A suggestion to improve Moderation in general

oscarBravo

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Feedback should be taken as such. If someone says they have seen smart comments from mods it does not matter where it happens. It is feedback, take it a such and the next time you are banning someone or issuing mod instruction be aware that this issue was fed back.

If you're offering feedback for the sole purpose of asking moderators to keep it in mind when actioning transgressions in the future, fair enough; but if you're looking for a specific change in site policy, then it's only fair that we understand what it is that's bothering people and in what way they'd like it changed.

It's also important to keep in mind that sometimes we take on board feedback and consciously decide not to implement it - per my post above.

darced

This post has been deleted.

johnr1

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is the point I was also making. My experience is similar,

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

I have no doubt it happens.Unless specific cases are raised it is hard to pin it down. If you notice it again a PM to a relevant Cmod may not go astray.

I don't believe it to be widespread though, from my own dealings and reading of boards.

Well Micky, it may not be widespread but it is very very common, and at least one mod who I'd cite for it has posted on this thread already, expressing their disbelief that such a thing could happen. There, now, I've said it.

Want more specifics???

Now do you guys see why we feel you are just circling the wagons??

humanji

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

But specific feedback gets the threads locked.

Sorry to be another mod chiming in, but the above is simply not true. If someone starts a feedback thread complaining about a specific instance, then it would probably be closed or moved to the Helpdesk, as it's not what this forum is for.

But when someone makes a suggestion/complaint here and is asked for specifics, it's not going to be closed if the person is kind enough to provide them. It would be very helpful to give a specific example, instead of a loose generalisation which isn't going to help pin down the exact problem.

I'll openly admit to sometimes being quite sarcastic when giving out warnings etc. I'm not sure if I have been when banning people, but can't say for sure. I try to treat people with the same respect they've shown others. So when they're trolling a forum, I don't see protecting their feelings as being particularly high up in my priorities list.

Being a mod is sh*t, thankless work. There's no possible way of pleasing everybody. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. To mod a forum like a robot and taking all aspects of my personality out of the equation would of had me quitting the internet as a whole, a long time ago.

Now, that's just my take on it, and I don't speak for anyone else. If many users find it offensive, then it should and will be looked at. But, personally, I don't know if there is a problem with it. And I'd almost see taking the personality out of mod actions as creating an even wider divide between mods and users.

Again, without specifics, of even loose specifics (if that's not an oxymoron), would help the mods, cmods and admins know exactly where the problem lies.


I think the other two suggestions were pretty much covered. Mods giving personalised feedback to users regarding reported posts is unworkable, and an automated system would take some work by the site developers. It's not impossible, but I think it may be asking a lot of them.

The opening post suggestion isn't going to work. In a perfect world, there'd be no need for mods at all. But, while most users can behave themselves, there's enough trolls and troublemakers out there to require the amount of mods there are. What other sites think is not a valid excuse to do anything.


On another note that's been touched on here, I fully understand that sometimes it can seem that in a feedback thread here, that it's a host of mods circling around one user.

You have to keep in mind that a surprisingly large amount of supposed feedback threads are started by users who were causing trouble and feel that a feedback thread is a way of getting their own back. A user will troll a forum, get banned, and then head to feedback to get a sly dig in at the mods.

As a result, rightly or wrongly, the motivations of users in Feedback are often brought into question. If it is a troublemaker, the mods, cmods, admins and other users will quickly see through them. If the user is genuine, then their point is discussed.

Sadly, because of the instant suspicion, things can get combative. This thread is a good example. There's no real need for anyone here to get aggressive, but it slightly happened and the points being made almost got lost. When questions were asked, they were then seen as attacking the user, instead of simply trying to get information.

I think this is something that needs to be sorted out to make Feedback seem a more approachable forum for users. I can fully understand if some users didn't want to post here. The forum has come a long way from the time of owl pictures, but I think it could use some more improvements that would help the moderation in general.

While mods should be free to have their say, would it be an idea if there was some form of mod rep, who could speak for the mods here, so users don't have to worry about getting that "circling the mod wagons" feeling?

