Procedure of De-Modding

seamus

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

When you consider that the current questioning of Mod/Admin decisions warrants deletion of posts (such as in this thread and others) and/or banning of users for questioning said decisions, what do you consider would be the most appropriate forum that would allow open discussion on transparency,without incurring the mire of the "powers that be"?

If you can provide evidence that posts which were made in the correct forum questioning a mod or admin decision were deleted or resulted in bans, you'll change a lot of people's minds.

Keep a note of that bit in bold above.

IITYWYBMAD

seamus wrote: »

If you can provide evidence that posts which were made in the correct forum questioning a mod or admin decision were deleted or resulted in bans, you'll change a lot of people's minds.

Keep a note of that bit in bold above.

Perhaps you could tell me what forum is the correct forum for questioning a mod or admin decision?

seamus

Here, or Helpdesk.

--amadeus--

I'm going to re-say here something I said elsewhere:

If we are all supposed to be more professional in our dealings with people then surely with 19 (?) Admins, probably twice as many CMods and 500+ Mods don't we have the manpower to accept a customer / user complaint no matter how it comes to us, rather than saying "you haven't complained to us in teh right way, please go away and try again.

That was specifically about premoderated HD and the silliness of having to PM a CMod 1st but the same can apply here. Isn't the Feedback forum teh place for Feedback?

IITYWYBMAD

seamus wrote: »

Here, or Helpdesk.

It has already been noted that posts here have been deleted, because they questioned an Admin decision, in fact, BB has mentioned it herself.

IITYWYBMAD

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I'm going to re-say here something I said elsewhere:

If we are all supposed to be more professional in our dealings with people then surely with 19 (?) Admins, probably twice as many CMods and 500+ Mods don't we have the manpower to accept a customer / user complaint no matter how it comes to us, rather than saying "you haven't complained to us in teh right way, please go away and try again.

That was specifically about premoderated HD and the silliness of having to PM a CMod 1st but the same can apply here. Isn't the Feedback forum teh place for Feedback?

It's about conformity......

seamus

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

It has already been noted that posts here have been deleted, because they questioned an Admin decision, in fact, BB has mentioned it herself.

Himself, just fyi. You'd need to see the posts. They were probably deleted because they were offtopic or abusive. This thread is made up of hundreds of posts questioning an admin decision, if they didn't want people to question it, surely the whole thread wouldn't be here? Admins don't delete posts simply because of the opinion they contain.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

That was specifically about premoderated HD and the silliness of having to PM a CMod 1st but the same can apply here. Isn't the Feedback forum teh place for Feedback?

It's the problem with complaints really. A complaint should be a one-to-one interaction. A ticketing system is needed and all queries and complaints are directed there. Feedback is making a complaint in public where anyone can answer it. From a customer service point of view, that's far from ideal, not least because more than one person may try to deal with it and handle it badly and because the original complaint can be hijacked by those with other agendas.

Feedback has always been a lion's den of humiliation that no-one should have to traverse just to have their grievance heard. Helpdesk theoretically works, but trying to shoehorn a customer service "desk" into such a format results in technical hacks such as premoderation.

IITYWYBMAD

seamus wrote: »

Himself, just fyi. You'd need to see the posts. They were probably deleted because they were offtopic or abusive. This thread is made up of hundreds of posts questioning an admin decision, if they didn't want people to question it, surely the whole thread wouldn't be here? Admins don't delete posts simply because of the opinion they contain.

Apologies BB, thanks Seamus....

You asked me for an example, I gave you one. I have seen some of the posts 'post-deleted' from here (for example subscribing to a thread will get you all posts), and while I cannot comment on the excuses for deletion, I can assure you that any of the deleted posts I have seen, are not abusive, now they may have been deemed "off-topic" as they questioned (in at least part) an Admin decision, but I think my point still stands.

I can actually re-post one, if you wish?

Mahatma coat

heres one that was deleted

it dosent seem all that abusive and rather bangOn Topic

Here's the post in-question:
=====================================================
I've been a poster on boards for ten years, and a mod for probably more than half of those. During that time, I've seen more than a fair share of excellent mods and posters turn away from the site due to the heavy-handed actions of a few up the chain. I'm not surprised by the latest turn of events, only worried.

