Moderating moderaters

castie

denballs wrote: »

I would like others to not comment on things they do not know all the facts or even any basic information about, if they are then going to tell me not to comment on things i dont know all the facts about.

Denballs you also dont have all the facts here and are making huge assumptions. This is being discussed I can guarantee.

Just to clarify the ban was not anything to do with "Nazi"ism or anything of the such. It was off topic posting and disobeying a forum warning. The OP in that post has since withdrawn the accusation made in the topic. This was also made clear in the DRP thread.

Thats all im going to say on this matter until its finished being discussed.

jor el

denballs wrote: »

I would like others to not comment on things they do not know all the facts or even any basic information about, if they are then going to tell me not to comment on things i dont know all the facts about.

So, others should not do exactly as you are doing then? Why is it that you can do this, but others cannot?

No changes need to be made because the current system works (not perfectly, but it works). The dispute process is open and viewable by all. If a problem is resolved, or not resolved, then everyone can see exactly what has happened. You have failed to show evidence of a single case where an issue was ignored, or left in such a way that the parties involved were not satisfied. Just because you don't know what's happening or being agreed to, doesn't mean that it's not working, or that nothing has happened.

The problem isn't with the system, it's with the perception of it.

denballs

Overheal wrote: »

So you could label them a hypocrite?

I hav,nt said that, you have, nor will i start childish name calling if thats what your looking for.

denballs

castie wrote: »

Denballs you also dont have all the facts here and are making huge assumptions. This is being discussed I can guarantee.

Just to clarify the ban was not anything to do with "Nazi"ism or anything of the such. It was off topic posting and disobeying a forum warning. The OP in that post has since withdrawn the accusation made in the topic. This was also made clear in the DRP thread.

Thats all im going to say on this matter until its finished being discussed.

I have seen no evidence to support your claims, .....and please dont say..of course you hav,nt us mod,s are convienently chatting about these public issues ..amoungst ourselves...and until we finish which we dont know, nor will we give an estimated time for..we wont comment on it further.

Insect Overlord

denballs wrote: »

I have seen no evidence to support your claims, .....and please dont say..of course you hav,nt us mod,s are convienently chatting about these public issues ..amoungst ourselves...and until we finish which we dont know, nor will we give an estimated time for..we wont comment on it further.

Can you repeat this, but in decipherable English spelling, punctuation and syntax?

Zaph

denballs wrote: »

I have seen no evidence to support your claims, .....and please dont say..of course you hav,nt us mod,s are convienently chatting about these public issues ..amoungst ourselves...and until we finish which we dont know, nor will we give an estimated time for..we wont comment on it further.

I take it from your comments that you actually haven't seen the part of the DRF thread where castie admitted that he was mistaken in banning constantg and apologised for the ban then?

When you have people who have nothing more to contribute to the site than whinge about things they know nothing of it makes resolving issues in public that much more difficult, so sometimes it's necessary to discuss the issue away from the public eye in order to get a resolution.

denballs

jor el wrote: »

So, others should not do exactly as you are doing then? Why is it that you can do this, but others cannot?

No changes need to be made because the current system works (not perfectly, but it works). The dispute process is open and viewable by all. If a problem is resolved, or not resolved, then everyone can see exactly what has happened. You have failed to show evidence of a single case where an issue was ignored, or left in such a way that the parties involved were not satisfied. Just because you don't know what's happening or being agreed to, doesn't mean that it's not working, or that nothing has happened.

The problem isn't with the system, it's with the perception of it.

I,m going to take each seperate thing you,ve said wrong and answer it seperately.

1=So, others should not do exactly as you are doing then? Why is it that you can do this, but others cannot?

I stated, that others shouldnt tell me not to do it then, even more blatently do it themselves......if your saying i shouldnt be able to do it, then i agree...but then....mods shouldnt either.......or are you saying they can but i cannot?.

2=The dispute process is open and viewable by all. If a problem is resolved, or not resolved, then everyone can see exactly what has happened.

Several mods have now said the reason that certain disputes appear un-resolved or to be simply ignored is because mods are privately discussing the thread .....so no...it obviously is,nt viewable by all...and apparently i cant see exactly what has happend.


3=You have failed to show evidence of a single case where an issue was ignored, or left in such a way that the parties involved were not satisfied.

I could direct you to one of my own if needed, ......and would i be wrong in saying that if the OP of such a thread is viewed as wrong that the thread will be closed upon the mod,s decision.....do i really have to go through the complaint archives......cause i know that there are many cases where the OP,s opinon was viewed as wrong and the thread simply closed

4=The problem isn't with the system, it's with the perception of it

What do you base this on ....the fact that you like the system and i believe it to be flawed.......well your opinion is no more innately factual than mine

The Hill Billy

A lovely summation jor el.