Oryx

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I take this point on board. I like to think that I don't make jibes to be honest, at worst I could be accused of being terse. (Phone numbers in posts drives me up the walls in one of the forums I mod because its so incessant a problem, so I could tend to be a bit gaahhh 'not again!').

Its in a mods best interest to keep things civil in forum and pm interactions. If you've got an aggrieved poster, being smart with them is almost guaranteed to make the issue worse, not better.

And this is a thankless job. I'm not going boo hoo here, I like modding, but it is as mentioned, mostly cleaning up spam and defusing arguments. 90% of the moderation work that happens isn't even noticed by the general posting population. Also, I'd say if you checked, almost every mod on this site has received at least one totally unjustified heavily abusive pm. This is the kind of thing a regular user doesn't realise, and I only mention it as feedback to the those who have posted here.

I absolutely did not want requests for specifics to be seen as a witch hunt. But if you said to me 'All vets are doing a bad job' my first question would be 'which vet?' and 'why do you say that?'. I cant take on board such a blanket statement without getting details of what is wrong.

P. Breathnach

humanji wrote: »

...
You have to keep in mind that a surprisingly large amount of supposed feedback threads are started by users who were causing trouble and feel that a feedback thread is a way of getting their own back. A user will troll a forum, get banned, and then head to feedback to get a sly dig in at the mods.

As a result, rightly or wrongly, the motivations of users in Feedback are often brought into question. If it is a troublemaker, the mods, cmods, admins and other users will quickly see through them. If the user is genuine, then their point is discussed....

It can be vexing if the modding team see feedback that they believe to be motivated by spite. But no matter what the perceived motivation for raising an issue here, the matter should be dealt with on its own merits rather than on the basis of who raises it and why.

If a mod posts a summary of somebody's record, it is tantamount to inviting me, an ordinary participant in discussions here, to value that person's argument less because of who they are rather than because of what they say. That's drifting into that questionable zone of attacking the poster rather than the post.

Most of the people who participate at all regularly in this particular forum are here because we have the welfare of boards.ie at heart. I would like to think that we have effective crap-detection filters.

There are also "irregulars" who seem to turn up only for certain types of discussion. In my opinion, many of those irregulars would not be influenced by the bad disciplinary record of a contributor.

knucklehead6

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If a mod posts a summary of somebody's record, it is tantamount to inviting me, an ordinary participant in discussions here, to value that person's argument less because of who they are rather than because of what they say. That's drifting into that questionable zone of attacking the poster rather than the post.

But if that person is saying all mods are crap, power tripping, no good varmints, then can you not see WHY the users history is relevant to the conversation?

Lets say that i'm a trouble maker, i have forum bans, site bans, infractions and warnings all over the place, all for being a bully, derailing threads, personal abuse, etc etc.

I come along here and say the mods are doing a bad job, and should be easier going on posters, then my posting history is very much a part of the discussion

darced

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

knucklehead6 wrote: »

But if that person is saying all mods are crap, power tripping, no good varmints, then can you not see WHY the users history is relevant to the conversation?
...

No. Either what you say is fair or it is not. It does not matter who you are.

knucklehead6

P. Breathnach wrote: »

No. Either what you say is fair or it is not. It does not matter who you are.

What if its unfair, BUT the mods/cmods/admins allow the post remain to get a debate going on the wider issue of moderation in general.

Going back to the user in my example, he has a grudge against the mods of the **** forum that mickey was asking about earlier because he kept on trying to talk about typewriters an got forum banned. He comes on here giving out about those mods, and how unreasonable they are, when it is his own actions that have resulted on him being banned. Does he have the right to give out about mods enforcing the rules in a forum that he consistently tried to derail and hijack? I'd say he doesn't. He gave up that right by refusing to follow that forum charter.

humanji

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Again, without specifics it's difficult to discuss. There's no blanket use of it, so I can't even comment clearly on myself. When a banned user re-reg's to try and derail a thread, why should anyone care about their feelings? They're actively showing disrespect for every other user of the site.

