A discussion about Moderating

mike65

I've been reading this complaint which was seperated from its origins and stuck on the Help Desk, auerlio noted that the thread has been sidelined as no-one other than certain mods and the admins can chip in (with all that implies), so would it be remiss to have that thread moved to Feedback to allow a more inclusive dicussion?

Or would that be rather optimistic on my part?

Mike

Nevyn

Noise to signal ratio is a problem on this forum and it it is seriously complaint that warrants being investigated then the helpdesk is where it should be.

orestes

It's none of our business tbh. It's not a discussion about moderation, it is a discussion about the moderation of a single forum, and all of the people concerned can contribute to it there. I'd imagine the reason it is there is so that we can't respond, and therefore randomers can't ruin the discussion

humanji

Pity. It could do with a few lolcats.

seamus

Specific issue: Help Desk

General suggestion: Feedback

Insect Overlord

On the general topic of moderating, specific to a particular poster over the last few days, why is it that some trolls are permitted to continue posting long after they have been found out?

It looks like some of the mods are actually enjoying the ridiculousness of the situation in After Hours at the moment, with Twitching Anus being the centre of attention. Am I right in thinking they're just leaving his threads open for sport at this stage? Or have I misread the whole situation? (the latter could be likely, knowing me...)

Nevyn

If you have a problem with a post report it.

Karl Hungus

mike65 wrote: »

auerlio noted that the thread has been sidelined as no-one other than certain mods and the admins can chip in (with all that implies), so would it be remiss to have that thread moved to Feedback to allow a more inclusive dicussion?

Someone's complaining that only the smods and admins can chip in, but when these kinds of threads are posted in Feedback, then people complain that everyone is chipping in. I think the situation is simply that people are going to find fault with the way things are done reguardless, even if the recourse is changed, as it has been. Quite frankly, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

leninbenjamin

I don't like the Help desk system myself, although it is far improved on the feedback system. how about creating a system whereby lay-people can request access to specific help-desk threads where they feel they can make a constructive contribution? could even go with something like the PI model where the posts must get moderator approval or something. just a thought.

AlmightyCushion

leninbenjamin wrote: »

I don't like the Help desk system myself, although it is far improved on the feedback system. how about creating a system whereby lay-people can request access to specific help-desk threads where they feel they can make a constructive contribution? could even go with something like the PI model where the posts must get moderator approval or something. just a thought.

That would be a disaster to be honest, the smods would have pms from every gobshíte requesting access to every thread just so they can post their +1 to someones post. Then when they decided not to allow someone access to a thread, that person would start a helpdesk/feedback thread complaining about the smods being biased against them and not letting them have their say etc.

auerillo

mike65 wrote: »

I've been reading this complaint which was seperated from its origins and stuck on the Help Desk, auerlio noted that the thread has been sidelined as no-one other than certain mods and the admins can chip in (with all that implies), so would it be remiss to have that thread moved to Feedback to allow a more inclusive dicussion?

Or would that be rather optimistic on my part?

Mike

I've just noticed this thread and am the author of the original post, which I posted in the politics thread, and which the moderator Oscar bravo moved, unilaterally, to the help desk.

Funnily enough, I didn't realise that no one else was allowed to post there until i started to be contacted by guys who wanted to post there to add evidence to my argument, but who were not allowed to do so.

Initially, i thought this was outrageous, but after I've thought about it and also after reading Seamus' reply to another thread like this one, which he closed, I understand the difference between Feedback & help desk, and think when an issue is serious and requires thought, it is perhaps better to not allow multiple posters to come in and add their "+1" or comments which take from or dilute to issue at hand. ( Just look at the feedback threads on similar issues which have strayed a long way from the original point which became obscure and lost).

My objective is to bring to the attention of the members of the site a certain problem which has been experienced by a number of people, (I know of at least 30 who have experienced the same problem, which probably means there are a lot more about whom I would have no knowledge), and on mature reflection I think the best way to do that is through the help desk as the problem is not diluted by lots of other posters, and can remain specific and to the point.