But I'd just like to add that while the DRP is by & large as transparent as possible there is still sometimes (not always!) communication behind the scenes via PM.

...Sometimes because the complainant hasn't been honest about the cause of their gripe in the OP.

...Sometimes because the people dealing with the issue do not want to embarrass the OP by taking into account other relevant 'material'.

...Sometimes because things need to be discussed that the general boards.ie populace do not need to know about (simple as).

Publishing these (or other similar) details would not be beneficial to any other posters. It would only serve to satisfy their nosiness or morbid curiosity when in truth - any issue raised in the DRP is between the poster & the relevant boards.ie authorities (CMods & Admins) - & it is nobody else's business as nobody but the parties in discussion have access to the facts. All else is hearsay & supposition.

denballs

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Can you repeat this, but in decipherable English spelling, punctuation and syntax?

ah...so you cannot be mature and debate the issue reasonably..so you are simply going to be offensive and jeering.

denballs

The Hill Billy wrote: »

A lovely summation jor el.

But I'd just like to add that while the DRP is by & large as transparent as possible there is still sometimes (not always!) communication behind the scenes via PM.

...Sometimes because the complainant hasn't been honest about the cause of their gripe in the OP.

...Sometimes because the people dealing with the issue do not want to embarrass the OP by taking into account other relevant 'material'.

...Sometimes because things need to be discussed that the general boards.ie populace do not need to know about (simple as).

Publishing these (or other similar) details would not be beneficial to any other posters. It would only serve to satisfy their nosiness or morbid curiosity when in truth - any issue raised in the DRP is between the poster & the relevant boards.ie authorities (CMods & Admins) - & it is nobody else's business as nobody but the parties in discussion have access to the facts. All else is hearsay & supposition.

I disagree, i think if it is privately done the mods will simply bully the OP into submission, there is a reason it was made as public and should stay that way.

Insect Overlord

denballs wrote: »

ah...so you cannot be mature and debate the issue reasonably..so you are simply going to be offensive and jeering.

I genuinely couldn't work out the point you were trying to make. I've been around here long enough to know when not to be a grammar nazi/dick.

Zaph

denballs wrote: »

I disagree, i think if it is privately done the mods will simply bully the OP into submission, there is a reason it was made as public and should stay that way.

Ahem

denballs

Zaph wrote: »

I take it from your comments that you actually haven't seen the part of the DRF thread where castie admitted that he was mistaken in banning constantg and apologised for the ban then?

When you have people who have nothing more to contribute to the site than whinge about things they know nothing of it makes resolving issues in public that much more difficult, so sometimes it's necessary to discuss the issue away from the public eye in order to get a resolution.

sorry, no i had,nt interesting how much sudden attention it got, I wonder had that got anything to do with removing it as a reference of this thread.........and why couldnt the mod just apologise srtaight away?

The Hill Billy

denballs wrote: »

I disagree, i think if it is privately done the mods will simply bully the OP into submission, there is a reason it was made as public and should stay that way.

If you cannot understand the rationale behind the need for privacy for certain elements of the DRP that is your problem. Or, as the more that I read of your posts in this thread, just plain nosiness.

denballs

Zaph, could you explain why you said ..

I'm looking into this issue so I'd appreciate it if both contantg and castie refrained from any further posting for the moment. Thanks.

...in the thead in question?

Zaph

denballs wrote: »

sorry, no i had,nt interesting how much sudden attention it got, I wonder had that got anything to do with removing it as a reference of this thread.........and why couldnt the mod just apologise srtaight away?

It hadn't just got sudden attention, I've been discussing the issue with castie to see how we could resolve it, but due to us generally being on Boards at different times that took a little longer than I would have liked. The subject of the discussion is the reason why there wasn't an immediate apology.

However, the fact remains that castie did apologise and you're still not happy. jor el and Hill Billy's posts have been clear and concise regarding the dispute process and why things sometimes happen the way they do, and you're still not happy. What exactly will make you happy?

denballs

The Hill Billy wrote: »

If you cannot understand the rationale behind the need for privacy for certain elements of the DRP that is your problem. Or, as the more that I read of your posts in this thread, just plain nosiness.

please only respond with logical statements..that serve a useful purpose....

I am trying to stop this from turning from debate into an outright argument, but as i prove your statements wrong and you and others just become offensive and thread spoiling i would prefer if you could just hold your tongue.

Zaph

denballs wrote: »

Zaph, could you explain why you said ..

