Smods & Cmods... Too much work?

amp

Don't ask us Regi, your site, your rules.

WhiteWashMan

Regi wrote:

I'd really like this airing of dirty laundry to be taken offline, perhaps to the mod forum?

I'm getting extremely bored of it.

well, either dont read it, or just delete it.

mind you, it really is your problem to deal with it, so perhaps you should deal with it....?

but dont get shirty when there is obviously an issue, and several people want to discuss it. what owuld you perefer we do? go to a backery and thrown cream buns at each other and the winner is the one who comes out the thinnest?

how about having some input, instead of being passremarkable and blasé?

Baz_

Regi wrote:

I'd really like this airing of dirty laundry to be taken offline, perhaps to the mod forum?.

The thing I find about the airing of laundry behind closed doors, is that the laundry never quite gets fully clean, it's always that bit mustier than it ought to be, it whiffs a bit tbh.

Now hang it outdoors on the line, and it tends to be that bit fresher, more visible sure, but noone can turn around and say "that laundry wasn't aired properly".

Just another metaphorical rambling...

regi

Just because you can't see what I'm doing about this, don't be so arrogant to assume that I'm not.

All I'm saying above is that I don't want this conversation to continue on Feedback, and I'll always ask first, before just moving it.

Talliesin

WhiteWashMan wrote:

i am not sure why you can consider banning someone from an entire catagory because they dont have the same belief as you, and you then accuse them of being bigoted.

It's not that he merely disagreed with Paganism that made me consider him a bigot.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

i suspect its something to do with putting down your beloved paganism forum, rather than anything else tbh.

Meanwhile I get **** from Pagan bigots because I won't tolerate anti-Christian bigotry from them (not on boards.ie much, but it comes up a lot elsewhere)

amp

RopeDrink wrote:

Mentioned it before, and in quite a few different threads.
If this is ever to be considered, it get's this peon's backing, as we really all need to be on the same page if we're to avert this kind of thing happening again.

There is no conflict or need to redefine the roles of moderators.

The current system works. Moderators on the frontline, Cmods on secondary defense, Smods with the ability to clamp down on sitewide spammers etc.

No Cmod or Smod has complained publicly about the workload, therefore the original post is redundant. I've been modding Humanities for quite some time and I find it's seriousness helps balance the lunacy of TCN and Ask Dr Demento for example. I see myself as a moderator of the forums listed under my name and as a backup for the Games cat forums.

The only problems that people have mentioned are ones with certain Smods abusing their powers. The difference between Gordon and Talliesin is that at least with Gordons thread you had a choice wether to see if he was being serious.

Nevyn

The whole point of the Smods was so that they could put out smaller fires
before they grew and needed admins action.

Yes some Smods are more active then other but surely this is a benefit to
boards as a whole.

Yes the autonomy of the mods in thier forums and the communites the
serve big, small, specialised or the larger open areas of Boards.ie needs to
be respected.
Otherwise what would the point be of having indivualised charters.

I am sure that if a mod felt that a cmod or a smod was over stepping thier
bounds in a mods forum taking actions that were interfering then those mods
would take the appriate action and raise it with the cmod/smod via pm or
the mods forum and invovling admins if they deened it nessacary.

We do have proceedures folks we should use them.

WhiteWashMan

Thaedydal wrote:

The whole point of the Smods was so that they could put out smaller fires
before they grew and needed admins action.
.

actually, thats just it. there werent.

mods are there for that. if someone posts to you in the PI forum that you are an idiot, what do you do? you ban them.
do you then go and ask an smod to ban them from the site?

no.

if you then see, 5 posts across 5 catagories, do you then post up on the mododerator forum mentioning this, and perhaps an smod can look into it.

yes.

because thats the proceedure.

im unsure where the smods come into it with the small fires...?

Baz_

WhiteWashMan wrote:

tbh, i think its time the admins actually got involved at this point. im not going to sit here and hammer smods, or cmods or mods, or users. i have made my point that i think some people are over active.
perhaps the admins want this.