Lets hope now those in authority will take the point on board, and work to resolve it!

Bob the Builder

That was a well constructed post auerillo.

I believe that the decision to move to the Help Desk was the right move. Whilst I see where everyone is coming from, I agree with Mr. Hungus when he says we'll disagree no matter what....

Nevyn

If others are helping you with your case and providing you links then why don't you use them ?

ShakeAndBake

Thaedydal wrote: »

If others are helping you with your case and providing you links then why don't you use them ?

Perhaps auerillo can handle it and is using the help provided.

Just here to add the helpdesk system seems to be working really well and feedback had been cleaned up beyond belief. Well done smods.

:pac:

Overheal

Well as suggested in yonder thread Gandalf although a politics mod in name still seemed to have gone and PM'd Vexxorg asking for permission to respond to that help desk thread. That seems a lot easier to control than an open forum for a specific question. If you reallyu feel you have something substantial to contribute than PM an Admin or something. But I'm sure most of your submissions could be added if you PM'd the plaintiff so he could add it into his own next post.

VH

fair play to auerillo - in there battling it out against 3 or 4 mods on his own with no support

somebody impartial and with authority - bit like a judge - needs to come in an stamp a ruling on the whole thing - auerillo is very convincing and the mods are a bit repititive spinning the old party line

humanji

VH wrote: »

fair play to auerillo - in there battling it out against 3 or 4 mods on his own with no support

somebody impartial and with authority - bit like a judge - needs to come in an stamp a ruling on the whole thing - auerillo is very convincing and the mods are a bit repititive spinning the old party line

The mods are repetitive? If you read the thread you'll see that Auerillo really is talking shìte. Someone who has a different opinion to his also happens to be the mod who caught him breaking the rules. Auerillo sees this as someone bullying him. I'm sure most people would see it as someone breaking the rules and being in a strop because they didn't get away with it.

seamus

VH wrote: »

fair play to auerillo - in there battling it out against 3 or 4 mods on his own with no support

somebody impartial and with authority - bit like a judge - needs to come in an stamp a ruling on the whole thing - auerillo is very convincing and the mods are a bit repititive spinning the old party line

I've already made an impartial ruling and auerillo has accepted it.

auerillo, like many Politics posters, like nothing more than to argue and argue and argue, even if all they're doing is rehashing the same argument over and over and over and not actually making any progress. He may be eloquent and have good literacy skills, but that doesn't give him more weight.

auerillo

humanji wrote: »

The mods are repetitive? If you read the thread you'll see that Auerillo really is talking shìte. Someone who has a different opinion to his also happens to be the mod who caught him breaking the rules. Auerillo sees this as someone bullying him. I'm sure most people would see it as someone breaking the rules and being in a strop because they didn't get away with it.

I wasn't aware that I had broken any rules, so I have no idea to what you refer. I do consider guys who are rude, who threaten others in public and who are aggressive and confrontational to be bullying. As none of us contribute to the politics threads any more (I tried to recently and realised immediately it was a mistake), it seems unclear why you should decide that all those guys should say what they have said because "Someone who has a different opinion to his also happens to be the mod who caught him breaking the rules". It doesn't make any sense why all those guys should say that, and appears illogical.

seamus wrote: »

I've already made an impartial ruling and auerillo has accepted it.

auerillo, like many Politics posters, like nothing more than to argue and argue and argue, even if all they're doing is rehashing the same argument over and over and over and not actually making any progress. He may be eloquent and have good literacy skills, but that doesn't give him more weight.

Actually , I wasn't aware you had made a ruling. In any case, all I have done is to quote the opinions of other members, and a ruling can't validate or invalidate their opinions.

Some keep saying that i am making an argument. I am not. I am quoting the opinions of other menbers, in addition to which I have my own opinion.