I'm looking into this issue so I'd appreciate it if both contantg and castie refrained from any further posting for the moment. Thanks.

...in the thead in question?

I think I've answered that in my last post.

denballs

Zaph wrote: »

It hadn't just got sudden attention, I've been discussing the issue with castie to see how we could resolve it, but due to us generally being on Boards at different times that took a little longer than I would have liked. The subject of the discussion is the reason why there wasn't an immediate apology.

However, the fact remains that castie did apologise and you're still not happy. jor el and Hill Billy's posts have been clear and concise regarding the dispute process and why things sometimes happen the way they do, and you're still not happy. What exactly will make you happy?

actually im very happy with the result of the thread , i was going to like castie,s response but was unable to.

denballs

I would be happy if a senior member opened an official thread asking about this system, and perhaps adding a poll asking if it needs revision.

I think it,s very reasonable

If the majority of members want it looked into, then do so

if not, then dont and ill accept that the system is as good as it will get.

Zaph

denballs wrote: »

I would be happy if a senior member opened an official thread asking about this system, and perhaps adding a poll asking if it needs revision.

Given the length of time it took to get the current system up and running, that won't be happening. It may not be 100% perfect, but it's a damn sight better than you'll probably find on the vast majority of discussion sites.

denballs wrote: »

I think it,s very reasonable

Sorry, it's not.

denballs wrote: »

If the majority of members want it looked into, then do so

And do what if they do? Unless you have an absolutely perfect, 100% foolproof system ready to replace what we currently have, then we're not going to be any better off, are we?

denballs wrote: »

if not, then dont and ill accept that the system is as good as it will get.

That's big of you.

denballs

Zaph wrote: »

Given the length of time it took to get the current system up and running, that won't be happening. It may not be 100% perfect, but it's a damn sight better than you'll probably find on the vast majority of discussion sites.



Sorry, it's not.



And do what if they do? Unless you have an absolutely perfect, 100% foolproof system ready to replace what we currently have, then we're not going to be any better off, are we?



That's big of you.

Im done here, you simply refuse to open the topic up to public wide discussion, even with you getting to design the thread, and way of phrasing the question.

You obviously have no, or nor have you had any intention of even thinking about changing it.

You wont even ask what the average member wants.,.....so it is you putting the divide of mods and members up...and you holding back boards...I cant legally make the site change its system.....as flawwed as it is...it doesnt matter a great deal to me...however the abuse of members supposed rights i will not let stand.

But as you refuse to evben consider the subject, it,s pointless discussing it with you....i will not calmly and logically dabate a valid issue just to be responded to with stonewalling and abuse.

Goodbye

Zaph

denballs wrote: »

Im done here, you simply refuse to open the topic up to public wide discussion, even with you getting to design the thread, and way of phrasing the question.

The current system is the result of much debate in the past, it didn't simply appear out of thin air. How many times need we debate it to come up with something that satisfies you?

denballs wrote: »

You obviously have no, or nor have you had any intention of even thinking about changing it.

Considering that you only asked for changes in your last post, well then yes, you're right, I never even thought about it. The fact is that despite me being an admin, a major policy change like that is not something I can decide upon unilaterally.

denballs wrote: »

You wont even ask what the average member wants.,.....so it is you putting the divide of mods and members up...and you holding back boards...I cant legally make the site change its system.....as flawwed as it is...it doesnt matter a great deal to me...however the abuse of members supposed rights i will not let stand.

There is no divide other than the fact that mods have certain powers that ordinary members don't. But they're still members themselves and are subject to the site rules just the same as anyone else. And, as you've seen in the DRF thread, mods can make mistakes too, and that's why we have a system in place to allow redress where a poster feels they were unfairly treated.

denballs wrote: »

But as you refuse to evben consider the subject, it,s pointless discussing it with you....i will not calmly and logically dabate a valid issue just to be responded to with stonewalling and abuse.

I'm afraid that your definition of logic and mine will probably always differ.

denballs wrote: »

Goodbye

Bye now

jor el

denballs wrote: »

I stated, that others shouldnt tell me not to do it then, even more blatently do it themselves......if your saying i shouldnt be able to do it, then i agree...but then....mods shouldnt either.......or are you saying they can but i cannot?.

You were the first one to bring up a thread that hadn't been concluded, yet you made a completely false conclusion on it. Then you tell others not to post on matters where they don't know the facts. You see where this might be hypocritical of you, yes? No one should draw conclusions on an unfinished situation.

denballs wrote: »

Several mods have now said the reason that certain disputes appear un-resolved or to be simply ignored is because mods are privately discussing the thread .....so no...it obviously is,nt viewable by all...and apparently i cant see exactly what has happend.

