Procedure of De-Modding

5starpool

Whatever about other peoples views on this, here is my take on a few things.

As mod I saw no need, nor had I any desire to be involved in a lot of the decision making on the site. The main things I had an issue with were, in no particular order:

1. Very little admin admittance that they could have handled things better when they clearly could have. If this is because they genuinely believe that nothing is/was wrong then so bee it.
2. Some new processes etc for mods that were just not needed. Was there really so many things that people were just doing that needed to be codified? If it ain't broke don't fix it.
3. Any of the big sh*tstorms of the past where a lot of people felt there was some admin errors (whether that be rashness, rudeness, or otherwise) seem to be repeated in each new sh1tstorm. I don't agree with Seamus's assessment that these are a bunch of malcontents in general that are voicing these perceived wrongs.
4. Several times I (and I have seen other people voice the same) have been getting the feeling of being spoken down to or totally ignored. I would not stand for that in work, never mind here where I expect people to be civil at least at the mod/admin layer, and although mostly they are there are enough examples of admins rubbing people up the wrong way to make it more than isolated exceptions.

There are other little things as well, but those may well just be in my head so I won't articulate them. To paint anyone who voices objections to the ways things are done in certain situations as a rabble rouser or troublemaker is just ridiculous.

Over the years a lot of the people now being referred to as troublemakers (or similar) have been great additions to their communities and the site at large imo, and to dismiss their opinion, even if only by silence as seems to be the case this last week or so, is wrong.

This silence seems to me a case of admins trying to decide a position but can't, or else pure indifference. Either way, the fact that there seems to be only one admin voice (irrespective of poster) is bad imo, and silence only makes this whole matter worse.

How many mods need to protest? How many to resign? How many users to shout does it take for people to get an answer?

Overdramatic? Perhaps, but too dismiss my, or anyone elses opinion with a "go elsewhere if you don't like it" is hardly constructive, and you are the second former admin (or former smod in the other case, same difference though imo) to use almost those exact same words. A cynic might say that it is voicing what some current admins may be thinking but cannot say.

tbh

5starpool wrote: »

3. Any of the big sh*tstorms of the past where a lot of people felt there was some admin errors (whether that be rashness, rudeness, or otherwise) seem to be repeated in each new sh1tstorm.

there's no getting away from this. Either the mods need to be told to accept admins decisions (and stick or twist based on that) or the admins need to find a way to communicate better.

_blank_

tbh wrote: »

the admins need to find a way to communicate better.

This.

In my opinion there should be an "Admin" account, so there can be no instances of a particular Admin who has a demonstrable "bad history" with a user/mod to be the one sending the communication.

If it came from a "central" account, then it may be a bit better

Hagar

Des wrote: »

This.

In my opinion there should be an "Admin" account, so there can be no instances of a particular Admin who has a demonstrable "bad history" with a user/mod to be the one sending the communication.

If it came from a "central" account, then it may be a bit better

Not very transparent though, the "Admin who has a demonstrable "bad history"" could very well be the unidentified admin posting via the "Admin" account and who would know?

Presumably all admins would be able to post via this account. That would entail 19 people having the password, no offence but nobody wants that security nightmare.

Podman

How about the "central" account where at least two Admins are required to sign on the big decisions?

themadchef

chompy wrote: »

How about the "central" account where at least two Admins are required to sign on the big decisions?

If admins feel mods are "walking a thin line" (for want of a better phrase) then tell them, crystal clearly what your issues are with them. Engage them, dont patronise them. I dont think a central account is a good idea as people will say they are hiding behind it.

A little bit of direct talking and a bit of respect for the mods who put in the time. Not too much to ask after all they give voluntarily. It's so much more about respect and less about bureaucracy.

leninbenjamin

seamus wrote: »

A user getting banned is of no relevance to other users. A mod getting demodded is of no relevance to other mods except their co-mods. Nobody else's opinion on the matter is of any relevance and they don't have to be listened to.