That's just one simple example. I'm not sure if I'm a good example for you. Are you referring to someone being constantly sarcastic and insulting? Or do you think that there should simply no personality in any mod action?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

No. Either what you say is fair or it is not. It does not matter who you are.

A persons history is sometimes the key to whether what they say is fair or not. It's one of many factors that must be taken into account. It's rarely black and white.

darced

This post has been deleted.

Insect Overlord

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The messages sent with ban notifications and yellow/red cards are already automated. Is it the on-thread warnings that sometimes accompany these actions that are causing the problem?

P. Breathnach

humanji wrote: »

...
A persons history is sometimes the key to whether what they say is fair or not. It's one of many factors that must be taken into account. It's rarely black and white.

I think that I can fairly claim to have a good posting history. So if I were to say

I was going to post a request about relaxing the moderation in After Hours but I've thought better of it after seeing how the few of the appeals/requests are granted.

Now we all know the flaws when the police end up policing the police & that's to be expected, self preservation is human nature.
The public image of this forum is being hurt by over-heavy moderation that seems to go unchecked.
I wont publicise your competition but Boards.ie bashing seems to be a popular topic with the main complaint being over moderation & power hungry moderators.
The process where a thread is locked on a whim while other bold blues rain in with thanks is singled out for particular ridicule.

Recently I find myself coming here less & less or not bothering to post at all.
I believe that Boards.ie should trust their members more & rely on the report button to alert them to abuse or libel.
Less Moderators, ones with true fairness as their only agenda, would then be required to sort out the Helen Lovejoys from the real rule breakers.

would that in some way be a more fair post than the one made by OP?

K-9

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think that I can fairly claim to have a good posting history. So if I were to say

would that in some way be a more fair post than the one made by OP?

The problem there is you would be referring to other posters, a few who would have chequered histories, multiple bans and serial re-regs. It is perfectly fair for the mods to point that out on this thread, seeing as those posters opinions carry so much weight and are used as evidence.

Oryx

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think that I can fairly claim to have a good posting history. So if I were to say

would that in some way be a more fair post than the one made by OP?

Bear in mind that I am in no way a rule maker here, just a low level grunt. But Im going to take this apart a bit to deal with as I see it, and as if you yourself posted it:

I was going to post a request about relaxing the moderation in After Hours but I've thought better of it after seeing how the few of the appeals/requests are granted.

Are very few requests granted? Do you mean requests in general or requests about relaxed moderation? In the drp, I have seen quite a few bans and infractions overturned. In prison, many are unbanned. It would help to know exactly what you mean.

Now we all know the flaws when the police end up policing the police & that's to be expected, self preservation is human nature.

How exactly do you envisage the site running differently. We currently have a hierarchy, and are answerable to those above us.

The public image of this forum is being hurt by over-heavy moderation that seems to go unchecked.

Its a very busy forum, still.

I wont publicise your competition but Boards.ie bashing seems to be a popular topic with the main complaint being over moderation & power hungry moderators.

I know two sites which have complaint threads. Its a well known thing that those who are unhappy with a service tell everyone, those who are happy, generally dont bother to tell anyone.

The process where a thread is locked on a whim while other bold blues rain in with thanks is singled out for particular ridicule.

There are always reasons to lock a thread. I do think a note of explanation should be part of the locking process. Would this satisfy you?

Recently I find myself coming here less & less or not bothering to post at all.

Why, particularly?

I believe that Boards.ie should trust their members more & rely on the report button to alert them to abuse or libel.

Boards IS its members. It could not run without the assistance of regular posters, nor would it exist without them.

Less Moderators, ones with true fairness as their only agenda, would then be required to sort out the Helen Lovejoys from the real rule breakers.

The existing mods work hard enough as it is, and you want less of them? Youll need to define true fairness. Because your version of whats fair and mine could differ. For instance many complain that they cannot speak freely here and that its unfair that certain comments are not allowed. But they are not allowed for very legitimate reasons. The helen lovejoy thing I mentioned to the op I didnt comprehend at all, but sometimes people think they arent breaking the rules simply because they didnt check what the rules are.

humanji

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think that I can fairly claim to have a good posting history. So if I were to say

would that in some way be a more fair post than the one made by OP?

