Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kaleigh Doyle]

And I want a care package tied up with a silver bow and some glitter on top too. And if you don't do that, and you inconvenience me again, it's pistols at dawn!

Seriously Scagga, making a minor inconvenience tantamount to grave dishonor is a joke, and insulting everyone else about it only makes it even more absurd.

[scagga]

While I agree with you Lyn, what's to stop Scagga from just reposting that particular part of his response, which is exactly what the moderator said to do anyways? it's a big deal over nothing, the moderator has already made it clear that Scagga isn't being moderated here, all he has to do is repost that part of his post and the issue resolves itself.

Raze, I put effort into explaining good reasons why 'just reposting' was not an adequate solution.  I think you've ignored that reply, and are engaging with the thread to simply give an opinion rather than discuss the issues being raised. 

Let me give you an analogy.  You fill in an application form, and because there is a minor error, the form is ripped up at the office you submit it to without any discussion or notification to you.  The only way you can find out that this happened was by calling (i.e. checking).  Do you think it is not better for the office to contact you about it, especially if you could make the change and avoid having to repeat the application?

I'm arguing on basis of principle.  The actual damage is nothing, much like the damage done if a moderator decides to delete 10 perfectly fine threads.  But what that represents is poor quality moderation, and that why there is a discussion going on here about that.

If you want to defend the moderators on the basis that the 'harm done' by their actions is small, that is fine.  But that doesn't have any bearing on whether what they are doing is right.

[scagga]

And I want a care package tied up with a silver bow and some glitter on top too. And if you don't do that, and you inconvenience me again, it's pistols at dawn!

Seriously Scagga, making a minor inconvenience tantamount to grave dishonor is a joke, and insulting everyone else about it only makes it even more absurd.

Now you're just being provocative.  Do you work for social services or some allied healthcare profession?

[Kaleigh Doyle]

You'll have to clue me in as to how this is relevant to the topic at hand.

[scagga]

You'll have to clue me in as to how this is relevant to the topic at hand.

I will when you explain how your post is a) relevant and b) constructive.

[Lyn Farel]

While I agree with you Lyn, what's to stop Scagga from just reposting that particular part of his response, which is exactly what the moderator said to do anyways? it's a big deal over nothing, the moderator has already made it clear that Scagga isn't being moderated here, all he has to do is repost that part of his post and the issue resolves itself.

I am looking for another way to describe it but I can't find it : well, what you describe to me is mostly what I call "moderator lazyness". Usually you do not alienate your memberbase by forcing them to repost sane and clean parts of a post and making it look like a blind moderator sledgehammer. I have seen plenty forums where moderators just send PMs to the user before acting, or simply just edit themselves the post to remove the unwanted bit out of it.

Add to that it is highly unproductive as you first have to delete something (here its even more : move it to another section, here the catacombs), then tell the guy to repost the good part (I hope they keep a copy of the good part, unless you even want the guy to rewrite it all ! @_@), if you actually bother to tell him to do so...

Eventually, the good part will almost never be reposted.


[edit : mistakes and typos]

[Silver Night]

It isn't that I haven't read your responses Scagga. I have read them, and I disagree.

From what I have seen, you simply don't allow any position other than yours is valid. Which is fine, but it is going to ultimately be frustrating for you.

[scagga]

It isn't that I haven't read your responses Scagga. I have read them, and I disagree.

From what I have seen, you simply don't allow any position other than yours is valid. Which is fine, but it is going to ultimately be frustrating for you.

Show me a cogent counter-argument to my viewpoint that I have not debunked.

Point me to a viewpoint that is more valid than mine and I will accept your statement. 

[Raze Valadeus]

On the contrary, Scagga...I read the entire thread before I posted at all.

I read you posts and I understand where you're coming from. What I don't understand is why it has to become this big of a deal?

Sure, the moderators could've sent you a PM and said "please change this post" meanwhile it remains on the boards for people to respond to until you have a chance to get the message and edit the post. You could counter argue and say that they could've just gotten rid of the first inappropriate comment and let you edit yours later, but the fact remains that they chose this particular course of action in order to avoid a long(er) discussion in relation to the moderated post.

You could easily have just copy and pasted what you wrote and reposted it and been done in all of about two minutes with no issue. There's no reason to keep going on about it. The moderator has already answered your challenge and told you why they made their decision and what could be done about it.

That's my point.

If you want to continue making the point that they could've handled the situation better by sending you a PM, that's fine. I can agree with that. I simply don't agree that continuing to make a giant deal out of it like this is constructive or necessary.

[scagga]

On the contrary, Scagga...I read the entire thread before I posted at all.