A use banned is someone other users can no longer have a discussion with. And indeed it is relevant to other users because it partially determines the acceptable actions that can be taken by a user. Admins on many occasions previously have said how each case is different and has to be treated on it's own merits. By definition then this means the ruleset or charter isn't entirely complete, so obviously this means there is some feedback mechanism in place that impacts the users and their future actions, even if indirectly.

A mod getting demodded is relevant to other mods because it obviously impacts their own duties in relation to the forum. They share the tasks involved in moderating, so how they execute said tasks will be severely impacted. Even if a replacement mod is elected immediately, there is still a change that needs to be processed and acted on.

I understand where you're coming from, but that's an exceptionally narrow minded stance, and tbh I'm quite unhappy that an admin would have such complete disregard for the users in their decision making.

BuffyBot

Just deleted a couple of posts to keep the thread on track folks.

I've been in touch with the user in question about his query

4zn76tysfajdxp

seamus wrote: »

A user getting banned is of no relevance to other users. A mod getting demodded is of no relevance to other mods except their co-mods. Nobody else's opinion on the matter is of any relevance and they don't have to be listened to.

Kiera

Maison Panicky Pool wrote: »

What crawled up his arse, they're winning 2-0

Handsome Bob

Kiera wrote: »

What crawled up his arse, they're winning 2-0

The boss dragged him off the pitch and told him that he wasn't needed anymore.

seamus

So, "lol" and some picture of an idiot are about the only rebuttals to my comment?

What happened to...you know...communication?

Please explain to me why one user's ban is any business of any other user. In general, we're not talking specifically here.

Wibbs

Maybe try reading leninbenjamin's last post as a kick off. As for lol and the GIF? A (moving) picture paints a thousand words.

If you cant see why your statement made people go eh wut? I really dont know.

Handsome Bob

seamus wrote: »

Please explain to me why one user's ban is any business of any other user. In general, we're not talking specifically here.

Posters should be respected because without them there is no boards. Their opinions matter and should be listened to because if they become disillusioned, it inevitably makes boards a worse place to come to. Dare I say it, a place not worth coming to.

If a poster feels another poster has been hard done by then they have a right to say it through the proper channels. What do you want dissenting voices to do, to be nice and quiet when they feel someone has been wronged, and still keep up the quality of their contribution to boards.ie?

If I'm managing and guiding a team, I'm not going to tell them to mind their own business when a decision is made that affects their fellow co-worker. Why? Simply because it's going to demoralise that team (if they feel their opinion isn't valued), and negatively impact on the quality of the work they produce.

What you are suggesting Seamus is akin to what I have outlined above. Hell the resignation of three highly respected mods is a perfect example of what I'm saying.

Fajitas!

What happened to...you know...communication?

This;

Nobody else's opinion on the matter is of any relevance and they don't have to be listened to.

seamus

Thanks, I obviously missed that.

It was a throwaway comment designed to start some sort of discussion on the topic, I was disappointed that no-one had actually addressed it but now I've seen lb's post.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

A use banned is someone other users can no longer have a discussion with. And indeed it is relevant to other users because it partially determines the acceptable actions that can be taken by a user. Admins on many occasions previously have said how each case is different and has to be treated on it's own merits. By definition then this means the ruleset or charter isn't entirely complete, so obviously this means there is some feedback mechanism in place that impacts the users and their future actions, even if indirectly.

And that's the key. Users are only affected if some form of previous unexpected precedent is set. Unexpected is the important word there because the accepted "code of conduct" on boards is wide open enough and left to common sense such that the vast, vast, majority of possible "offences" are obvious to any reasonable person. It's only when someone gets banned for something which wouldn't ordinarily ring "asshat" alarm bells, that there's suddenly a new precedent set.

The same goes for demodding. It's of interest to mods if a demodding results in, "Oh, I didn't think someone would get demodded for that".

However - to address my original statement - if someone gets banned or demodded for something which you would reasonably expect to have that action taken against you, then discussion of that action is irrelevant to other users. It doesn't make a difference how popular they are, how many friends they may or may not have, the same rules apply to everyone.