Technically it'd be less fair, as you're only posting it to try and prove a point.

But I'd assume all feedback threads would be taken into consideration. And when it is being considered, the motivations of the poster would be one of the factors taken into account.

And remember, I'm one mod in one forum of this site. I only speak for myself, not the other mods and certainly not those who would be in a position to action any feedback that's given here.

southsiderosie

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Would more specific feedback be welcome here though? If I was to call out a mod action, name the mod, the forum etc I would suggest there would be a brief discussion. There would then be a final post by an Admin saying to contact a Cmod or admin and then the thread closed asap. So the posters here are correct to be general as possible.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

But specific feedback gets the threads locked. Hence why in a thread like this it is better to be general. Look at most recent locked threads in Feedback forum.

mathepac wrote: »

As I have said already if you (the mods) don't want feedback on how to "... improve Moderation in general" couched in general terms, use the specifics of my record or maybe just lock the thread.

I don't understand why you think you cannot give specific, forum-based feedback here without getting banned or the thread being locked. For AH alone, over the last few months, there have been discussions here on the moderation of threads targeting abusive posts and sexist posts. I've actually started a thread on issues in the Politics forum that went on for several pages. Not only was it not locked, I was asked to be a mod for the forum a few months later.

I have found moderators here, particularly in AH, to be very open to discussions on the moderation of their forums - as long as those discussions are seen as being in good faith. For example, many of the threads started in Feedback on The Ladies Lounge were due to specific posters having an axe to grind with that forum, and eventually Dav put a stop to it. That said, it is also why a poster's history comes into play in these kinds of threads - complaints coming from posters who are regulars and who do not cause headaches for the mods are going to be taken more seriously than complaints coming from people who are constant troublemakers. Frankly, I think that is as it should be. This isn't to say that troublemakers may not have a point, but it may be difficult to discern whether that point is just self-serving, or is genuinely meant as constructive criticism in order to improve the dynamics of a given forum.

As others have noted, if you want general feedback on moderation, it may be useful to highlight specific concerns (like, for example, the selection process) across the site, or general concerns about a specific forum. Specific concerns about a specific forum are more appropriate for feedback threads within that given forum, and general concerns about the site aren't helpful because there is so much variation in forum norms.

mathepac

Insect Overlord wrote: »

The messages sent with ban notifications and yellow/red cards are already automated. Is it the on-thread warnings that sometimes accompany these actions that are causing the problem?

That is certainly part of the problem. The posted warning and the PM'd comments can be poles apart content-wise and at one stage I had to check if they referred to different posts. The PMs invariably contain more 'spicy' comments

I've been silent for a while in here to try and find a 'specific' and of course the difficulty I encountered is one our guardians know about already. If the comments on-thread and in the PM are different, I cannot share the PM contents on pain of death by torture in the mods' executive jacks or a site-ban.

On the issue of how specifics are required "to improve Moderation in general" I still believe generalities will do.

One persistent behaviour mods seem to have in common is if I "Report Post" and see no resultant action and then employ the same posting style / technique later in the thread, I invariably get reprimanded. If I complain about the inconsistency (I don't anymore as there is no point) I get the inevitable "I ain't talking abaht wot he said maite, I'm talkin' abaht wot you said, innit" type communication, confirming that the playing field is not suited to either cricket or croquet and that the referee is not disinterested.
Suggestion: Ensure mod behaviour in a thread is consistent and impartial.

To prevent the appearance of mods and their little acolytes ganging up on a poster who has been taken to task on a thread by high-fiving each other ad nauseam
Suggestion: remove the facility issue thank yous.

I'll be back with some more general suggestions once this couple and I have had our regulation and unceremonious kicking

oscarBravo

mathepac wrote: »

...our guardians...on pain of death by torture in the mods' executive jacks...mods and their little acolytes...our regulation and unceremonious kicking

With all due respect, this doesn't read to me as feedback; it reads as petulance.

For me to take your feedback at face value requires that I buy in to your caricatures. I'm not prepared to do so. If you want your feedback taken seriously, contribute seriously.