Sometimes it goes private because the complainant wants it done that way. Others because maybe sensitive information is being handled. Either way, if a complainant is not happy, they are free to post publicly about it.

denballs wrote: »

I could direct you to one of my own if needed, ......and would i be wrong in saying that if the OP of such a thread is viewed as wrong that the thread will be closed upon the mod,s decision.....do i really have to go through the complaint archives......cause i know that there are many cases where the OP,s opinon was viewed as wrong and the thread simply closed

If the complaint is without basis, then yes, the case is closed and whatever action was taken will stand. You seem to be saying that this happens on the whim of an admin, who simply takes a dislike to the complainant. Show any evidence of this, and we'll listen to you.

Your explanation for a lack of evidence seems to be based on nothing more than your own inability to accept that there is nothing wrong. Complainants are not bullied into giving up, no matter how much you would like to believe they are.

You mention one of your own disputes. You have no disputes in the Helpdesk though, so how can you say this is what happened? Are you referring to this thread by any chance? You never followed up on the complaint, but what you failed to mention in your complaint was that your ban followed several abusive and trolling posts, and warnings to stop. You then ignored the admin's instruction on how to proceed, not once, but twice more. And when you didn't get your own way, you turned abusive.

Is this how you would like the dispute resolution process to work? People just post whatever they want, anywhere they want, and then call the other person an asshole. Yeah, that sounds like a great way to do it.

Is this the basis for your accusation that when a poster is deemed to be wrong, the thread is simply closed? I think it's obvious why those particular threads were closed.

denballs wrote: »

What do you base this on ....the fact that you like the system and i believe it to be flawed.......well your opinion is no more innately factual than mine

I base it on the simple fact that neither you nor anyone else has been unable to produce any evidence, apart from blind and baseless statements, to the contrary. I base it on the fact that the system does indeed work, as shown by the thread you earlier site as evidence to the contrary. And I base it on the fact that you clearly don't want to understand it, and refuse to accept the explanations given. Your refusal is not a basis to overhaul the system.

denballs wrote: »

I disagree, i think if it is privately done the mods will simply bully the OP into submission, there is a reason it was made as public and should stay that way.

There you go with the baseless accusations. You are biased against "the mods", and that, I believe, is the basis for your entire issue here. You think there's an issue here, but there isn't. It's a perception problem, not an actual problem.

denballs wrote: »

sorry, no i had,nt interesting how much sudden attention it got, I wonder had that got anything to do with removing it as a reference of this thread.........and why couldnt the mod just apologise srtaight away?

Maybe the mod didn't understand straight away that he was wrong? Do you acknowledge immediately when you are wrong? Clearly not, as the linked posts above show, but yet you expect infallibility from others. A dispute may be resolved in minutes, hours, or weeks. That's why Zaph has said that no timeline will ever be put on it. It takes as long as it takes, and cannot be any other way.

Overheal

denballs wrote: »

You wont even ask what the average member wants.,.....so it is you putting the divide of mods and members up...and you holding back boards.

Around your join date Feedforward started looking at these issues and one of the main reasons for the entire set up was precisely the circus of feedback and help desk and having no fixed and balanced procedure for handling exceptions to normal operation on boards. I'm even a little convinced that might have been the only real reason for Feedforward at all.
But what you're saying here is not true: Feedforward asked both Owners, Admins, Moderators, and Users alike to gather their views and to that end we tried to do something a little different, whereby a vetting process picked about 100 80 members split between admins/mods/user (including myself) for their varied perspectives. And we weren't yes men, and I don't know if you can see it but I certainly have more bans and infractions than you may ever. That includes your previous, sitebanned alternative.
As well as that the Public forum proved to be an even better option because it allowed anyone - not just 'trustees' to weigh in on the issues that ended up producing the Dispute Resolution Procedure, among a few other things.

So no I certainly disagree with you when you say the admins or anyone else for that matter refuse to listen to these issues, or indeed listen to the average member, which had plenty of time during those discussions (at minimum, in the order of weeks) to voice their opinions. And I am damn sure I did a good job in making sure the Owners and other decision makers were aware of the discussions, and that they weighed them fairly, and acted appropriately to go do things like make the DRF.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Take this as an example

The guy/girl made stated an interesting fact and was banned. There is no common sense applied here. I agree with the OP, in situations like this for someone not to apologise for the mistake certainly gives the impression of "us" and "them".