The obvious problem in the above sentence is "reasonable". There will always be someone who considers any particular ban unreasonable in any case. So someone has to decide somewhere that the reasoning was sound and "This is not up for discussion" and move on. That can be and has been called a lack of transparency, but it's reality. The admins (and the mods!) would be spending all of their time debating mundane and obscure points with people if all bans were all open to discussion from all users.

I understand where you're coming from, but that's an exceptionally narrow minded stance, and tbh I'm quite unhappy that an admin would have such complete disregard for the users in their decision making.

I'm not an admin, and as I say above it was more of a throwaway comment than a specific stance or hard and fast rule. The reaction to it however does illustrate a problem - that most people seem to take everything said as gospel. That every single word out of anyone's mouth is the last word on it. So instead of discussing it and going, "well hang on now, that's very simplistic", like you've done, they throw their hands up and inexplicably decide that a single statement is a comprehensive review of a person's stance, and set in stone.

If anyone had read any of my previous posts on feedback, they'd have spotted how incongruous that statement is from my other posts, when it's taken in isolation.

And this is one of the things I'm getting at. For some reason, when a issue flares up, it all becomes about what's said at that specific time. Instead of stepping back, taking the post in a general sense, every post is given specificity and tiny holes are picked in it to try and discredit it. That's not a discussion, that doesn't solve anything, all that does is make the respondent feel like they were right, but nothing actually gets accomplished.

If I'm managing and guiding a team, I'm not going to tell them to mind their own business when a decision is made that affects their fellow co-worker. Why? Simply because it's going to demoralise that team (if they feel their opinion isn't valued), and negatively impact on the quality of the work they produce.

Just to address this - If I'm managing and guiding a team and I have to fire a team member for conduct which would reasonably expect them to get fired, then yes I'm going to tell the rest of the team to mind their own business if they try to argue with me about it. Why? Because I'm the manager and it's my decision, it's not a democratic one.

If the action I'm taking is *not* reasonable given the "offence", then I would equally expect the entire team to explain that to me.

Nevyn

Some times a statement is just so wrong it's hard to take it on board and when you do there is often no point trying to explain to a person how wrong it is, no point trying to explain colour to the blind.

Look we take people on trust and we look at their forum like a racehorse.
Your statement struck me as being 'off' from you if I take your forum into consideration, you do get more slack but
such statement do cos consternation. The same thing goes with any mod or post or admin, we take into consideration our past interactions with them, by they active interactions or passive ones, we see how the treat others and how they act and react, and if there is a trend that causes concern then there is one.

As for your claim that you made that statement to prove a point or to have a discussion it well, it didn't seem it at the time and if you are declaring that to be the case now then no one likes to be baited in such a fashion.
And what ever your reason for making that statement, that statement not the reasons will stay with people a hell of a lot longer.

New circumstances crop up all the time on the site, seen it a lot of late as we have a shift in demographics and the blanket statement of no one should be concerned with any one else ban is not how communities work.

tbh

Thaedydal wrote: »

Some times a statement is just so wrong it's hard to take it on board and when you do there is often no point trying to explain to a person how wrong it is, IN YOUR OPINION, no point trying to explain colour to the blind.

FYP. Cause this is all this is. Opinions. Realistically, the website isn't run by comittee. Or it is, but it's a small committee.
Someones opinion has to be taken as the "boards" opinion.

Wibbs

seamus wrote: »

Just to address this - If I'm managing and guiding a team and I have to fire a team member for conduct which would reasonably expect them to get fired, then yes I'm going to tell the rest of the team to mind their own business if they try to argue with me about it. Why? Because I'm the manager and it's my decision, it's not a democratic one.

Its a middle management way of doing things, not to be confused with leadership or indeed actual management.

If the action I'm taking is *not* reasonable given the "offence", then I would equally expect the entire team to explain that to me.