I read you posts and I understand where you're coming from. What I don't understand is why it has to become this big of a deal?

The issue is compounded when replies from moderators are consistently defensive, discompassionate and do not display an attitude that they want to be helpful to the users and find a solution.  Why can't they acknowledge that things could be done better and they will work to do so in the future? Why can't they show respect to posters? - it's no effort on their part to be kind to someone who has reasons to feel wronged and just replace their post.  Why do they have to be so rigid and bureaucratic about it? (properly follow proper protocols...)

The staff seem to just want to stand by their actions and tell the person complaining 'well we did everything right because we can quote xyz rule/protocol and you should just do pqrs'.  This betrays the fact that little thought went in to moderating, which is a delicate task and must be done in a consciencious, consistent manner.  Posts in this thread reveal that other members of the community get better treatment, and there are complaints about consistency in moderation.   Why are they taking the same steps as chatsubo did?  These things piss me off far more than the issue itself.  Backstage is grossly underperforming and my intention is to improve it.  Moderators aren't selfless white knights, I'm confident that people would rise to the opportunity if an opening was made - I know I would.

Sure, the moderators could've sent you a PM and said "please change this post" meanwhile it remains on the boards for people to respond to until you have a chance to get the message and edit the post. You could counter argue and say that they could've just gotten rid of the first inappropriate comment and let you edit yours later, but the fact remains that they chose this particular course of action in order to avoid a long(er) discussion in relation to the moderated post.

Please, take a moment to think about it in context.  How potentially damaging was the content that they wanted removed?   Did I post somethign vile, pornographic, forum-breaking? How necessary was it to bin the post?  Should moderation be so aggressive?  Is it worth pissing someone off by binning their whole post on a whim without contacting them?

I put it to you a second time - if I hadn't rechecked the thread, I would have never known my post had been removed.  That in itself is poor moderation, especially because the moderator in question admitted there was nothing inappropriate with my post.

You could easily have just copy and pasted what you wrote and reposted it and been done in all of about two minutes with no issue. There's no reason to keep going on about it. The moderator has already answered your challenge and told you why they made their decision and what could be done about it.

The answers are unsatisfactory, as you can see from the replies I am giving.  Just because they reply to my complaint doesn't mean they have actually made good points.

You confuse me with your logic.  Let me put it to you like this - someone steals something from you of little value.  You can replace it, so the fact that someone steals something of small value from you is ok.  I'm arguing about a principle, not about the quantity of damage done.

What the moderator in question has done is wrong, and that is why this thread is here.  If they can't explain why they aren't wrong in a cogent manner, then I will press the issue.  It isn't just about this scenario.  I have been quietly facepalming to myself about so many moderator decisions...I'm just fed up.

If you want to continue making the point that they could've handled the situation better by sending you a PM, that's fine. I can agree with that. I simply don't agree that continuing to make a giant deal out of it like this is constructive or necessary.

If the moderators replied to me with those words, I would have stopped long ago.  If the moderator had said, 'yeah, I could have done that better, next time I'll pm you.  Sorry for pissing you off', I'd have been more than satisfied.  Can you see that tone anywhere?

[Silver Night]

You believing that you have debunked something doesn't mean that it has been debunked, Scagga.

The policy is and has been that when someone has a response to moderated material we will generally move their post to the catacombs and tell them they can repost. The reason we don't generally PM people instead is that we don't know when that person will receive that PM, and we want to avoid the aforementioned confusion, or people responding to the response, etc which leads to the thread becoming a mess, which is what we are trying to avoid.

There have been specific situations where we PMed people - usually when they posted something that was borderline (as far as the rules were concerned) rather than when they responded to moderated material and asked them to change it. All of that is situational, and one of the things that this board allows is for moderators to not take a one-size-fits-all approach to moderation (though we do have a couple of fairly strong guidelines, including the one that suggests we not moderate only parts of posts, for example.)

In most situations, including the one we are discussing, we feel it is better to avoid the potential issues of references to posts that are no longer there in the however-long-it-takes for a person to log back in and see a PM. Particularly give the effort involved in hitting ctrl-c and ctrl-v is about the same effort involved in highlight > delete, without those potential complications. I understand that the difference is you changing it yourself rather than the moderators doing it, but we will continue to put the health of the board above your personal sensibilities in this matter.

I don't need you to 'accept my statement', and I understand that you see it as a big difference.

You can certainly disagree with the policy, but I'm not sure that insulting moderators and assuming that the only possible reason we wouldn't change our mind is because we can't understand or didn't read what you wrote, or because we are being stubborn and defensive, is the best way to go about things.

While I understand that this is upsetting for you, that isn't sufficient reason for the policy to change. You being upset doesn't mean that the policy is wrong.