K-9

mathepac wrote: »

That is certainly part of the problem. The posted warning and the PM'd comments can be poles apart content-wise and at one stage I had to check if they referred to different posts. The PMs invariably contain more 'spicy' comments

I seriously don't get this. Posters are complaining about the wording of bans on thread, that's what Insect Overlord referred to, you agree but then go on about something different entirely, PM's. Which is it you've the problem with? In thread warnings or PM's? Or is it everything?

On the issue of how specifics are required "to improve Moderation in general" I still believe generalities will do.

One persistent behaviour mods seem to have in common is if I "Report Post" and see no resultant action and then employ the same posting style / technique later in the thread, I invariably get reprimanded. If I complain about the inconsistency (I don't anymore as there is no point) I get the inevitable "I ain't talking abaht wot he said maite, I'm talkin' abaht wot you said, innit" type communication, confirming that the playing field is not suited to either cricket or croquet and that the referee is not disinterested.
Suggestion: Ensure mod behaviour in a thread is consistent and impartial.

What often happens as I pointed out earlier is, mods take note of a reported post and keep an eye on a thread, or they might put up an on thread warning. Often what wasn't actioned before the warning will get acted on afterwards. That's the whole point of a warning, basically that's enough, anymore posts like that will get actioned. It's inconsistent, but it also gives a fair warning to all posters.

Threads often escalate and get worse, happens on a daily basis regularly.

To prevent the appearance of mods and their little acolytes ganging up on a poster who has been taken to task on a thread by high-fiving each other ad nauseam
Suggestion: remove the facility issue thank yous.

I'll be back with some more general suggestions once this couple and I have had our regulation and unceremonious kicking

Hopefully we wont have to keep repeating the same points over and over like the reported post feedback issue, which has been explained several times over several threads.

mathepac

One of the more bizarre accusation made of me was that I was the sock puppet of a poster whose views seemed to be along similar lines to my own on a thread.

I did a "Report Post" highlighting the fact that the post was an attempt to get me perma-nanned from the site. No action resulted. When I took it a stage further and posted in the thread, the notification I received indicated that I should drop such a trivial matter or if I took it further it could have consequences for me.

Given that if upheld, being the sock puppet accusation could result in a permanent site-wide ban, I certainly didn't view it as trivial, just a scurrilous attempt to get me banned for disagreeing with a particular point of view.

mathepac

oscarBravo wrote: »

With all due respect, this doesn't read to me as feedback; it reads as petulance.

For me to take your feedback at face value requires that I buy in to your caricatures. I'm not prepared to do so. If you want your feedback taken seriously, contribute seriously.

But I already know that the mods are in defensive / derisive mode and not receptive to what's being posted here by ordinary users. Why am I not allowed to adopt a similar but opposing stance to them?

BTW in an earlier post you dismissed one of my suggestions as you said you are the one responsible for implementing it and you weren't willing to take up the suggestion. That being the case why are any others allowed to voice a pro or a con as from your post even if the mods decided on a course of action you could just shoot it down?

tbh

humanji wrote: »

When a banned user re-reg's to try and derail a thread, why should anyone care about their feelings? They're actively showing disrespect for every other user of the site.

Reason 1: because two wrongs don't make a right. Mods shouldn't use the behaviour of a poster to justify unacceptable behaviour from themselves.

Reason 2: because it gives the wrong impression - if a user sees a mod posting in a way that wouldn't be tolerated from a non-mod, it creates a sense, rightly or wrongly, of division

Reason 3: because mods should be as invisible as possible, imo. Mods are here to facilitate discussion, not shape it.

Reason 4: because maybe the mod is wrong. Maybe the poster isn't a banned user. Posting sarcastically paints the mod into a corner it's difficult to get out of, so it can suit the mod to carry on claiming the poster is a re-reg, even if the evidence starts to suggest otherwise.

Reason 5: because maybe making the mod "lose their cool" is exactly what the problematic user actually wants to do.

It shouldn't be a huge problem to accept that there are bad mods on boards.

There's a massive amount of mods, most are great, some are ok, some are poor.

