Should mods be able to deactivate PM's?

Magenta

I assumed no mod would do this, given they need to use PMs for dealing with posters who have been warned, infracted, banned etc, but as can be seen in this thread it does happen.

I feel that mods should not be allowed to do this.
When a user creates a thread about a dispute in Help Desk, the first thing they will be asked is if they have followed the dispute resolution procedure i.e. have they PM'd the mod. Obviously this is impossible if the mod has disabled PM's. To be honest I'm wondering if a mod would disable them for this very reason.

I am wondering if anyone agrees that mods should not be allowed to do this?
Sure, I'm sure some mods have people on Ignore alright, but outright disabling PM's from the whole (or majority) of the site is not on in my opinion.

Bonito

There are mods who stick users on their ignore list. Can't handle the heat then get outta the kitchen IMO.

Zaph

As you have mentioned, PMing a mod is the first step of the DRP, and as such it is essential for mods to have PMs enabled, although I don't believe there is an official policy regarding this. I'm going to take this to the admin forum for further discussion and we'll see if we can formulate some proper guidelines for mods regarding their PMs.

Aidric

In some instances it matters little, for some mods see fit to flatly ignore user requests for information by pm. Another broken link in the rusty chain that is the DRP.

Bonito

In the dispute resolution procedure it says 1st Pm the mod in question or if you don't feel comfortable pm'ing the mod then pm one of the co-mods. This is stupid.

Why is this stupid? It's stupid because if that mod has you on ignore you have to Pm one of their co-mods. Sure how are we to know if we're on their ignore list or if they're just actively ignoring us?

That co-mod then has to go and talk with the mod in question, which takes up their time, to see what's going on. Plus god knows what spiel the mod will spill to their co-mod. And who's the co-mod going to believe, the user or their co-mod?

From the reasons above, I'd just go straght to helpdesk. If it was over something that the mod in question could have handled then they should get a slap on the wrist off the Admins for them having to attend to something which they could have dealt with themselves.

My name is URL

Bonito wrote: »

Why is this stupid? It's stupid because if that mod has you on ignore you have to Pm one of their co-mods. Sure how are we to know if we're on their ignore list or if they're just actively ignoring us?

If a mod has users of their forum on ignore I really don't see how they could perform their modding duties effectively. Having PMs disabled is bad enough but blocking posts in a forum you're supposed to police, that's stupid

Bonito

Yes it's stupid but, it happens.

Ninja: I think mods ignore lists should be viewable by normal users. Or we should at least be able to see if we ourselves are on them.

bonkey

Bonito wrote: »

Ninja: I think mods ignore lists should be viewable by normal users. Or we should at least be able to see if we ourselves are on them.

Alternately, mods shouldn't have ignore lists.

--amadeus--

Bonito wrote: »

Yes it's stupid but, it happens.

Anything to back that up?

FWIW I agree on the PM thing but I've personally never heard of a Mod having a user who frequents thier own forums on ignore

Bonito

Yes but it's an entirely different topic and I'd probably be accused of making snide remarks and sneaky side shots so I'll leave it out.

I've been ignored over pm issues countless times. I didn't go to helpdesk. Why? Because they were small issues that could have been resolved with the mod(s) in question and unlike them, I don't like using the Admins as a safety net. Why have a DRP if the feckin mods can't even follow it properly?

I've even been ignored by c-mods would you believe after I didn't receive a reply from the mod. Whether they just ignored me or have me on their ignore list I don't know and frankly don't care, I'll still sleep well at night.

pickarooney

Bonito wrote: »

I've been ignored over pm issues countless times. I didn't go to helpdesk. Why? Because they were small issues that could have been resolved with the mod(s) in question and unlike them, I don't like using the Admins as a safety net. Why have a DRP if the feckin mods can't even follow it properly?

Personally I agree. The DRP is unnecessarily complicated and posters just can't be bothered with it. How many times have you seen someone successfully follow the procedure versus those who short-cut it to helpdesk/feedback only to be told to back to square one, thereby wasting the time of whoever responds to the feedback thread.