[scagga]

That is the most reasoned reply I've seen in this thread, Silver.  I agree with the principles you raise, but I think you need to consider moderator communication as part of the courtesy we expect on these forums.  It's all nice to expect posters to be polite and courteous to one another, but I think likewise it is only reasonable to expect the same if not more of a moderator.

I don't have doubts that you or any of the moderators want backstage to flourish.  I have made recommendations in this thread and hope you and the rest of the staff will consider them. There is discomfort with aspects of how things are run.  Lots of small irritations eventually lead to something (sometimes it is difficult to see), and considering your position I think it is reasonable to expect you to want to hear suggestions. 

[Silver Night]

I'm certainly happy to hear suggestions, but please keep in mind that doesn't mean that they will be implemented.

As for moderator courtesy, I want to reiterate something that I believe was mentioned earlier: Being a backstage moderator is a largely thankless volunteer gig. We aren't better because we are volunteers, and we aren't selfless as it is obviously in our interest to have a place where we can discuss our mutual hobby, and that's pretty much why we're here. But we also aren't compensated financially for do a job which is often extremely irritating (I actually pay for the privilege, in point of fact).

So, while courtesy is certainly encouraged (and staying within the guidelines and rules is obviously a must) if a moderator is curt or very direct or what have you because they have had an unpleasant day, or because they get frustrated or whatever, or because they are trying to communicate more clearly some point. Well. I will certainly be docking their pay.

All of that said, if you do see a moderator post that is actually in breach of the guidelines or rules, then please report it.

[Lyn Farel]

On the contrary, Scagga...I read the entire thread before I posted at all.

I read you posts and I understand where you're coming from. What I don't understand is why it has to become this big of a deal?

Sure, the moderators could've sent you a PM and said "please change this post" meanwhile it remains on the boards for people to respond to until you have a chance to get the message and edit the post. You could counter argue and say that they could've just gotten rid of the first inappropriate comment and let you edit yours later, but the fact remains that they chose this particular course of action in order to avoid a long(er) discussion in relation to the moderated post.

You could easily have just copy and pasted what you wrote and reposted it and been done in all of about two minutes with no issue. There's no reason to keep going on about it. The moderator has already answered your challenge and told you why they made their decision and what could be done about it.

That's my point.

If you want to continue making the point that they could've handled the situation better by sending you a PM, that's fine. I can agree with that. I simply don't agree that continuing to make a giant deal out of it like this is constructive or necessary.

I disagree with that, as explained in my former post (I will not repeat it). This way of doing can be an unproductive fuckfest sometimes, and a total lack of transparency.

And I am not sure anybody is doing a big deal out of it, though it can be frustrating when people are just unable to understand each other for different reasons (obviously Scagga and I are very cartesian people and have difficulties to cope with posts thought in a different way : factual people vs formal people).

The policy is and has been that when someone has a response to moderated material we will generally move their post to the catacombs and tell them they can repost. The reason we don't generally PM people instead is that we don't know when that person will receive that PM, and we want to avoid the aforementioned confusion, or people responding to the response, etc which leads to the thread becoming a mess, which is what we are trying to avoid.

There have been specific situations where we PMed people - usually when they posted something that was borderline (as far as the rules were concerned) rather than when they responded to moderated material and asked them to change it. All of that is situational, and one of the things that this board allows is for moderators to not take a one-size-fits-all approach to moderation (though we do have a couple of fairly strong guidelines, including the one that suggests we not moderate only parts of posts, for example.)

In most situations, including the one we are discussing, we feel it is better to avoid the potential issues of references to posts that are no longer there in the however-long-it-takes for a person to log back in and see a PM. Particularly give the effort involved in hitting ctrl-c and ctrl-v is about the same effort involved in highlight > delete, without those potential complications. I understand that the difference is you changing it yourself rather than the moderators doing it, but we will continue to put the health of the board above your personal sensibilities in this matter.

With a genuine curiosity here, why can't you moderate only parts of posts ? This seems to me the perfect and logical thing to do. Why alienating the members by asking them to repost (if they even are warned that they have been moderated or do not visit the catacombs) ? Why killing the valuable work for the sake of killing the part that has to be killed, then asking to repost that valuable work ? I probably lack of info here, but I find this quite... yes, definitly unproductive and repetitive.

[Silver Night]

I realize it can seem counter-intuitive. Primarily it's there to prevent moderators from accidentally changing the intent of someone's post, 'editorializing' or appearing to. And as mentioned, I don't think making people use ctrl-c/ctrl-v so that they can repost the parts of their post they want to, if they want to, is tantamount of 'killing' their post.