The Soccer forum is unlike any other forum. It's full of rival fans, and at those fans' point of intersection, there is inevitably trolling, banter, sniping and flaming. For better or for worse, that is the essence of the forum - and it's the only way it can be. It's the nature of the beast.

LuckyLloyd was one of the better mods because he wasn't some autocratic personality-vacuum. He was a part of the community, and while the typical soccer poster may have often had disagreements with him, they at least recognised him as one of them, and respected him for it. Had he come in with the virtual leather trenchcoat and truncheon, that respect would evaporate. So too, if he came in with a bunch of flowers and a hug.

The Soccer forum mods have to walk a tightrope. It's a position that's understood, recognised and respected by the Soccer forum community. It works. And so, when somebody who clearly doesn't even understand the situation in the slightest wades in, de-mods a great moderator and pillar of the community, effectively forces him out of the community, it sets all kinds of warning bells going.

The moderator should live and die by the community of the forum they moderate. Not on the whim of an Admin.
=======================================================

seamus

Well you can, but keep in mind that at 00:10 on 21/01, BB posted this:

By the way folks, I'm leaving this thread open as a discussion on the procedures surrounding removing on Mods.

This is not to be used as a discussion of any particular case. I've deleted one post for that reason, and if it delves into specifics, the thread will be closed.

Keep it neutral, and have a constructive discussion that people might be able to come to with some ideas. It is not a place to rake over ashes.

So if the post occured after that and "contravenes" what BB posted above, then...case closed.

Mahatma - clearly that post was discussing a specific case. Which is not what this thread is for.

IITYWYBMAD

seamus wrote: »

Well you can, but keep in mind that at 00:10 on 21/01, BB posted this:

So if the post occured after that and "contravenes" what BB posted above, then...case closed.

Mahatma - clearly that post was discussing a specific case. Which is not what this thread is for.

Post #11? Lol.....So anything after that is no-go area? Again, you are skirting around the specifics.

Let me try and broaden this aspect of the discussion. Why should the (for example) demodding of a mod, not be discussed in FB? What do you believe are the issues?

seamus

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

Let me try and broaden this aspect of the discussion. Why should the (for example) demodding of a mod, not be discussed in FB? What do you believe are the issues?

OK, we're back to the same debate again.
Basically, the issues are that;

a) You have to devolve power to someone or some group. Every single decision cannot be up for public debate.

b) You average user is only in possession of a fraction of the information that a mod/admin has surrounding an issue. Most of that information should not or cannot be "released".

c) With b in mind, arguing a topic with someone who is not and cannot be in possession of all or most of the facts is generally a waste of time.

Only the user in question and the admins/mods who took the action are in possession of sufficient information to discuss it. You could take an "open court" view on it where the whole thing is discussed publically, but you would have to prevent anyone else from pitching in with their own 2c for a variety of reasons.

Where you believe that some vital piece of information has been missed or that there's sufficient justification to believe that the wrong call was made, then you will never be prevented from posting a request on feedback.

However disputing a decision just because you don't like it will not be productive.

--amadeus--

seamus wrote: »

It's the problem with complaints really. A complaint should be a one-to-one interaction. A ticketing system is needed and all queries and complaints are directed there. Feedback is making a complaint in public where anyone can answer it. From a customer service point of view, that's far from ideal, not least because more than one person may try to deal with it and handle it badly and because the original complaint can be hijacked by those with other agendas.

Feedback has always been a lion's den of humiliation that no-one should have to traverse just to have their grievance heard. Helpdesk theoretically works, but trying to shoehorn a customer service "desk" into such a format results in technical hacks such as premoderation.

But why the assumption that feedback is automatically a complaint? Absolutely agree that a complaint should be 1:1 but there is no reason for feedback to be that way. Ideally you'd have a many:some conversation; many posters with feedback dealing with some Mods/CMods/Admins who can agree or disagree as they see fit.

