (and i literally mean EVERY day) day, I’d wager even if they were 5 minutes from dying they would have logged in, just to give a couple people negative karma. Then came a group who made sure to login whenever possible, to counter this attack with positive karma. Soon the entire system was destroyed. Good idea, faulty in practice. (Yes, I was one who logged in everyday to give good karma to a few people who were maliciously attacked daily. Emperor Mollari is a prime example of one who was routinely attacked without cause or provocation - he would not mind my releasing his name.)
-
Sorry, in this particular case, it’s not a flame. He’s calling for a vote of no confidence. You might see it as a personal attack but it’s not really ad hoc, he is airing grievances. The expression of many of those grievances were certainly overboard and I feel that much of the past 10 or so messages could have been avoided.
There is a lot in play here. I think IL acted mostly in accordance with the rules at the time. He also cannot be everywhere at once.
Gargantua is upset with both the rules and the implementation of the rules. Since IL is, by far, the most active moderator he will get the brunt of the blame for the implementation of the rules. Since the rules did not address everything, interpretations were made and maybe followed the spirit of the rules to much. The mantra “be draconian” works great in some situations and really bad in other situations. (Update: I removed didn’t follow the spirit of the rules because the spirit of the current rules are actually pretty harsh).
As for off-topic. The past few comments by IL and Gargantua are about 80% off-topic. Why? This is mostly about new policies. Yes, we have to explain why the policies broke down and why the implementation was wrong but this volume is too much. I have absolutely NOTHING actionable as a result of that exchange. It was a waste of my time to read it and it was a bit of a waste to spend the time writing this response.
Both of you need to chill the f-ck out and maybe write fewer posts.
Finally, unless you are a professional communicator, this medium is the absolute worst when one or more people are acting emotionally. It’s also a great medium to be misinterpreted. I, myself, have wasted time on email threads that really had nothing to do with the true issue. One phone call or one face-to-face meeting and the problem is resolved. If you’re on email or a forum and you’re a reasonable human being (as both Gargantua and ImperiousLeader are) and things are getting too heated, 33% of the problem is because you’re trying to hash it out on email or forum.
@Imperious:
Another flame?
-
@Cmdr:
Keep in mind that we moderators communicate with each other, at times, to ensure our behavior does not get tainted with personal vendetta. I’ve asked IL and DM a few times to review a ruling I’ve made, at least once in regards to Mr. Gargantua himself, though he never knew it, as we came to the mutual agreement that, while skirting the line that specific time, he did not cross it.
My, albeit singular, view on moderators might not be the same as for all others. Some might think those with the longest tenure on the forums should be moderators, others only personal friends of the owner should be moderators, still others only those who play the game should be moderators, or whatever. I am not going to say any of them are “right” because I don’t get to make that determination. Djensen has chosen his moderators - some are not overly active anymore but retain their rank nonetheless - some are hyper vigiliant in the cases of IL and DM. The more vigiliant the moderator (defined as closest to omnipresent on the forum) the more chance of crossing someone and earning the distinction of overly zealous. It is quite unfortunate at times, but “it is, what it is.” (A phrase I am becomming intimitely familiar with for personal reasons.)
As for what the “process” is (your term, not mine.) I disagree with number one. Djensen should envision these forums as HE wants them to be, not what his moderators want them to be, not what his public want them to be, but as HE wants them to be. Would it be wise to seek the council of those he has entrusted with power on his forums? I feel it would be. It would it both tactical and strategic of mind to seek the council of his public on what they want to see? Again, I feel it would be. Should he be required to do so? Should he even be pressured into acting in other than his own self actualization? I adamantly, and emphatically say no.
In regards to number three, I do not necessarily agree with all of Djensen’s rules, but that is not my job here. Do I feel they are functionable and for the best interests of the site? Perhaps. I’d like to see political discussion return one day, but I also remember the days of some that twisted and turned the site into a den of slandering monkeys and why all political discourse had to be ended here. I, happened, to like the KARMA system, but again, it was abused - first there was a group of 7 who made sure to log in every (and i literally mean EVERY day) day, I’d wager even if they were 5 minutes from dying they would have logged in, just to give a couple people negative karma. Then came a group who made sure to login whenever possible, to counter this attack with positive karma. Soon the entire system was destroyed. Good idea, faulty in practice. (Yes, I was one who logged in everyday to give good karma to a few people who were maliciously attacked daily. Emperor Mollari is a prime example of one who was routinely attacked without cause or provocation - he would not mind my releasing his name.)
I’d like to clarify a few points.
1. I fully agree that the ultimate responsibility for envisioning what the forums should be like is David’s, and David’s alone. My earlier comment should be taken to mean that it would be appropriate for other people to develop their own visions for this forum, and to articulate those visions to David. David will then decide what parts (if any) of those other visions he wishes to accept.
2. You’ve made a very good point about the karma system, and how it was abused. Any system in which people can vote on posts will have similar problems.
3. My take on the subject of overly zealous moderators is the following:
a) List moderators should be predictable in their actions.
b) List moderators’ decisions should be unbiased.
c) The actions list moderators will take should correspond with the terms of service, or with some other generally available written document.
d) List moderators should clearly articulate the bases for their decisions.If a list moderator departs from some or all of the above, while engaging in a high level of moderation activity, that moderator will receive the overly zealous label. And rightly so.
-
Kurt, you’re describing an ideal that’s never going to happen. We’re people and there is always going to be differing opinions and difficulty to be unbiased. If you operate one way and nobody complains because nobody is bothered and then one day it stops working in a particular situation, what do you expect?
Anyway, now I really need to get back to work.
Suggested Topics
