|
Originally Posted by Jenbel
(Post 17655305)
And, since moderators were unable to defend themselves - they (as I wasn't one at the time) found there were a large number of outright lies being put out (for example, one might be 'I was suspended for wishing someone a Happy Birthday!' when the member knew full well that was symptom, not the cause), which could not be refuted due to Randy's restrictions to the mods on discussing discipline with anyone other than the person disciplined and possibly other mods/Randy. These lies sounded terribly oppressive to those who didn't know the real truth, fostering ill-feeling against the moderators - who could not speak back/give their version/post what had actually happened.
Sounds like discussion of moderation would have allowed the truth to come out, perhaps? |
Originally Posted by Jenbel
(Post 17655305)
Just a bit of revisionist history!
(snip) And, since moderators were unable to defend themselves - they (as I wasn't one at the time) found there were a large number of outright lies being put out He, in turn, answered that he does not agree for me to show anyone what he wrote to me. Which of us do you think was trying to hide something? |
Originally Posted by Jenbel
(Post 17655305)
Just a bit of revisionist history!
In the beginning, moderation could be discussed more freely on FT. However, it was observed that to do so, didn't make many of the dissatisfied more satisfied. They were dissastified because they profoundly disagreed with the approach to moderation, often because they had been on the board since the beginning and their viewpoint had never changed from that of it being a small board with a handful of members where we all had a thrilling time discussing how great we were. They wanted to carry on being able to post what they wanted where they wanted... along that route lay madness. And, since moderators were unable to defend themselves - they (as I wasn't one at the time) found there were a large number of outright lies being put out, which could not be refuted due to Randy's restrictions to the mods on discussing discipline with anyone other than the person disciplined and possibly other mods/Randy. These lies sounded terribly oppressive to those who didn't know the real truth, fostering ill-feeling against the moderators - who could not speak back/give their version/post what had actually happened. Given the choice between allowing these types of conversation to continue to no good effect, or allowing mods to openly speak about other people's discipline, or banning conversation entirely since this is a board about points and miles, Randy chose the third course. All that meant was that those who were still dissatisfied tried to use TB as an outlet for their dissatisfaction. As a result, and because Randy thought that moderation policy should be independent of popularity contests, TB and moderation were separated. In a way it is sad. A large amount of dissatisfaction arose (IMHO) because those who were dissatisfied were such because they were not in control of the board, and many of them did not appreciate that loss of control. Yet because of them and the hue and cry they raised against ALL moderation, we lost all ability to discuss moderation honestly and openly. Moderation isn't perfect and it would be great to be able to discuss members' views on some issues (and indeed some of us are able to do this when we reach a point where we are unsure what the forum users want - cf. the thread in Cbuzz on commercialisation of dos). But at the same time, when you volunteer to do a task to assist/help, only to find someone is willing to lie to everyone else about what you said to them when they overstepped the rules of FT, well forgive us for being human and not wanting to waste our time engaging in trying to refute that kind of lying spin which tells us how evil and capricious we all are. Sadly, as moderators know, not all people do act reasonably when approached reasonably. Some really, really, really cannot ever admit they overstepped the mark, don't like being told no, or that they behaved badly - and will continue to attempt to argue for the rest of their time on FT that it was all the mods fault... of course not theirs'! {Edited by moderator to reflect changes made by OP in her original post} It is helpful to be able to see the issue from many of them. Of course, that Randy did things one way does not necessarily make them the best way. The world does not exist in black and white. Absolutes are a recipe for disaster. There ARE forms of constructive feedback and collaboration that can make FT a better place. Those are in place and working in some forums. They should be expanded. That is what this thread is all about. |
Originally Posted by kokonutz
(Post 17654440)
He shielded these folks from any form of criticism by making ANY discussion of moderation grounds for swift and certain disciplinary action. He wanted his moderators to be answerable to him and him alone.
|
Let's stay on topic and minimize back and forth argumentative banter.
|
I see two parts to this discussion: disciplinary actions and thread management (merging, moving, closing, etc.)
Leaving aside the disciplinary actions part of this, I have questions for the Mods; How can you tell if there are questions about about your moderation style, if no one is allowed to ask ? How often are you questioned, or called out about it ? Is it always the same people, or group ? I think it would be helpful to all if the decision making process of thread management was open to questions publicly without violating the TOS. If members could ask publicly, the public response or lack of response from the moderator would let all know what was going on. If a "question" was obviously snarky, looking for a fight or always from the same person(s) the other members would see that too, and know who is the real trouble maker(s). Regards, Mych |
People are allowed to ask - we just ask that they do so by PM, not publicly. For some reason though - and I don't understand the reasons I must admit - some people feel they must be allowed to ask publicly, as somehow that is better than getting into a 1:1 with the mods about what concerns them. I don't get the logic behind this I must admit.