All I am asking for was someone senior to have a quiet word with the one guy all these members claim is the reason they no longer post in the politics threads. If your ruling is to prevent someone senior from having a word, that's your ruling and, its not my place to accept or reject it. it's your decision.

Mind you, it does see there is a disproportionate number of members holding what is largely the same opinion about the individual in question. In your experience, do other mods get the same volume of members expressing what is, largely the same opinion, leading them to ceasing to contribute to threads?

And, if not, why do you think that all these members hold that opinion?

Fysh

auerillo wrote: »

I wasn't aware that I had broken any rules, so I have no idea to what you refer. I do consider guys who are rude, who threaten others in public and who are aggressive and confrontational to be bullying.

I may be wrong, but in the Helpdesk thread that was created for this I didn't see you actually provide specific posts which you considered to be bullying. You stated that you felt the mod in question was a bully, which is a legitimate complaint - but I don't think you've backed up the complaint with any specific posts or threads in which the behaviour is demonstrated. (I am aware of the various posts you cited related to a previous complaint, but since that complaint was not upheld I would consider those posts to be irrelevant to your current complaint).

Stating that other people feel they've been bullied out of the forum doesn't help and is irrelevant - if the mod in question has bullied people, there must be proof of it somewhere and that's what needs to be shown. You, as the complainant, have to provide the basis of the complaint. If you can't do that (eg because threads/posts you're thinking of have been deleted/moved) then provide as much detail as you can of them and request that one of the admins check them out.

auerillo wrote: »

All I am asking for was someone senior to have a quiet word with the one guy all these members claim is the reason they no longer post in the politics threads. If your ruling is to prevent someone senior from having a word, that's your ruling and, its not my place to accept or reject it. it's your decision.

Mind you, it does see there is a disproportionate number of members holding what is largely the same opinion about the individual in question. In your experience, do other mods get the same volume of members expressing what is, largely the same opinion, leading them to ceasing to contribute to threads?

And, if not, why do you think that all these members hold that opinion?

It is worth pointing out that Feedback has, in the past, seen many Politics threads which showed that several people who've posted there appeared to think that the rules didn't apply to them. Witness the fiasco concerning whether people could refer to Bertie Ahern as a liar, for example. In that context (a forum specifically built around forthright discussion and likely to involve people with diametrically-opposed viewpoints on a regula basis) I can see the reasons for a moderator taking a more public approach to warnings/infractions/bannings, on the basis that it would hopefully serve as a constant reminder to everyone that the rules are there and not to be ignored. It's not hard to see how such behaviour could be construed as bullying, and thus such complaints should be addressed seriously - however, they can only be investigated adequately if the pertinent evidence is provided, because the very nature of the forum and some of those who post there is such that accusations without substantiating evidence must be considered suspect.

humanji

auerillo wrote: »

I wasn't aware that I had broken any rules, so I have no idea to what you refer. I do consider guys who are rude, who threaten others in public and who are aggressive and confrontational to be bullying. As none of us contribute to the politics threads any more (I tried to recently and realised immediately it was a mistake), it seems unclear why you should decide that all those guys should say what they have said because "Someone who has a different opinion to his also happens to be the mod who caught him breaking the rules". It doesn't make any sense why all those guys should say that, and appears illogical.

Look at all the people you said have complained and are no longer posting in the Politics forum. Look how many of them broke rules and were either warned, infracted or banned for this. Look how many of them refused to admit that they did anything wrong. Look how many of them claim Oscar Bravo is a bully and abusing his position. And finally, look how many of them had been warned, infracted or banned by Oscar Bravo.

Now, can you honestly say that they are ALL complaining for the right reasons?

Also, you've been asked several times to point out where you feel OB has crossed the line and provided nothing but links where the admins have found nothing wrong.

You imply he's rude. Is that really such a problem? Besides, Has he really been rude, or has he just been abrupt and to the point with those who refuse to enter into debate?

You imply he threaten others in public. Did he? You do realise that that's a fairly heafty claim to make if you can't back it up?

