[Fairygdmther]

I know of at least two other forums (which shall remain un-named) where Temps would have been banned for his escalated response. Locking a thread seems like a much less serious response, and a more reasonable one. This fair approach is primarily the reason for my being here.

A salute to the mods for keeping tempers in check as well as they do!





Lynsie

[SakSquash]

We're certainly not questioning your hard work. Please don't think that. But if these complaints are just the cries of brats, why waste your time replying?

[SakSquash]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

I know of at least two other forums (which shall remain un-named) where Temps would have been banned for his escalated response. Locking a thread seems like a much less serious response, and a more reasonable one. This fair approach is primarily the reason for my being here.

A salute to the mods for keeping tempers in check as well as they do!





Lynsie

I was banned.

[Fairygdmther]

Originally Posted by temporaryscars

I was banned.

Not for very long! I'm banned in two forums one for 1 1/2 years, one since last January, and I'm still banned.

Lynsie

[SakSquash]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

Not for very long! I'm banned in two forums one for 1 1/2 years, one since last January, and I'm still banned.

Lynsie

What!? You?! Banned?! I refuse to believe it!

[natalia]

I just wanted to add my kudos to the job that the moderators are doing. I also want to say that forum moderation is a tricky thing and people will have disagreements about forum moderation no matter what type of forum you're on.

Keeping an environment open enough so that you can have lively conversation and debate between people with different opinions without opening up to flamewars is difficult I'm sure.

I understand the discomfort with discussing in public the reasoning behind the closing of a particular thread (In other forums I've been to, like salon.com's TableTalk, moderators will never post about the specifics behind why a particular person was banned or given a strike -- although they will talk in general about everyone adhering to the community standards).

[Fairygdmther]

Oh, it's true! I defended my friend BJ, well actually I didn't - I just thanked someone else who had defended him, and I was banned for my association with him, at GB. At JA+, I deserved it, though. There was a huge war going on between BJ and Randy. I tried to mediate, and even talked to Randy on the phone a couple of times. I learned things about JA+ that I didn't need to know, and proceeded to post that in a final post, without naming names, but indicting all parties involved. The post lasted 2 1/2 hours before it was removed and I was banned. At the same time, I quit a third forum for their involvement. Evan and Marek managed to keep this place out of the line of fire.

Lynsie

Edit - My post was very serious and injurious - I doubt if I would ever be allowed back, even if I did want to go back. Many of the others were banned for mere association - that's why they were allowed to return.

[SakSquash]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

Oh, it's true! I defended my friend BJ, well actually I didn't - I just thanked someone else who had defended him, and I was banned for my association with him, at GB. At JA+, I deserved it, though. There was a huge war going on between BJ and Randy. I tried to mediate, and even talked to Randy on the phone a couple of times. I learned things about JA+ that I didn't need to know, and proceeded to post that in a final post, without naming names, but indicting all parties involved. The post lasted 2 1/2 hours before it was removed and I was banned. At the same time, I quit a third forum for their involvement. Evan and Marek managed to keep this place out of the line of fire.

Lynsie

Wow, you badass mutha.

That was the first time I had ever been banned from a forum. It actually drove me kinda nuts because I couldn't tell if the site was just down or if I was banned. I tried checking from other computers on campus, but it turned out that not only did they ban me, but they banned the entire SUNY New Paltz campus. I was surprised it only lasted a couple of days.

[Jackal]

But if these complaints are just the cries of brats, why waste your time replying?

Your question is really the entire point of ALL of this. You think I wouldn't personally like anything more than completely ignoring this entire thread? I'm answering because I've accepted (along with Doug and many others, obviously) the reponsibility for running the site, and that means making the effort to be publicly accessible. But there IS a point where that ends and we choose not to engage further. When people start insisting that we do, that's when we stop caring.

Incidentally, the whole "democracy" argument is ridiculous. No democracy works at a micromanagement level. As I already made clear, we welcome input and feedback, and take all expressed opinions into consideration. But don't go looking for referendums every time we consider closing a thread.

And you weren't banned. Give it a rest. You were given the forum equivalent of a "time out". Wow.

..........

I see that the unnamed forums are now being discussed in detail. Not happening, people.