I don't see why an aggrieved poster can't post a thread in helpdesk and have the mod in question deal with it directly there and if he/she is not available then the co-mods should come on board. If the mod is purposely ignoring the user, this is not on (unless it's one of those cases where the same poster is continually harassing the mod) and should be more transparent, IMO.

itsallaboutheL

I think it's perfectly acceptable under certain circumstances.


I realise this his thread is as a result of the thread RE: Bossarky's modding in Fitness.

I am almost positive that i've never seen him lock a thread without stating his reason.

IMO this covers the First step of the DRP, as any PMing done afterwards with just end with said Mod reiterating what had alll ready been said on thread.

Under these conditions, (i.e providing the mod accounts for their actions on thread) then i can't see any reason why they shouldn't be entitled to block PMS.

Saibh

Unless I'm reading the post in the other thread wrong, the procedure BossArky gave when someone is banned is

Banning someone – PM poster with reason and direct towards feedback should they have concerns over the circumstances surrounding the ban

They are not told to go through the current procedure.

K-9

itsallaboutheL wrote: »

I think it's perfectly acceptable under certain circumstances.


I realise this his thread is as a result of the thread RE: Bossarky's modding in Fitness.

I am almost positive that i've never seen him lock a thread without stating his reason.

IMO this covers the First step of the DRP, as any PMing done afterwards with just end with said Mod reiterating what had alll ready been said on thread.

Under these conditions, (i.e providing the mod accounts for their actions on thread) then i can't see any reason why they shouldn't be entitled to block PMS.

Maybe a user may want to clarify something with the mod or something like that, maybe even apologise if in the wrong?

I've heard of users having mods on ignore, sounded stupid to me, this sounds worse.

5starpool

Maybe BossArky is too busy logging to read PM's.

LoLth

Lads (and ladies) this is being discussed in the admin forum as promised by Zaph. Feel free to continue the discussion here as it is always useful to hear other opinions on a topic while it is being discussed and, contrary to popular opinion, the admins do take user input on board when discussing a matter

However, please try to keep the discussion polite and on topic (ie: whether mods should or should not be able to turn off PMs) and try to avoid arguing a particular instance (except as a means of clarification of a point).

As always, please try to keep things civil.

Daemos

I agree that mods shouldn't be able to just turn off PMs completely, but

bonkey wrote: »

Alternately, mods shouldn't have ignore lists.

I disagree with this, because as an ex-mod I got the odd abusive PM as I'm sure most have, and whenever it did happen I'd report it and add the sender to my Ignore List.

I think it should be okay to block out the idiots that send abuse, but just completely ignoring everyone is not on IMO.

Gordon

itsallaboutheL wrote: »

There's no need for that.

That's an old joke regarding BossArky, I don't think there was any malice there "Thank you for logging in, BossArky", hehe.

itsallaboutheL

Gordon wrote: »

That's an old joke regarding BossArky, I don't think there was any malice there "Thank you for logging in, BossArky", hehe.

Oh wait, i have a recolection of that.

gandalf

Should mods be able to deactivate PM's? Definitely not as they cannot moderate without a line of communication with contributors and with fellow mods.

seamus

gandalf wrote: »

Should mods be able to deactivate PM's? Definitely not as they cannot moderate without a line of communication with contributors and with fellow mods.

Seems like a no-brainer tbh.

gandalf

seamus wrote: »

Seems like a no-brainer tbh.

Thats what I thought. Anyone who has them turned off is not capable of moderating properly and in reality should be de-modded.

Dohnny Jepp

gandalf wrote: »

Thats what I thought. Anyone who has them turned off is not capable of moderating properly and in reality should be de-modded.

Or given a slap on the wrist and told to turn them on?

Magenta

Bonito wrote: »

Why is this stupid? It's stupid because if that mod has you on ignore you have to Pm one of their co-mods. Sure how are we to know if we're on their ignore list or if they're just actively ignoring us?

It also means the mod gets to pass the buck to their co-mod. They ban or infract a user and their co-mod has to deal with it.

LoLth

Magenta wrote: »

It also means the mod gets to pass the buck to their co-mod. They ban or infract a user and their co-mod has to deal with it.