Some are in it for the good of the site, some just like the power. Some feel like they should say something when they see something they dont agree with, but don't have the confidence, or the time, or the inclination to speak out against their co-mods.

It's not going to end the site to admit this. However, if you want to post in a forum where there are no mods, post in the thunderdome. Me and Dr B are the nominal mods there, but we won't stop you calling another poster a wanker, as long as they are posting in the thread too. Neither will we stop them from calling you a wanker. We won't stop you going off topic, or ranting, or being obtuse or posting stupid pictures. It's not a popular forum. Can't think why.

Insect Overlord

mathepac wrote: »

But I already know that the mods are in defensive / derisive mode and not receptive to what's being posted here by ordinary users.

Bullshit.

The above may be your opinion, but it's so far from reality that there's no other way to describe it.

My opinion is that you're just here on a wind-up mission. The majority of your posts in this thread seem to have been designed to cause as much noise as possible with the minimum of constructive input. If you want people to be receptive to your ideas, you're going to have to communicate them in a way that doesn't serve to isolate you from your intended audience.

oscarBravo

mathepac wrote: »

But I already know that the mods are in defensive / derisive mode and not receptive to what's being posted here by ordinary users. Why am I not allowed to adopt a similar but opposing stance to them?

Because that's not feedback, it's petulance. This isn't the Petulance forum.

BTW in an earlier post you dismissed one of my suggestions as you said you are the one responsible for implementing it and you weren't willing to take up the suggestion. That being the case why are any others allowed to voice a pro or a con as from your post even if the mods decided on a course of action you could just shoot it down?

I'm not the one responsible; I'm a member of the team responsible. I'm taking the liberty of speaking on behalf of that team because we've worked together for some time and I think I know how most of them would feel about your suggestion. They are of course free to offer their own views here, and if any of them had disagreed with me I'm fairly sure we'd have heard from them by now.

If I thought your suggestion would have benefits outweighing the not insignificant burden it would impose on our volunteers, I'd say so and bring it to the admin team for consideration. I don't believe it would, and so I won't.

Bear in mind that there's nothing preventing a moderator from offering feedback on each and every reported post. The fact that they choose not to do so voluntarily makes it fairly clear to me that they don't believe the benefits of so doing would outweigh the effort involved. I'm at a loss as to why you think I would prevent the moderator team from implementing such a process if they wanted to do so. The reason I've rejected your suggestion is that it's clear to me that the moderators don't want to implement it, and I can see no reason to force them to do so against their will.

tbh

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Bullshit.

The above may be your opinion, but it's so far from reality that there's no other way to describe it.

My opinion is that you're just here on a wind-up mission. The majority of your posts in this thread seem to have been designed to cause as much noise as possible with the minimum of constructive input. If you want people to be receptive to your ideas, you're going to have to communicate them in a way that doesn't serve to isolate you from your intended audience.

reality, not to get too philosophical about it, is subjective. How do you know that what he's posting isn't a fair representation of the site and this thread as he sees it?

If you genuinely think he's on a wind up mission, wouldn't it be better to just ignore him?

oscarBravo

tbh wrote: »

It shouldn't be a huge problem to accept that there are bad mods on boards.

I have no problem accepting that.

This thread was started with the premise that AH is over-moderated. This was followed up with the claim that our moderation standards are very poor.

I don't think that either of those claims are objectively true, and I don't think either of them have anything to do with the question of whether or not there are bad moderators on the site.

oscarBravo

tbh wrote: »

If you genuinely think he's on a wind up mission, wouldn't it be better to just ignore him?

...and then we're criticised for ignoring feedback.

Insect Overlord

tbh wrote: »

reality, not to get too philosophical about it, is subjective. How do you know that what he's posting isn't a fair representation of the site and this thread as he sees it?

If you genuinely think he's on a wind up mission, wouldn't it be better to just ignore him?