But what we have atm is a mob:none "conversation". I appreciate that the Admins are probably (hopefully) talking about this behind closed doors but an occasional interaction in here might stop us (or me at least) feeling like we're howling at the moon.

HD is a different kettle of herring. 1:1, or at least limited to connected people, is great. I see some of teh justifications for the changes brought in by the new system. But a lot of posters on my old forum didn't know wtf a PM was or how to send one. They knew what a Mod was but no clue as to who or what a CMod was. And - again as I said before - users rarely read charters. Why would a disgruntled user take teh time to read about the proper way to complain?

I don't have teh answers to how it should work. I have ideas and things I think would work. But we have a sort of Anti Frasier vibe going on in here "Hello Boards, this is the Admin team, we're not listening" so not a huge amount of point in my suggesting them, really.

copacetic

seamus wrote: »

Himself, just fyi. .

:eek: you see this is just another example of the admins pulling the wool over the poor user eyes. buffybot implies sexy female robot.

I for one am outraged (and also feel a little bit dirty).

seamus

--amadeus-- wrote: »

But why the assumption that feedback is automatically a complaint?

I was delaing specifically with complaints because anything posted on feedback that's not a complaint (or phrased in the form of a complaint), seems to go swimmingly.

But what we have atm is a mob:none "conversation". I appreciate that the Admins are probably (hopefully) talking about this behind closed doors but an occasional interaction in here might stop us (or me at least) feeling like we're howling at the moon.

And they're probably tearing their hair out right now reading this

Initially the criticism was that there were too many admins wading into feedback threads, giving opinions and shouting down anyone who didn't agree. That caused its own problems in that things were said from an Admin side which weren't "official" stances. Now they take the time to discuss it in the background and there's consternation that nobody's responding immediately.

I don't think anyone has disputed that communication could be better, but taking this thread in isolation - boards promptly went down for 48 hours not long after this thread was started, then it was a weekend, so in reality the issues in this thread can only have been under any proper discussion for two days.

You may remember before the admin appointments last year that an admin response used to take at least a week or more. I'm not saying that's an ideal standard, but the more admins you have, the more time it takes to properly agree on a stance or a course of action. A group of people cannot respond on a per-post basis as you and I are doing now.

Ideally they would post with a list of what they think are the primary concerns brought up in this thread and with their proposed way of dealing with them, or a request for comments on how to deal with them.

--amadeus--

seamus wrote: »

Ideally they would post with a list of what they think are the primary concerns brought up in this thread and with their proposed way of dealing with them, or a request for comments on how to deal with them.

Without wanting to sound like a cranky git that's kind of what we've been saying all along - if they posted up here or in the Mods forum with proposals for big changes before they made them or requests for comments on how to deal with the big issues then I really think that an awful lot of this wouldn't have happened.

leninbenjamin

seamus wrote: »

c) With b in mind, arguing a topic with someone who is not and cannot be in possession of all or most of the facts is generally a waste of time.

In terms of the end result, perhaps. In terms of the relationships between the parties and the community as a whole, definitely not. It doesn't take much to at least engage with users on a point, even if you can't necessarily debate it in full. More empathetic conduct on behalf of admins/mods in situations like the above would lead to improved relationships and lower the likelihood of such a situation to occur. Blanking users just leads to grudges and further hassle down the line. Treat them like ****s and they will behave like ****s.

seamus wrote: »

However disputing a decision just because you don't like it will not be productive.

But on the flipside, getting someone to discuss the rationale for the decision they've made causes them to reassess the situation and context and can lead to considerable insight.

BuffyBot

As Seamus so rightfully pointed out, we can either be present or we can not be present. People want both from us, and complain when we do either.

I've been reading, and refraining from commenting simply because I'm trying to give people some room to breathe.

Mathatma coat and Jazzy - don't derail the thread. I'm specifically trying to give it leeway to grow, and it has grown. I won't, however, allow people to just throw any old stuff into the pot and stir it. It's not like I get any joy from deleting posts, or being here trying to steer a conversation. I have other things in life to do. However, I'm doing it because I do think some good can come of it.