I stand corrected, realised I spoke out of place afterwards. A happy and just ending. Fair dues.

castie

denballs wrote: »

Im done here, you simply refuse to open the topic up to public wide discussion, even with you getting to design the thread, and way of phrasing the question.

You obviously have no, or nor have you had any intention of even thinking about changing it.

You wont even ask what the average member wants.,.....so it is you putting the divide of mods and members up...and you holding back boards...I cant legally make the site change its system.....as flawwed as it is...it doesnt matter a great deal to me...however the abuse of members supposed rights i will not let stand.

But as you refuse to evben consider the subject, it,s pointless discussing it with you....i will not calmly and logically dabate a valid issue just to be responded to with stonewalling and abuse.

Goodbye

Very sorry I couldnt get mother nature to knock off this Typhoon thats disrupting me in Asia at present so that I could resolve it in as quick as you would have liked.

Fact remains that you still jumped on here to sling mud at moderators even after an apology was issued without knowing the facts. (something you recommended others dont do)

denballs

jor el wrote: »

You were the first one to bring up a thread that hadn't been concluded, yet you made a completely false conclusion on it. Then you tell others not to post on matters where they don't know the facts. You see where this might be hypocritical of you, yes? No one should draw conclusions on an unfinished situation.



Sometimes it goes private because the complainant wants it done that way. Others because maybe sensitive information is being handled. Either way, if a complainant is not happy, they are free to post publicly about it.




If the complaint is without basis, then yes, the case is closed and whatever action was taken will stand. You seem to be saying that this happens on the whim of an admin, who simply takes a dislike to the complainant. Show any evidence of this, and we'll listen to you.

Your explanation for a lack of evidence seems to be based on nothing more than your own inability to accept that there is nothing wrong. Complainants are not bullied into giving up, no matter how much you would like to believe they are.

You mention one of your own disputes. You have no disputes in the Helpdesk though, so how can you say this is what happened? Are you referring to this thread by any chance? You never followed up on the complaint, but what you failed to mention in your complaint was that your ban followed several abusive and trolling posts, and warnings to stop. You then ignored the admin's instruction on how to proceed, not once, but twice more. And when you didn't get your own way, you turned abusive.

Is this how you would like the dispute resolution process to work? People just post whatever they want, anywhere they want, and then call the other person an asshole. Yeah, that sounds like a great way to do it.

Is this the basis for your accusation that when a poster is deemed to be wrong, the thread is simply closed? I think it's obvious why those particular threads were closed.



I base it on the simple fact that neither you nor anyone else has been unable to produce any evidence, apart from blind and baseless statements, to the contrary. I base it on the fact that the system does indeed work, as shown by the thread you earlier site as evidence to the contrary. And I base it on the fact that you clearly don't want to understand it, and refuse to accept the explanations given. Your refusal is not a basis to overhaul the system.



There you go with the baseless accusations. You are biased against "the mods", and that, I believe, is the basis for your entire issue here. You think there's an issue here, but there isn't. It's a perception problem, not an actual problem.



Maybe the mod didn't understand straight away that he was wrong? Do you acknowledge immediately when you are wrong? Clearly not, as the linked posts above show, but yet you expect infallibility from others. A dispute may be resolved in minutes, hours, or weeks. That's why Zaph has said that no timeline will ever be put on it. It takes as long as it takes, and cannot be any other way.

The only thing i need to reply to about this, is that you are lieing if you say i was abusive to you at all...you were abusive towards me.....i showed the pm,s you never showed anything...the matter was closed without any other input besides your own and i felt going on about it would be pointless.....i had forgotten about it however....but thank you...it does back up many of my arguments.

But ...no ...that has nothing to do with this thread


If u really must know..

I stated that i wouldnt say names...so im not going to....however recently a mod warned me for something many posters had done on the same page as me......i pm,d him pointing this out and asking had he warned them......he then told me to leave it or he would ban me.........

Shield

@denballs - If you're looking for a recent example of a moderator having been demodded, here is the most recent example that is available for all to see.

denballs

As you all, moderaters...Admins.....continue to abuse me verbally......please remember...i wanted this closed yesterday to avoid an argument...i simply requested...that my request for this matter to be looked into be put on note.

I dont want to argue, I really did just want to put my opinion across that mods on occasion can be wrong in their decisions and that perhaps some measures could be put in place to improve the system.

I have only responded, in a way i think is fair...sure i might,ve gotten sharp with some of you...but only if you where beforehand abusive or ignorant towards me.

You all refuse to believe that the system can be improved, i dont agree ./..but i do respect your opinions even if you make fun of mine.

So as this thread has run its course and as the OP ..I formally request it be closed.