Below is a selection of quotes from the poster in question, all made in this thread, a compilation of examples of the problematic approach utilised and with emphasis added to highlight the parts that are particularly annoying. If you're willing to accept the following as reality, that's entirely up to yourself.

mathepac wrote: »

The moderation standards are very poor IMO and moderators seem to be selectively blind, deaf, and dumb to what goes on in threads and it seems to me have carte blanche to be sarcastic, uncivil, and so on in their posts when dishing out the warnings cards. They are also partial and cut fellow mods tons of slack about ad hominem attacks.

mathepac wrote: »

This generated the usual predictable responses, combined with hands thrown in the air, "Oh the mods won't like it", "The mods aren't paid, they work for free" - the usual tat. I don't care if they don't like it. A closed loop feedback system is the only way to make improvements in a setting such as this so that all decision-making is transparent. Train them to do it without sarcasm, ad hominem attacks or trolling, like moderator post I commented on above.

mathepac wrote: »

Thanks for that but I'm aware of what I typed.

...

I have issues with the lack of even-handedness and transparency on boards.ie and a general laissez-faire attitude about the charter. "Oh we know what it says all right, but you don't really think we are guided by it do you? It's really just for the plebs. Toddle on there, let us get back to our tea and biccies."

mathepac wrote: »

As with any responsible job, there is a certain standard of behaviour expected even if that person is "off duty". For example, would it be appropriate to see a drug and alcohol counsellor pissed out of his head at week-ends, snorting coke in the jacks and starting fights or drink-driving? If your job has a certain standing in the eyes of a community then part of the job is to protect that standing.

mathepac wrote: »

I don't have a lot of time to waste but I'm posting here because I see something that needs changing IMO on a site I value in parts, but if no-one wants the feedback, then do the decent thing and delete the forum.

It's odd that at least two of you should mention the same "nothing will change" line in a forum about listening and changing. So far so bad.
Why are so many of you fixated about not getting paid? I have already posted about that above so the "oh we don't get paid bit" is just boring repetition. BTW, as you evidently haven't read your way up to date in the thread, some posters might dismiss your input as just sea-gulling, but I won't (or as a mod might post condescendingly, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt).

So don't call it a job, call it a role, a vocation, a calling, a position, an undertaking, a function, call it voluntary work for the greater good of mankind, call it self-indulgence or aggrandisement but it has reactive policy and charter enforcement at its core, no matter what it's called so there's some element of work there.

...They seem besotted with their own importance and bravura and are constantly high-fiving (thanking) each other in threads such as this, congratulating their fellows for appareny point-scoring on the ordinary (non-mod) poster who can't respond in kind because he'll get infracted / banned. It's akin to shooting fish in a barrel.

mathepac wrote: »

If you had troubled to read my lenghthy post you'd have seen that the information you mods keep requesting (in my case) is already in the mods possession and has already been alluded to by another mod, so cut out the disingenuous BS please.

...An alternative interpretation is that the mods are perfect and the run-of-the-mill posters are just a huge pain in the arse.
The posting just becomes more obtuse and obdurate and of decreasing quality.

mathepac wrote: »

See? I'm adaptable, teachable, changeable. I absorb lessons from interaction with the masters of subversion, deflection and mis-direction. And to think I was just an honest Sean Citizen poster a short while ago.

mathepac wrote: »

I've been silent for a while in here to try and find a 'specific' and of course the difficulty I encountered is one our guardians know about already. If the comments on-thread and in the PM are different, I cannot share the PM contents on pain of death by torture in the mods' executive jacks or a site-ban.

...To prevent the appearance of mods and their little acolytes ganging up on a poster who has been taken to task on a thread by high-fiving each other ad nauseam
Suggestion: remove the facility issue thank yous.

I'll be back with some more general suggestions once this couple and I have had our regulation and unceremonious kicking

mathepac wrote: »

But I already know that the mods are in defensive / derisive mode and not receptive to what's being posted here by ordinary users. Why am I not allowed to adopt a similar but opposing stance to them?

It's an impressive amount of sarcasm, bitchiness, straw man, ad hominem, twisting of words, misrepresentation, ingenuous analogy and plain old-fashioned insult by any measure. The fact that it comes from a poster who claims to want an end to this kind of posting makes it all the worse.