We (the Admins) are going to be discussing what's been said here, and we've already started that process. The thread won't live forever - no thread does - but I'm hoping that what will come out it will actually make things better. Now frankly, I expect people to call that "spin" or whatever, but I don't really care. You can either take BuffyBot the Admin at face value, or BuffyBot the long-term-user-before-he-became-an-Admin who is still here at face value, or neither - that's your choice. I'm hoping people will have some faith, however, because all these noise making posts saying that everything is spin or flim-flam just muddies the waters of the thread, of which I've genuinely said, and believe, has some good ideas we can use.

LuckyLloyd

seamus wrote: »

b) You average user is only in possession of a fraction of the information that a mod/admin has surrounding an issue. Most of that information should not or cannot be "released".

"Should not or cannot be released"? Why not? In this case even I am not in posession of all of the facts of my own case. I have no idea why you would be afraid to 'show your workings' in detail. Well in this case I have a very good idea, but I would be interested in a response from you that covers the general.



*Also BB, don't delete this post because I am posting on this alternate account - you are fully aware that I am locked out due to email issues.

Jazzy

BuffyBot wrote: »

Mathatma coat and Jazzy - don't derail the thread. I'm specifically trying to give it leeway to grow, and it has grown. I won't, however, allow people to just throw any old stuff into the pot and stir it. It's not like I get any joy from deleting posts, or being here trying to steer a conversation. I have other things in life to do. However, I'm doing it because I do think some good can come of it.

nope. dont buy that whatsoever. fair enough, delete my post with the pic, i can understand that but mathatma made a perfectly good post and you have gone ahead and deleted because it didnt suit.

you have just proved the point he tried to make and thats probably the most important feedback that has been made in this thread, like it or not

PhilipMarlowe

Jazzy wrote: »

nope. dont buy that whatsoever. fair enough, delete my post with the pic, i can understand that but mathatma made a perfectly good post and you have gone ahead and deleted because it didnt suit.

you have just proved the point he tried to make and thats probably the most important feedback that has been made in this thread, like it or not

This I don't agree with. There were parts of his post that I would have agreed with but also plenty of it wasn't overly conciliatory (and that's sugar coating it with cherries on top).

seamus

lloydofarrell wrote: »

"Should not or cannot be released"? Why not?

Privacy and Data Protection issues. The full data of every single issue can't usually be released.

Jazzy

Licksy wrote: »

This I don't agree with. There were parts of his post that I would have agreed with but also plenty of it wasn't overly conciliatory (and that's sugar coating it with cherries on top).

fair enough, edit the post then to remove that surely. if the good point is made it should be left there, not just deleted willy-nilly because it might make certain ppl look bad. if they look bad, they look bad

LuckyLloyd

seamus wrote: »

Privacy and Data Protection issues. The full data of every single issue can't usually be released.

Nah, no good. It will be very rare indeed that a case like this will hinge on information that would divulge personal, real life information about a poster. You know that too. The details of posts / disciplinary actions / PMs are normally going to be fine as matters of public record in this type of situation. And can always be edited to remove information that would fall foul of the above. Edited / truncated 'workings' are better than no explanation once they are labeled as such. And if it is all really sensitive and you honestly couldn't divulge anything about a case that makes up that <5% of total cases - just say that.

Though, hiding behind the above is fun!! Sounds very cast iron and inflexible.

5starpool

seamus wrote: »

Privacy and Data Protection issues. The full data of every single issue can't usually be released.

In that specific case it should not make a difference though surely?

PhilipMarlowe

Jazzy wrote: »

fair enough, edit the post then to remove that surely. if the good point is made it should be left there, not just deleted willy-nilly because it might make certain ppl look bad. if they look bad, they look bad

Possibly. But when part of the issue thats up for debate centres around language and communication then offhand, offensive and insulting comments shouldn't form the backbone of a retort.

Scrumpy Jack

Storm in a c[_] really. Boards has grown and will grow. Take the benevolent dictator example. At some stage that dictator has to realise it is the power and has to look after the masses rather than the individual. History shows that with many examples.