[SakSquash]

Originally Posted by Jackal

Your question is really the entire point of ALL of this. You think I wouldn't personally like anything more than completely ignoring this entire thread? I'm answering because I've accepted (along with Doug and many others, obviously) the reponsibility for running the site, and that means making the effort to be publicly accessible. But there IS a point where that ends and we choose not to engage further. When people start insisting that we do, that's when we stop caring.

Incidentally, the whole "democracy" argument is ridiculous. No democracy works at a micromanagement level. As I already made clear, we welcome input and feedback, and take all expressed opinions into consideration. But don't go looking for referendums every time we consider closing a thread.

And you weren't banned. Give it a rest. You were given the forum equivalent of a "time out". Wow.

..........

I see that the unnamed forums are now being discussed in detail. Not happening, people.

Jackal, you don't have to be so hostile. This is just conversation, don't get so offended. I mean, look at this:

"And you weren't banned. Give it a rest. You were given the forum equivalent of a "time out". Wow."

Why be like that? I didn't know there was a "time out" feature. I figured I was just banned. Did you have to say it like that? It's just mean.

I guess there's no point in discussing it any further, because at the end of the day, you're the boss. So whatever you say, goes.

[Jackal]

No, I'm not the boss, and I don't pay the bills. I'm just doing a job that threads like these make increasingly unpleasant and time-consuming.

And I'm not being hostile, I'm being blunt. Throwing around the "banned" word may mean nothing to you, but it does to us. You weren't banned. As I said, if people tried to work WITH us instead of demanding we work more for them, we'd all be better off.

I agree there's no more point discussing it further, because no one is saying anything new.

[SakSquash]

What? You don't own the site? I thought you did! Oh man, mass confusion. Anyway, I do think you're doing a great job, so keep it up...unless you don't want to...i'm not saying you have to....forget it.

[Jackal]

Nope, that's Marek, the one that hates cheese. I love cheese. Cheese rules. But since this is NOT a democracy, AG remains an anti-cheese site. As editor, even I have to abide by the rules.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by Jackal

Nope, that's Marek, the one that hates cheese. I love cheese. Cheese rules. But since this is NOT a democracy, AG remains an anti-cheese site. As editor, even I have to abide by the rules.

I nominate this for post of the day.

[mag]

You see, this is why I've decided to stop posting here. There's no interest in having honest and open discussions.

I only returned to post today because I saw this thread, and I thought folks around here might be interested in ideas on how to make the site better. Basically, the point is that even though moderation will always include a certain amount of subjectivity, there should still be some general guidelines for what merits having a thread closed. And you have to let people know what those guidelines are. As far as I can tell, there are no guidelines here. It's just totally random. And if people don't know what they can or can't post, then closing threads isn't going to accomplish much.

But you can't even say that without certain people taking umbrage at it. Presumably, the whole reason the mods put all that "hard work" into the site is to provide an environment where people are comfortable talking to one another. So you might think they'd be open to some public discussion on how to improve said environment. But no. What we get instead is, "If you don't like it, you can just get out." Well, you know what? I think I'll do just that.

Originally Posted by mag

You see, this is why I've decided to stop posting here. There's no interest in having honest and open discussions.

Oh, please.

[squarejawhero]

ROFL. This thread is hilarious. I think this is the most liberal forum in the AG community. Plus, unlike many other general gaming forums, it's not full of flaming dicks (ouch).

If anything I feel you guys are too easy on repeat offenders and I still don't believe open moderating is a good thing... I mean, look at this thread, peoples reactions to mods speaking their mind... you guys would be better off with anonymous modding.

1) It means mods can use their seperate personal account without fear of misrepresenting the site.
2) When a mod steps in, it puts the fear of god into the people involved.

It's colder and there's rarely any arguing involved. Rarely. Having moderated the P+R forum and the others at JA+ for over a year, I had one person question my authority. He was a complete troll and hated by the entire community anyway... can you say "BANZ"? Anyone with issues with mods were directed to the admin and the thread kept on track.