And then you go on about being aggressive and confrontational. No more than anyone else, I'd say.

As has been said before, OB can be short and brunt. But he treats every user in Politics the same. If ANYONE crosses the line he'll call them on it. It just so happens that those who have opposing opinions to OB claim that he has an agenda.

To be honest, the only one I can see who is bullying is you. You didn't get your way and you've picked out someone to take it out on. If your claims were valid, it'd be easy to pick out thousands of examples. You've yet to provide any. It'd be easier for people to see you side of the story if you'd actually tell it instead of hinting at it.

seamus

All I am asking for was someone senior to have a quiet word with the one guy all these members claim is the reason they no longer post in the politics threads. If your ruling is to prevent someone senior from having a word, that's your ruling and, its not my place to accept or reject it. it's your decision.

Someone senior can have a word if they wish. The decision (by me) is that a word is not necessary. "Stop being so blunt" isn't something I'm going to say to any moderator any time soon.

Mind you, it does see there is a disproportionate number of members holding what is largely the same opinion about the individual in question. In your experience, do other mods get the same volume of members expressing what is, largely the same opinion, leading them to ceasing to contribute to threads?

When they've all been in violation of the charter or otherwise been banned or infracted for breaking the rules, then yes we do often see a whole rash of posters giving out about being abused or bullied by a single moderator based on their viewpoint. It's usually because they have broken the rules but refuse to accept it or refuse to believe that it was no-one else's fault.

Why have all of these people only contacted you in private? I'm sure if thanks was turned on in the helpdesk, your posts would be littered with thanks, but without any of these other aggrieved users actually contributing their 2c through another thread or on here. Why? Perhaps they know that oB was probably justified, but are hoping that if you fight the good fight, they'll somehow benefit. Some of them claim that they can't win, but that's their problem. I've got no interest in this issue. I will call out bad moderating where it exists.

It's a little like demonstrations. Messages can be correct, but very often in demonstrations, you'll have people who are disruptive and don't want to play within the rules, even when they have a valid reason for demonstrating. They get dragged off the street by the cops, handled roughly where they're resisting arrest, and then a week later there are fifty complaints lodged about abuse of power by the cops or claims that they were being targetted because of their viewpoint.
Is this evidence that there is a problem with the way that the cops handled the situation, or is it more likely evidence that people who consistently fail to abide by the rules are more likely to complain when the rules are applied to them?

Now, I'm not trying to compare anyone on the forum to a crusty tree-hugger, however it is an interesting dynamic.

amp (now sadly no longer a moderator), ran what I now see as a very interesting experiment on one forum. The title of the thread was "Post here to get banned". Everyone who posted on the thread (with the exception of Admins and Smods), was banned. amp was consistent, and didn't miss a single one. A massive number of people complained about the banning, citing various reasons why the ban wasn't justified or why it wasn't their fault (they didn't know), and plenty even accused amp of personal biase and bullying for banning them. The concept of the thread couldn't have been simpler, and yet for some reason, some people refused to accept that they got banned purely and completely, 100% through their own actions.

VH

I think that's a good idea there Seamus, in that someone very senior should have a say. Who would be as impartial as possible, considering it's impossible for someone with an vested interest in the whole system to actually be impartial? auerillo maybe could share his views on it?

auerillo has made convincing arguments to me, and has 4 mods arguing against him with the usual "proove it" lines, and even though he's provided enough proof for me it gets balled up ans shoved back at him.

My 2c worth of feedback.

Fysh

VH wrote: »

auerillo has made convincing arguments to me, and has 4 mods arguing against him with the usual "proove it" lines, and even though he's provided enough proof for me it gets balled up ans shoved back at him.

Speaking only for myself, I'm not taking a stance either way - my post was pointing out that I think any allegation of bullying should be taken seriously and the evidence looked at. As far as I can see, aurellio hasn't yet pointed to any specific posts of OscarBravo's in which the alleged bullying behaviour has occured, so nobody can really comment in a useful way.