I'd just like to reiterate at this point that the original intention of this thread was not to hammer the smosds, cmods or mods either, and also that I was here as more of a suggestion of something that perhaps hadn't been thought of yet.

It has been confirmed that this is not the case.

Perhaps the admins do prefer the status quo, I can't imagine they wouldn't have changed things at this point if that wasn't the case. In other words I believe they are happy enough with creating the police force from members of the community and allowing the police force to decide how to police the community from whence they came.

If this is not the case however, I would love to see an open discussion (I know I'm not going to, but I still would) of the roles of each of the groups of mods, with full participation from user to admin level.

Then again, it's not my site, I just use it (a lot [too much tbh]).

Talliesin

amp wrote:

The difference between Gordon and Talliesin is that at least with Gordons thread you had a choice wether to see if he was being serious.

Gah! I banned someone for 20 minutes. They thought it was funny.

I didn't even realise you were serious in your being pissed off with me. I thought the whole feud between us was hilarious tbh.

I only realised now you were being serious.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

im unsure where the smods come into it with the small fires...?

The stuff smods deal with were the small fires to the admins - moderator actions in unmoderated channels, moderation of the Feedback & Forum channels, tackling illegal material, porn Spam and other Spam, helpdesk queries etc.

Boston

Talliesin wrote:

G
moderation of the Feedback & Forum channels,

Thats the problem here isn't it? Wwm doesn't feel you should be moderating this forum. Where do the admins actually stand on this issue.

Amp, you wheren't saying that to Jerry when he banned you.

Talliesin

Hmm. Well that could be discussed as a separate issue. Really though, if anything I've felt maybe we've been too hands-off around here and threads could perhaps do with being kept on-topic more heavily as they tend to meander so far from the point that the actual "feedback" is lost.

We also don't need every thread about the fact that S&S is subscriber-only to go on for 46 pages.

WhiteWashMan

well, small fires to the admins is really subjective. the smods were introduced to do admin actions when an admin is not around.
that is to get involved when something gets out of hand.
you may call it small fires, its all really subjective, and since we have no agreed definition, is pretty pointless even trying to discuss what a 'small fire' is.

on the other hand, i was not aware you were supposed to be moderating either the feedback or the forum forums. i certainly wasnt aware of that. i was of the opinion they were for communicating items of (subjective) importance to the admins, and as such, were beyond the mere understanding a of peons of a non admin standing.

i have no idea what happens to the helpdesk. although, i suspect locking threads isnt a hugely popular helpdesk ticket somehow.

i dont think we have many unmoderated forums. im sure there is no end to the number of people who would love to get a mod ship under their belt. who knows?

but again. at this stage im only replying you. i could use caps, but i would only be making the same points but with bigger letters!
i have no issue with smods, cat mods, mods, users. i have issues with the way certain situations are dealt with, and occassionaly i have issues with certain mods, and i will say it openly. otherwise there is no point. and many people have told me of their issues with me and the way i mod, and thats ok too. we all work and play toegther. its hard not to get defensive if someone points out your perceived fúck-ups, its human nature.
Im sure this thread will now get locked or moved somwhere else so the powers that be can mull over it, leave it and forget about it, but if open discussion and debate can help gease the wheels of the site, then im in favour. and if the people involved can take something useful from it, then all the better.
or perhaps i just shouldne be worried about other people?
i tend to get a little upset when i perceive that things are not in sink with the way boards was set up be. and while it has developed, i think the spirit has remained the same.


god. im turing into ropedrink.

RuggieBear

Talliesin wrote:

We also don't need every thread about the fact that S&S is subscriber-only to go on for 46 pages.

but those are often fun....

WhiteWashMan

Talliesin wrote:

We also don't need every thread about the fact that S&S is subscriber-only to go on for 46 pages.

as kevin costner said...

if you leave them, they will die.


ok, he didnt say that, he said 'if you build it, he will come'.

i never understood how you can play baseball with ghosts. i think it was a metaphore, but for what, im not sure.
all i know is its bigger than a metathree

Boston

Talliesin wrote:

Hmm. Well that could be discussed as a separate issue. Really though, if anything I've felt maybe we've been too hands-off around here and threads could perhaps do with being kept on-topic more heavily as they tend to meander so far from the point that the actual "feedback" is lost.