Yet if they try to argue they'll be told to mind their own beeswax? Slightly at odds there, only coming down to what you personally see as reasonable. Plus if the team do try to argue the point it would be logical to assume that what you felt was reasonable may not have been in some way, or their faith in you or your definition of reasonable is in some doubt. Which would describe much of what is happening in some quarters.

seamus

Thaedydal wrote: »

And what ever your reason for making that statement, that statement not the reasons will stay with people a hell of a lot longer.

Exactly my point. Reactionary responses, irrational and unreasonable. People who are unable to consider the argument as a whole and instead cherry picking statements out of context and interpreting them to suit their own ends but without any though behind what that cherrypicking will achieve.

Like journalists, only worse.

The statement isn't actually all that "out there", for the reasons I point out above - a ban is of no-one else's concern unless the ban itself was unreasonable. And the vast majority of cases where people argue against a ban has nothing to do with how reasonable the ban was.

Slightly at odds there, only coming down to what you personally see as reasonable. Plus if the team do try to argue the point it would be logical to assume that what you felt was reasonable may not have been in some way.

As I mentioned above, some people will argue anything and everything for any reason. As a team manager, I would recognise that person and let them vent but their arguments would slowly lose impact because eventually it would just become noise.

Anyway, I've said my bit now, I can see that no-one else is reading except for the bizarre concept of the volunteers' union that some people have decided is necessary.

If you manage to cause anything except more rows and force more moderators to leave because of backstabbing and infighting, I'll tip my metaphorical hat to you.

--amadeus--

An excellent post seamus.

I actually agree 100%. Communities work on teh basis of precedence. If your local always has a lock in on Friday nights then no one falls to the ground in shock when the barman is still pulling pints at 2 in teh morning. If the landlord suddenly throws everyone out bang on time on Friday then people are going to wonder what on earth is going on. They'll have a chat about it. A few normal weeks and people forget. But the more it's repeated (and the more random and / or personal it seems) the more strange it will seem and teh more it will be talked about.

Now the landlord is within his rights to say "my pub, my rules". He's within his rights to say "I made an exception before but I don't *have* to do that". And if people like the pub enough and enough of thier mates go there then they'll grumble but they'll still go. They'll put up with arbitrary rules and seemingly inexplicable behaviour because the benifit is greater than the cost.

But enough arbitrariness, enough inexplicable decisions and enough of teh bar staff being rude to customers and that cost escalates to teh point that it is no longer worth paying. The benefit isn't high enough.

So the customers just get a few cans in and drink at home with a smaller group of friends. It's not the same as teh pub, not as many people but they know everyone and because they can make thier own rules the capriciousness and attitude of teh pub landlord is no longer a problem.

A handful of mods resigning is no big deal to Boards - I could count 20 or more who'd be delighted to take my old place on ART. A group of 60 or 70 "mouthy malcontents" is nothing in a userbase of 280,000. Even Lolo going wasn't that big a deal - it was a niche, private forum.

But Poker? 5th biggest forum on teh site?

How many communities have to hive themselves away before someone says "you know what, maybe there is a problem here"

Nevyn

tbh I don't get the point of your post, why do you feel the need to include that caveat?
Seamus has stated he is no longer an admin, I assume that this mean he does not have access to the admins forum and is not privy to dicussions there so has no input and that he is speaking personally and to that with so am I.

A user getting banned is of no relevance to other users. A mod getting demodded is of no relevance to other mods except their co-mods. Nobody else's opinion on the matter is of any relevance and they don't have to be listened to.

I think this statement is wrong very wrong and trust transactions have to be two ways
as is accountability. No matter who posted that statement in this thread or forum I'd refuste it.

tbh

Thaedydal wrote: »

tbh I don't get the point of your post, why do you feel the need to include that caveat?

because you are saying that something is wrong, but there's no way to objectively measure that.
You may think it's wrong, but the admins would argue that it's right.
So it just comes down to opinions.