That said, if his comments remain generalised and non-specific allegations of bullying, then the possibility that the accusation cannot be backed up with evidence (ie it is false, and possibly although not necessarily malicious) will have to be considered and appropriate action taken.

Fysh

i-bloodhound wrote: »

Fysh, could I ask, if you were the accuser and someone you believed was being a bully and all the other things the moderator in question is being accussed of, what proof you believe should be provided to demonstrate that bullying did occur? What particular content would you look for to back up your claims and expect to be taken seriously?

I would either:

a) link to existing posts/threads where the behaviour was displayed, where relevant pointing out where exactly the moderator in question was exhibiting this behaviour, or

b) in the case that posts/threads had been deleted or edited after the event to hide the occurence of such behaviour, provide thread titles, approximate dates/times of posting, and the names of the posters concerned to the best of my ability and ask that an admin review the contents of those posts.

I haven't come to any conclusion one way or the other. It's quite possible that case b) applies to aurellio, in which case this should be made clear either here or in the Helpdesk thread - at which point an admin's involvement will be required. However, if case b) doesn't apply then aurellio should be providing specific examples that can be objectively analysed, rather than making non-specific comments. The only posts cited thus far appear to be from a discussion of a previous complaint which was dismissed - thus, those posts are irrelevant.

Edited to add:

Either I'm going mad, or the post I was replying to has disappeared. Hmmm.

seamus

Fysh wrote: »

I haven't come to any conclusion one way or the other. It's quite possible that case b) applies to aurellio, in which case this should be made clear either here or in the Helpdesk thread - at which point an admin's involvement will be required.

Actually, we can see removed & edited posts, and I don't think there was anything relevant removed.

Either I'm going mad, or the post I was replying to has disappeared. Hmmm.

Yes it has. Because regardless of your response, he won't be happy.

Fysh

seamus wrote: »

Actually, we can see removed & edited posts, and I don't think there was anything relevant removed.
Yes it has. Because regardless of your response, he won't be happy.

Thanks for the clarification, wasn't sure if it was only Admins who could see an individual post's history. Also good to know I'm not going mad, I was starting to worry that trying to be reasonable and helpful in Feedback had pushed me over the edge

krpc

seamus wrote: »

Actually, we can see removed & edited posts, and I don't think there was anything relevant removed.
Yes it has. Because regardless of your response, he won't be happy.

:rolleyes:

krpc

Fysh wrote: »

I would either:

a) link to existing posts/threads where the behaviour was displayed, where relevant pointing out where exactly the moderator in question was exhibiting this behaviour, or

b) in the case that posts/threads had been deleted or edited after the event to hide the occurence of such behaviour, provide thread titles, approximate dates/times of posting, and the names of the posters concerned to the best of my ability and ask that an admin review the contents of those posts.

I haven't come to any conclusion one way or the other. It's quite possible that case b) applies to aurellio, in which case this should be made clear either here or in the Helpdesk thread - at which point an admin's involvement will be required. However, if case b) doesn't apply then aurellio should be providing specific examples that can be objectively analysed, rather than making non-specific comments. The only posts cited thus far appear to be from a discussion of a previous complaint which was dismissed - thus, those posts are irrelevant.

Edited to add:

Either I'm going mad, or the post I was replying to has disappeared. Hmmm.

Thanks for the response, Fysh. It was much appreciated

seamus

i-bloodhound wrote: »

:rolleyes:

It might interest you to know that I can see your edit notes (you know the box that says, "Reason for deleting"?). What I said is pretty accurate.

If you had left that box empty I would have said nothing.

krpc

seamus wrote: »

It might interest you to know that I can see your edit notes (you know the box that says, "Reason for deleting"?). What I said is pretty accurate.

If you had left that box empty I would have said nothing.

seamus, I am not particularly bothered to be honest. I had already PM'ed Fysh to inform him/her why the post in question was removed so no big deal to me.