It is a nice concept to take care of every one but once you are in power and have that "call" it is a different story. I have no doubt that all the Admins have the site and people/community at heart but at times what cost is that? Community or people?

Didn't Tony Blair have the bigger issue at heart?

No matter what happens someone somewhere will always get upset but no matter how many toys are thrown out of the pram if they like a place enough they will always come back. Like Sean Connery as James bond. Never say Never ala Hagar

seamus

lloydofarrell wrote: »

Nah, no good. It will be very rare indeed that a case like this will hinge on information that would divulge personal, real life information about a poster. You know that too. The details of posts / disciplinary actions / PMs are normally going to be fine as matters of public record in this type of situation. And can always be edited to remove information that would fall foul of the above. Edited / truncated 'workings' are better than no explanation once they are labeled as such. And if it is all really sensitive and you honestly couldn't divulge anything about a case that makes up that <5% of total cases - just say that.

Though, hiding behind the above is fun!! Sounds very cast iron and inflexible.

You make it sound so simple and if only it was. There's far more to privacy than what's written down in the DPA. In your case, perhaps it doesn't apply, I don't know. In most cases, surprisingly, yes it does apply and for far more than 50% of the cases.

There are a significant number of people salivating at the mouth at the thought of catching boards out on even the slightest legal infringement and nailing the admins' balls to the wall.

Most people are reasonable but it's these dickless fnckers that will run screaming to their solicitor at the drop of a hat that boards needs to be aware of. They don't even need to be personally wronged, people have reported boards to the data protection commissioner on behalf of someone else who knew nothing about it afair.

So, yes, while there's always going to be some information or a rough overview which can be explained in public, it's not enough information for anyone else to make a reasonable stab at counter-arguing.

Again, even in cases where all of the information is releaseable, should the admins be forced to do that for every single case? Because there are people who will argue about every single case, no matter how obscure or mundane their objection.

Jazzy

Licksy wrote: »

Possibly. But when part of the issue thats up for debate centres around language and communication then offhand, offensive and insulting comments shouldn't form the backbone of a retort.

at the same time nothing really gets done or noticed without specifics. it is the specifics that provide the passion and without that its all hearsay and conjecture which are the main ingredients in Acme brand red tape.

is there a copy of his post left somewhere because i can easily go through it and take out insults and offensive comments and make it still retain its point. i wouldnt mind re-reading it just to be sure to be sure

LuckyLloyd

seamus wrote: »

You make it sound so simple and if only it was. There's far more to privacy than what's written down in the DPA. In your case, perhaps it doesn't apply, I don't know. In most cases, surprisingly, yes it does apply and for far more than 50% of the cases.

There are a significant number of people salivating at the mouth at the thought of catching boards out on even the slightest legal infringement and nailing the admins' balls to the wall.

Most people are reasonable but it's these dickless fnckers that will run screaming to their solicitor at the drop of a hat that boards needs to be aware of. They don't even need to be personally wronged, people have reported boards to the data protection commissioner on behalf of someone else who knew nothing about it afair.

So, yes, while there's always going to be some information or a rough overview which can be explained in public, it's not enough information for anyone else to make a reasonable stab at counter-arguing.

Again, even in cases where all of the information is releaseable, should the admins be forced to do that for every single case? Because there are people who will argue about every single case, no matter how obscure or mundane their objection.

For what? Being demodded / disciplined / dressed down via PM when they have no contractual / financial relationship with the website?

Yeah, and so ****ing what. Win the argument. Right may very well be on your side in the majority of cases, you may be unquestionably correct from time to time. So go for it. Take them to town. People should be allowed to complain, to have their case discussed in the fullest terms. The most probable method of convincing them they are in the wrong is to lay it all out there and make a full presentation of their error. Allow them the opportunity to find the weight of evidence and opinion is against them. Give The Admin team the opportunity to gain some much needed credibility and respect, the opportunity to have a few easy ones so that they don't completely blow up the world when the target of their ire is well liked / capable of fighting their corner / possessing valid grievances (delete as appropriate).