Plus, you know where you stand. It's difficult here knowing when people are using their mod or rep hats and it can get in the way of discussion. Still, your choice. The problem is you just have to live with the fact the (non-paid) staff can't use the forum as a general member of public and are expected to represent the site. If the mods were anonymous you wouldn't have half the problems you have here!

Just my 2 cents.

[Melanie68]

I think it would be difficult to mod anonymously. I like knowing who the moderators are. I can tell when they are modding and when they aren't. Anonymity just creates a big brother, Orwellian feel whereas knowing who they are creates a more compassionate feeling for them in me. They are only human with good days and bad which will affect some decisions but not always. Also, you can never avoid conflict with the diverse group of people we have. I feel that the people here (forumites and mods) are a group of terrific, caring people who are doing the best they can.

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by BoyToy

Well, I strongly disagree. It's not necessery to add subjectivity to a thread, cause it's already there. In each and every post.

Not to the thread as such - but the decisions they make are MEANT to be subjective/empathic, so that the decision is made depending on the situation, not on the exact phrases use, the amount of times a 4-letter word is used, etc. Clearer now?

Originally Posted by BoyToy

I don't think anybody has done that. I have pointed out (and not accused) to the moderator, that he seemingly misunderstood something. What's unfair about that?

Not you did that - mag did. Mag was criticising that the posts being locked seems random to him, which is unfair, for the mentioned reasons.

Originally Posted by BoyToy

And on a more general note: If it shouldn't be possible to factually criticise moderators, we were in trouble. It's not like moderaters are uber-humans, who'd never make mistakes. So it's only for everyone's best, if they get a wide spectrum of feedback.

What the...? I never said not to criticise moderators. I said TAKE IT TO PM. If they don't respond to it, then you can still take it to the public board if you absolutely must, though honestly it would be better to leave if you disagree with a moderator despite having attempted to talk to them in PM.

If you want to know why, it's because if you start mod criticisms in public, you are undermining what little authority moderators have - people will jump the bandwagon like mag has... and moderators will feel attacked in turn, which is their full right to - and it makes them grouchy and it means your original point might just fall through the cracks.

What reason was there to post what you thought was a misunderstanding between two people publically? Would you not, if it had not been a moderator, tried to PM the person who misunderstood and point out how it could have been meant? It's a lot kinder to take it up with a person in person! This way it just looks like an accusation. A fingerpointing. A "look what XYZ did wrong". And it escalates from there.

Posting moderator criticisms in public helps no side as I see it.

Originally Posted by BoyToy

You know, the problem is: Closure of a thread is a public thing. A lot of people are witnessing it. Also the thread contents itself are witnessed by a lot of people. So, it should either be possible to explain the closure publically, or not be done at all in the first place. (Otherwise it can sometimes even appear as if something has been tried to hide.)

I'm not going to make a statement about this - you may or may not be right. Fact is, it doesn't change it that you should have, in my opinion, sent a PM rather than start a new thread about it.

Originally Posted by BoyToy

So, I really don't understand some people's fear of publicity.

I've tried to explain it above. You can think of it as vanity, but moderators NEED to radiate authority... it's all that keeps a board running properly. If mods lose their authority, they have more work than they can handle with pushing actual buttons like "delete" and "lock".

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

I think this is the most liberal forum in the AG community. Plus, unlike many other general gaming forums, it's not full of flaming dicks (ouch).

Very true

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

and I still don't believe open moderating is a good thing... I mean, look at this thread, peoples reactions to mods speaking their mind... you guys would be better off with anonymous modding.

I understand the mindset, but I disagree. It's hell for a moderator to have to back up what they do especially if they do it all with best intentions. I've been flamed on The Abyss on countless occasions and it has, in fact, made me cry. But in the end, there's always the people that support one which yank you back on track, and in doing that, the entire community stays a lot more interwoven.

I think here it's best to mention the example that is Trep. I think everyone considers him a good friend - with a couple of exceptions, perhaps. My first PM ever was to Trep before he had become aware of me (I hadn't posted yet, IIRC), thanking him, because he made me feel like this community would be worth dropping into.

I would have never joined this board if I felt there was no "open moderation".

It's an argument of emotions, granted, and it's all I can think of right now, but it's the reason I'll never consider "anonymous moderation" in any places I run.