On my own forums, I usually hear about it if members are unhappy with what I do. Who it is can vary depending on who is affected by my decision. We've had some regular complainers on one of my forums, who we've tried to engage with to little effect, and on the other, I've had very few questions/comments about moderation - more praise/thanks I think than commentary after some early suspicion when I was appointed. The regular complainers have dwindled off on the first forum - not satisfied, but also I think realising that we aren't going to shift our moderating position as we don't necessarily agree with their ideas for the forum (we have grown a lot since the early days and as we have done so, so the forum has changed - sometimes, this isn't always recognised by those not involved in the management of the forum). In a forum like Communitybuzz! what's appropriate for it is somewhat vague 'I'll know it if I see it' - we get a lot of random threads posted (our biggest mod job is actually redirecting threads to more appropriate fora), and trying to decide if something is appropriate or if not, where it should go, is more of an art than a science. We are guided in our decisions by RBPs from the members who use the forums - if a thread receives a lot, then it likely isn't that appropriate for the forum - if we disagree, we may put a note in the thread explaining why we are going to let the thread continue, and members would be free to PM to ask about that. RBPs are a great tool for letting mods get a feeling from the members as to what they like and what they don't like.
Originally Posted by Mych
I think it would be helpful to all if the decision making process of thread management was open to questions publicly without violating the TOS
|
Originally Posted by Jenbel
(Post 17660378)
What is the difference between being able to ask publicly rather than privately? Afterall, if you are simply asking questions, you'll probably get a better, fuller response in private than in public.
Regards, Mych |
Originally Posted by Jenbel
(Post 17660378)
What is the difference between being able to ask publicly rather than privately? Afterall, if you are simply asking questions, you'll probably get a better, fuller response in private than in public.
Another positive: it gives posters an opportunity to provide a public 'thank you for a job well done' to mods....and lets mods as well as other posters know that those posters feel the mods are on the right track if indeed they are. |
Originally Posted by Jenbel
(Post 17660378)
What is the difference between being able to ask publicly rather than privately? Afterall, if you are simply asking questions, you'll probably get a better, fuller response in private than in public.
|
Originally Posted by BadgerBoi
(Post 17663607)
Originally Posted by Jenbel
What is the difference between being able to ask publicly rather than privately? Afterall, if you are simply asking questions, you'll probably get a better, fuller response in private than in public.
|
Originally Posted by goalie
(Post 17663689)
And in this case, what then is the poster to do? Contact the CD about the actions of the Moderator in question? And with no dis-respect meant or intended to the CD whatsoever :), but to use what others have been saying, "it was Randy's policy not to discuss Moderators and moderation,and I see nothing wrong with that", I see the issue for the poster being dead in the water :td:
|
Originally Posted by BadgerBoi
(Post 17663607)
Or no response at all, which is the case on one particular forum when I tried to PM the moderator with a very genuine question (ie as to why my posts were being subjected to the letter of the ToS while others with opposing views were not).
Originally Posted by goalie
(Post 17663689)
And in this case, what then is the poster to do? Contact the CD about the actions of the Moderator in question? And with no dis-respect meant or intended to the CD whatsoever :), but to use what others have been saying, "it was Randy's policy not to discuss Moderators and moderation,and I see nothing wrong with that", I see the issue for the poster being dead in the water :td:
Originally Posted by BadgerBoi
(Post 17664166)
I considered my options and decided that I just couldn't be bothered to take it further. Maybe the Mod had good reasons for his actions, but I'll never know.
IMHO the current CD is not Randy who was always on the road either doing a MR or a related activity to benefit FT and TF. In fact there were many times that it took forever for even a moderator to receive a response from Randy. Carol has proven herself to be much more accessible to all members so I don't buy into this argument that you will be ignored if you reach out to the CD. @:-) |
Originally Posted by goalie
(Post 17663689)
And in this case, what then is the poster to do? Contact the CD about the actions of the Moderator in question? And with no dis-respect meant or intended to the CD whatsoever :), but to use what others have been saying, "it was Randy's policy not to discuss Moderators and moderation,and I see nothing wrong with that", I see the issue for the poster being dead in the water :td:
If it has been a while since the PM was sent, I'd certainly suggest re-sending it. Use a friendly tone, "just want to make sure you saw this." Depending on the forum(s) the moderator is responsible for, they could get many PM's...and it could have gotten misplaced. |
Originally Posted by aztimm
(Post 17667874)
I usually respond to PM's within a few hours, but once in a while I'm busy working, traveling, or whatever...and it could occasionally take 2 (or more) days. Depending on the nature of the PM, I may want to think through an appropriate response, possibly confer with forum co-moderators (or others) before replying.
If it has been a while since the PM was sent, I'd certainly suggest re-sending it. Use a friendly tone, "just want to make sure you saw this." Depending on the forum(s) the moderator is responsible for, they could get many PM's...and it could have gotten misplaced. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:12 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.