Nevyn

seamus wrote: »

Exactly my point. Reactionary responses, irrational and unreasonable. People who are unable to consider the argument as a whole and instead cherry picking statements out of context and interpreting them to suit their own ends but without any though behind what that cherrypicking will achieve.

So you think it's a good idea to provoke people so you can then point and dismiss them cos they are provoke able and take a swipe calling them irrational and unreasonable?

seamus wrote: »

The statement isn't actually all that "out there", for the reasons I point out above - a ban is of no-one else's concern unless the ban itself was unreasonable. And the vast majority of cases where people argue against a ban has nothing to do with how reasonable the ban was.

So now you have "addded no-one else's concern unless the ban itself was unreasonable", if you had of put that in, in the first place then you would not have provoke the reaction you wanted.

It seems that most of the issue of late re thedemodding was not the unreasonable nature of it, but manner in which it was handled, which when added to the running forum has gathered even more concern.

seamus wrote: »

As I mentioned above, some people will argue anything and everything for any reason. As a team manager, I would recognise that person and let them vent but their arguments would slowly lose impact because eventually it would just become noise.

So those of us who have been complaining should just shut up?

seamus wrote: »

Anyway, I've said my bit now, I can see that no-one else is reading except for the bizarre concept of the volunteers' union that some people have decided is necessary.

We all know a LOT more people both those with accounts and those with out read threads then post in them. Well that is unless as well as being taken of the main feed for the site ie the ALL feed, feedback has also be restricted to those who are logged in.

As for what you terms a 'union', the founding premise of the site was for like minded people with a common interest to have a place to communicate.

seamus wrote: »

If you manage to cause anything except more rows and force more moderators to leave because of backstabbing and infighting, I'll tip my metaphorical hat to you.

You opinion has been noted, and filed thanks.

Nevyn

tbh wrote: »

because you are saying that something is wrong, but there's no way to objectively measure that.
You may think it's wrong, but the admins would argue that it's right.
So it just comes down to opinions.

Well then can we call an answer from the admins on it then.
Do they agree with the statement:

A user getting banned is of no relevance to other users. A mod getting demodded is of no relevance to other mods except their co-mods. Nobody else's opinion on the matter is of any relevance and they don't have to be listened to.

tbh

Thaedydal wrote: »

Well then can we call an answer from the admins on it then.
Do they agree with the statement:

sorry, should have said admins "may" argue that it's right. It's not fair to claim seamus is speaking for the admins - especially now - just like it's not fair to say that you - or i - are speaking for the mods. Seamus has earned the right to be treated like a normal user.

But even still, you can't say that his opinion is wrong, just like you can't say yours is wrong. They are different, but both are valid.

Nevyn

I agree only the admins can clear it up and I didn't assume seamus was speaking for them hence the invitation for them to clarify.

I am not going to get into philosophical discussion on the subjective wrongness of opinions.
The everyone is wrong stuff doesn't fly when it comes to the standards communities set for themselves, not going there, it's good way of distracting and detracting from discussion but I will pass.

IITYWYBMAD

seamus wrote: »

Thanks, I obviously missed that.

It was a throwaway comment designed to start some sort of discussion on the topic, .

seamus wrote: »

Exactly my point. Reactionary responses, irrational and unreasonable. People who are unable to consider the argument as a whole and instead cherry picking statements out of context and interpreting them to suit their own ends .

I've taken both of your comments in context. If you do not want reactionary responses, maybe you should consider what you are saying a bit more. At best your "throwaway" comment was condescending, and is completely at odds with your apparent yearning for communication...it would be hilarious, if it was not so ironic.

tbh

Thaedydal wrote: »

I am not going to get into philosophical discussion on the subjective wrongness of opinions.

well then don't call someone else's opinion wrong

The everyone is wrong stuff doesn't fly when it comes to the standards communities set for themselves, not going there, it's good way of distracting and detracting from discussion but I will pass.

I don't really understand this.

Nevyn

No, if my opinion is that thier opinion is wrong I will say so.