While that is certainly a side effect of disabling Pms, I'd be inclined to think (hope?) thats not the primary motive.

Wibbs

Having users on ignore or not having PM's turned on may just put pressure on co mods if nothing else. If you get a dodgy PM report it. If you are on the receiving end of bullying ditto. It shouldnt ever be so much of a pain where someone feels like they need to switch off PM's or put people on ignore.

Actually thats the angle I'm thinking of. Someone trusted and well known enough to be a mod, someone well liked and respected in their community as a contributor and a moderator is getting enough static that switching off PM's is a viable alternative? IMHO its gone too far at that point. Then again if its not reported how can comods or admins know?


Still its easy to get into "I wouldnt do that" isms. Some people brush this stuff off and ignore it, some do get upset by it. Either type may feel reporting it comes across as failure. I'd be asking why someone who's a good mod felt they needed to. No need for kneejerk reactions anyway.

dr.bollocko

I don't know how much of an issue it is for the smaller forums but on the whole you got to have em turned on if you're actively banning folks and whatnot. It kinda becomes more important the more moderating you actually do.

AckwelFoley

Ive made my point pretty clear in the previous thread that this one spawned from.

If you are a mod that has pm's disabled its akin to a receptionist that doesnt answer phones...

..perhaps a receptionist job in the public service is for you :pac:

bonkey

DaPoolRulz wrote: »

I agree that mods shouldn't be able to just turn off PMs completely, but I disagree with this, because as an ex-mod I got the odd abusive PM as I'm sure most have, and whenever it did happen I'd report it and add the sender to my Ignore List.

For an ex-mod, I'd have no problem with that.
For a mod, I'm not sure its the correct approach. I'd say report the PM. If you get more abuse, report that too, and mention that this is not the first time said person has given you abuse. They win a free holiday.

Consider the alternate...you get abuse, report the post, and put the poster on ignore. They learn the error of their ways, and now wish to contact you (as a moderator) for a valid reason, politely worded and all. Should they not be able to do this?

I think it should be okay to block out the idiots that send abuse

Putting them on ignore means you get them blocked out if they continue with shenanigans. Reporting them to the Admins means everyone gets them blocked out if they continue with shenanigans.

If that's not a preferable solution, then maybe the Admin team need to look at being (even) tougher on people sending abuse via PM....but I would prefer to go down that path then the one saying that abuse from a poster via PM means a mod can ignore them at will. I would, however, concede that someone with a perma-ban from a forum may be a special case.

gandalf

bonkey in the old days (as I am sure you remember ) if someone sent you an abusive PM you dealt with it one of two ways. You extended their ban and/or you engaged with an admin to take action. If the admin felt the abuse was bad that person had their posting privilages removed either temporally or pemanently depending on how bad the abuse was. I don't think that has changed much.

There is no excuse for an active moderator to have pm's turned off period.

Daemos

bonkey wrote: »

For an ex-mod, I'd have no problem with that.
For a mod, I'm not sure its the correct approach. I'd say report the PM. If you get more abuse, report that too, and mention that this is not the first time said person has given you abuse. They win a free holiday.

Consider the alternate...you get abuse, report the post, and put the poster on ignore. They learn the error of their ways, and now wish to contact you (as a moderator) for a valid reason, politely worded and all. Should they not be able to do this?


Putting them on ignore means you get them blocked out if they continue with shenanigans. Reporting them to the Admins means everyone gets them blocked out if they continue with shenanigans.

If that's not a preferable solution, then maybe the Admin team need to look at being (even) tougher on people sending abuse via PM....but I would prefer to go down that path then the one saying that abuse from a poster via PM means a mod can ignore them at will. I would, however, concede that someone with a perma-ban from a forum may be a special case.

Well to be honest you do have a fair point, because things like this work a bit different on adverts than boards (at least they did when I was mod, could be different now for all I know).

Whenever any abuse was sent to a mod, they'd be banned permanently from adverts, which simultaneously removes PM privelages on boards. So adding them to the Ignore List was basically as a pit stop until the ban was applied.

And if the user wanted to apologize they could use the Support forum or leave a visitor message