Discussion in 'Random Thoughts' started by ChiefCowpie, Jan 13, 2005.
I make an excellent yucca caserole.
no thanks, we'll be fine
Ive conntacted the mods 3 times and got a reply once and the situation was delt with well that time.
Ive seen the chief around, the other two I don't even know who you are.
so I would say your doing an average to below average job
What an EXCELLENT SUGGESTION - I wholeheartedly second this one!!! I get so sick of changes being made with no explanaition (not just in the Random Thoughts forum, but in other forums on here as well). If we are going to be censored or disciplined or if someone thinks a forum feature is being abused or whatever, it would be nice (actually it OUGHT TO BE A MORAL IMPERATIVE) to let us know the who, what, where, when and why's of it. Making changes like closing threads and such with no publicly acknowledged rationale behind it are police state tactics and should be avoided.
I think there are som mods (and perhaps people even higher up) who let their own morality get in the way of running a Free Speech board in an ethical manner.
I mean.. ultimately.. it's Skip forum and if he chooses to do whatever with it, it's his complete right to do so. However.. there are people here that pay money to keep this site running.. so you could question how ethical that is and even if it's lawful. A many heard answer from the mods when dealing with issues like this is: we are just human, we can make mistakes and/or don't have the time for explanations.
There is a pretty simple answer to that:
1. Sure, you are human.. you make mistakes.. but that means that you can also correct them and apologise (eg. if you close threads because you are grumpy.. you can reopen them and apologise) . However, if this 'mistakes' happen to often, your ability for being a mod should be open for discussion without having the threat of being banned.
2. If you feel you have so little time that you can't even type out an explanation of why you close a thread or ban someone you shouldn't be a moderator. There are lots of qualified people here with lots of time on their hands (just look at the post counts), who'd be happy to take over. This is not an excuse.
See? Some positive changes aren't that difficult.
And it seems/feels crazy.. it's like there is some underground revolution starting here and it's a hippy forum! How did this ever became such a police state-like forum?
I think the 'banning' situation is getting WAY out of hand here. I've got a big long list of total assholes who deserve to be banned but haven't, yet you ban others. I don't think you have a clue what you're doing. Oh, and if you wanna ban me for my opinion, fine, but remember, YOU ASKED.
There are over 14,000 people on here...
there are ~70 people that have moderation abiliites (most are personal forum owners)
there are but TEN users that can issue bans..
Moderation work can be real annoying sometimes (e.g. someone is persistantly spamming and you are trying to clean up after them to make it better for everyone else)
IMHO bans are not generally dealt out without some cause, especially not long term or permenant bans.
If a moderator is doing something you think they shouldn't be doing:
PM them, maybe they can explain it to you.
Post in UserSupport, it is often checked by Skip and the other SuperMods
PM Skip. After that there is no recourse.
All of us mods get complaints from time to time (even me!) most of the times there is a good explination for what happened.
Banned users are generally warned or given short term suspensions before any long term action is taken against them.
Xaosflux, thanks for responding. However, there are some things I'd like to ask/add. I'm going to use numbers for easy reading/respons (not because I'm making 'points').
1. How can we feel free to openly stand up if we feel like someone is wrongfully banned, if the guidelines state "So those who complain about a banishment, are subject to being banned themselves."?
2. The issue of not explaining (or be willing to talk about) why a certain thread is closed is subject to the normal forummoderators (so not the few who can ban). Don't you feel that if people have so little time to type out a simple explanation, they have too little time as well to be a good moderator? I can understand that people are busy, that's fine, but than you shouldn't be in charge of a whole forum.
3. To avoid your answer to nr. 2. being "there are ~70 people that have moderation abiliites (most are personal forum owners)" and to question that line at the same time: I really like to think that there are more than ± 70 people in this huge forum that are qualified for being moderator. I think there are plently people with the technical skills, the time, the heart and the common sense to do this job perfectly. I have a couple of users in mind that would do a great job in my opinion and seeing the role they play in these forums at the moment, I think a lot would agree. I'm not going to post their names here because I don't want to turn this thread into a popularity contest.
4. Note that I am/we are not saying "all moderators bad".. we're just making suggestions and we really feel like we are not being heard and are even risking banning (see forumguidelines) by what we are doing (see the thread in members signals/announcements as well). I/we have a few simple suggestions and I'd like to ask if and why (either way) it would be possible to make these changes:
Seek more people to help out the current moderators. Give them a 'test period' if needed. This way an 'old mod' can help the 'young mod' how it's done or he/she can keep an eye on them. This will cost a bit more time and effort in the beginning but will save the mod a lot of time in the future.