We also don't need every thread about the fact that S&S is subscriber-only to go on for 46 pages.

Well pretty much all the "instances" listed against the Smod, are related to actions taken on this forum. I don't know of a single case where an Smod has messed around with a forum that has had an active moderator.

amp

LiouVille wrote:

Amp, you wheren't saying that to Jerry when he banned you.

Well done, you've highlighted why I've stopped banning people if I don't like them. I called ecksors bluff and lost. I also gave him a sincere apology. The lesson I took from that is that boards.ie has changed, that the admins take abuse of powers seriously. In fact that's one of the reasons I'm criticising Talliesin. If there's a precedent set for moderators abusing their powers then imho it should apply to everyone, apart from the Admins.

Smods are not admins, they do not own this website, I am not answerable to them unless the admins say so.

Gordon

I think WWM should be the mod of feedback..

Baz_

Talliesin wrote:

Hmm. Well that could be discussed as a separate issue. Really though, if anything I've felt maybe we've been too hands-off around here and threads could perhaps do with being kept on-topic more heavily as they tend to meander so far from the point that the actual "feedback" is lost.

From the charter:

DeVore wrote:

Please note one thing There is no mod of this forum. All moderators here have no power to alter, delete or decide anything, thats the premise of the administrators.

From that extract it would appear that originally the admins didn't want to see this forum moderated by anyone, if they have changed their minds since, perhaps that charter needs updating, but that's another late night's suggestion.

Talliesin wrote:

We also don't need every thread about the fact that S&S is subscriber-only to go on for 46 pages.

Usually that happens when a user who is new to the feedback forum posts their feedback unawares of the fact that it has been discussed to death.

Locking that type of thread makes sense, but only if you in the post you lock it you also link to the original/best discussion of the threads subject. The newer user otherwise would feel put upon. If you are not going to bother linking to the other discussion, then don't bother locking the thread since to the user who posted the thread is unaware that they are flogging a dead horse.

That last point was not meant as a critique of anyone in particular, and I'm not sure if it has ever happened that a discussion, that has been discussed before, has been locked without a link to the original thread appearing at least once among the many (usually eager to point this fact out) responses.

I think the original suggestion has been answered here though...

WhiteWashMan

Gordon wrote:

I think WWM should be the mod of feedback..

i think gordie should...
no, no im not going to get banned by an smod for personal abuse on the feedback forum*


*that was a humourous comment by the way.


but i agree 100% with amp.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Baz_

Gordon wrote:

I think WWM should be the mod of feedback..

Personally I think it works best unmoderated, as per the original intention.

Obviously some things cannot be allowed, but as long as no general site rule is broken, and it hasn't been discussed to death already, then there should be no interference.

amp

Talliesin wrote:

Gah! I banned someone for 20 minutes. They thought it was funny.

Do all the people you ban find it funny then? Well there you have it fellow mods, banning people is funny, so ban your hearts out. Ban at will! I think I'll start by banning Boston from Events again. That's sure to be full of laughter!

Talliesin does stand up:

Talliesin: So like I banned this guy!
Audience: heh
Talliesin: And then I threatend to ban a moderator from the site because I wasn't getting my own way.
Audience: *tumbleweed*
Statler: There's something wrong with his mike.
Waldorf: What's that?
Statler: It's on

I didn't even realise you were serious in your being pissed off with me. I thought the whole feud between us was hilarious tbh.

I only realised now you were being serious.

And when I posted a thread on the Moderators board declaring you banned, you thought I was being funny? Personally I found the whole thing tedious in the extreme. I let it drop because I wasn't interested in the drama. Now that it's been brought up I think you need to be discussed.

The stuff smods deal with were the small fires to the admins - moderator actions in unmoderated channels, moderation of the Feedback & Forum channels, tackling illegal material, porn Spam and other Spam, helpdesk queries etc.

You forgot "banning people for your own amusement."

Boston

amp wrote:

Do all the people you ban find it funny then? Well there you have it fellow mods, banning people is funny, so ban your hearts out. Ban at will! I think I'll start by banning Boston from Events again. That's sure to be full of laughter!

What ****ing right do you have to even threaten to ban me from that forum. Only mod that actually mod's the place is trojan. I've organised four boards events in as many months. I've more of a right to post there then you. Do you not remember what happened last time you banned me from events for no reason?

Talliesin

WhiteWashMan wrote:

well, small fires to the admins is really subjective. the smods were introduced to do admin actions when an admin is not around.
that is to get involved when something gets out of hand.
you may call it small fires, its all really subjective, and since we have no agreed definition, is pretty pointless even trying to discuss what a 'small fire' is.

It's not just a matter of an admin being around.
Say one smod spends 20 minutes deleting threads because somebody spent the wee hours posting bestial porn on every forum.
Another spends 5 minutes looking at posts of a suspected repeat account and either bans or does not.
Another spends 10 minutes going through the help desk tickets and responding or escalating.
Another spends 20 minutes going through a busy forum whose moderator is offline for the day.
Another deals with some Spammed adverts for some crap or other.
That's 55 minutes of work being split in such a way that it can be done in 20. Simple force of numbers. We leave the admins with less work to do.

Baz_ wrote:

as long as no general site rule is broken, and it hasn't been discussed to death already, then there should be no interference.

Only reasons I perform any moderation action in this forum. I'm wondering if that is the best policy though - as I said keeping things strictly on topic could help prevent feedback points from getting lost in the noise - but it's not for me to change that policy.

amp wrote:

Do all the people you ban find it funny then?

No. However in this case I can only judge things in the opposite way to how I judge reactions to my moderator actions.

When judging reactions to my moderator actions there's no point looking at how many people praise or condemn something, because the very things that get the most outraged complaints also get the most "thank **** someone did that at last" comments. All I can do is read the actual complaints and consider their points.

When it comes to humour all I can do is judge success by how many people comment on it being funny. By which standards that one was quite a success.

amp wrote:

And when I posted a thread on the Moderators board declaring you banned, you thought I was being funny?

I didn't actually see that thread until after the whole thing was over. I note that there are comments there were people aren't sure if we are taking the piss or not.

amp wrote:

Personally I found the whole thing tedious in the extreme.

Like any joke that goes on long enough it became tedious and then it stopped.

1

LiouVille wrote:

What ****ing right do you have to even threaten to ban me from that forum. Only mod that actually mod's the place is trojan. I've organised four boards events in as many months. I've more of a right to post there then you. Do you not remember what happened last time you banned me from events for no reason?

Calm down Boston. He was making a point. There was no threat to do anything.

amp

LiouVille wrote:

What ****ing right do you have to even threaten to ban me from that forum. Only mod that actually mod's the place is trojan. I've organised four boards events in as many months. I've more of a right to post there then you. Do you not remember what happened last time you banned me from events for no reason?

Wait, you're Boston?





it's just too easy

amp

Talliesin wrote:

I didn't actually see that thread until after the whole thing was over. I note that there are comments there were people aren't sure if we are taking the piss or not.
Like any joke that goes on long enough it became tedious and then it stopped.

I never found it funny. I still don't. I don't give a crap how you judge your "success". I saw that you banned a user for no reason. I actually went to modutils to see if you had done it and you had. I took the only action I could at the time which was to start deleting your posts from TCN which took a fair while and I didn't get them all. At no point was I laughing.

If you do the same thing in ANY other forums I moderate I will take the same action, unless an Admin tells me otherwise. Banning should be the last resort of a moderator, it should be taken seriously or it's use as a tool will become worthless.

Boston

amp wrote:

Wait, you're Boston?

It says it right below my name. And you really want to get into this with me again Amp, for the 20th time.

CuLT