Now that there are more mods, make it a guideline rule for them that they should try and give more explanations. This is very educational towards other members and will stop the feeling of randomness. If needed, make these threads closed so there is no discussion. This is needed for closing threads (they really should make a last post with a solid explanation) and banning.
Change the forumguideline where asking for/standing up for banned members can get you banned as well. A lot of discussions about why someone is banned is avoided by the clearity given in the second change (since now people don't even know if it's a temp ban, if the user has a history of flaming in other thread, a full ban etc..). For those cases that seem ambiguous there most be room to discuss. There most be some rules about this as well, since even the worst flamers have friends at the forum, but that's simply finetuning.
These simple changes will probably bring some more rest and democracy to the forum, since there situation now is that are people leaving, talking about leaving or not donating or become weary against mods because of the closing threads and banning issues.
Xaosflux, what do you think of this?
(I'm going to copy this post in the other thread as well, to avoid two discussion being held).
Youve got some excellent points here..remember I don't run the place, Skip does! Hopefully CCowpie started this thread to make some good, and hopefully some will come from it...I've got some comments inline:
This is a tricky one..generally someone who has been banned gets several warnings first..if this is someone that you communicate with regularly offsite you can easily follow up with them...we are kicking around ideas of making it easier to tell if somone is on a suspension or really banned for good.. Suspension times can range from 1 day to 2 years, but we usually dont bother with suspensions over 90 days, if someone gets to that level they are usually gone for good...
You will NOT get banned for asking a moderator about a ban, but starting threads about it is not helpful, sending messages to EVERY moderator is not helpful either..
Generally threads are closed for one main reason: being off-topic to the forum they are in (of course this forum has no topic...but for the rest of the the forums its generally pretty obvious) ; the next most common reason for threads being closed is due to the thread being a habitat for personal attacks, again these are usually obvious...for threads that are not obvious a closing post with a brief explination from the mod sounds like a great idea to me, generally when i close a thread in a forum i use it....
IMHO every 'public' forum should have at least one member moderating it...that view is not necessarily shared with the other staff, and in fact some forums 'have no problems and dont need a moderator'....we did add some forum moderators last year to some public forums, and they seem to be working out great..hopefully that trend will continue.
see my reply above
Moderator mentoriing is great, I've done it with a few forums and haven't had many problems since..
see above..btw most banned users get MANY second chances...(except spammers, i hate spammers!)
With this mature and deep thinking about the whole process of forums communication, I hope Skip and all the supermoderators reads this as it say it all.
I'm actually quite frustrated by some of the moderators here at hipforums so I don't even post in their areas anymore. As many of you know, I have a rather sophistacated sense of humour that is not easily understood... even Skip and he's a really smart guy has had his problems at time. I really have an ear for the frustrations expressed here but on the other hand, baby sitting obnoxious posters takes up lots of time for the forum managers and I think some moderatorors don't have the skills, intelligence to distinguish between what is a post meant to provoke enlightenment and what is a post meant to just plain provoke.
xaos... i just wanna add/say that you have always been one of my fav. moderators- i think you do a very good job, make sense and are very responable.
chief- you are just plain awesome.
and velvet... those were some GREAT points.
mmm, im craving some snickers right now. i'd settle with just chocolate though.
i really don't think they need to explain banning people. or maybe they should.
"____ was banned because he's a worthless dumbass"
That would work for me.
Just got uot of bed and read the rest of this thread.. I have to say that I'm really happy with the communication here, finally so total openness.
I was pm'ing with another mod as well (about private stuff, didn't even know he was a mod) and he explained that some threads are closed as well when they get very long and don't have a real discussion or sth (like the game threads) because they eat bandwith. Things like that I can fully understand.. and a last post with that in it before closing the thread would be great.
... Xaosflux.. thanks for your elaborate answer.. Chiefcowpie.. I hope you can work things out since it would be nice if the mods can get along.. hehe.. would make a nice drama though "civil war: the banning of the mods"
Anyways.. I'm gonna get some breakfast, again, thanks for the serious responses!
stop putting stickys everywhere!!!!!
Actually what happens when mods get in a "civil war" is that we start closing the other mod's threads or deleting their comments. I think if we started banning each other, Skip would be pretty upset.
Would I get banned If I said you sucked?
Everyone know cheif sucks but what does that have to do with anything
Separate names with a comma.