Moderation discussion

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 2:20 pm

emily sparkle wrote:Joel,

Are you opposed to the thread or to the response by the moderator? Please explain.

um, my response was for spectabillis' consumption.

i don't think cba meant any harm, yet the title seems a little insensitive.

as for AIIZ... no comment, i was raised better.

the thread is locked, i prefer it to be an example for others to avoid.

does that work for everyone?

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 2:45 pm

so whats the complaint?

obviously you have one or you never would have commented, but i get the feeling you're going to back down from saying so once you are called on it.

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 2:47 pm

I think Joel would be within his rights to ask that A II Z be punched off of the board or at least given a 30 day time out. I know I've been places in the room's corner for less - much less - of a violation of TOS thaan A II Z showed today in his smearing of Joel.

But I'm not a moderator so it ain't my call and the thread in question wasn't about me. Still, there's a point at which a line gets crossed. Overt, [/i]slanderous attacks are something which should not be tolerated by anyone here. Seems to me that A II Z crossed that line. Seems to me that the plan of action should be obvious.

Also, in spite of our personal differences I suspect Cowboyangel could not have predicted direction his thread would go and certainly don't believe there was any malice on his part in starting a I Hate Joel thread.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 3:05 pm

lets first give joel the chance to reply before we give him any consideration. the role of moderator is mostly on community autopilot right now. joel had his share of criticism aimed at him and i tried to bring things to his attention. he then got pissy when it didnt go in his favor and started calling moderator actions into question.

now he's trying to raise some concern to moderators, defiinately that hypocritical and infintile response from him we have come to expect and love!

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 3:21 pm

i should also explain that as of jan first of this year i am no longer an active moderator. i am keeping an account for now because it gives me access about some other things i want to get done before i walk for good, that leaves the role pretty much unfilled. antiM was not interested in that part of the role when she came on board, and has helped TREMENDOUSLY with the spamming and commerce side of things which she is more than appreciated to continue.

if she wants to take action she can, and you can discuss it however you want. but the user's of this board want a self-moderating ability so its up to you all to discuss this next phase of evolution and how to handle conflict resolution.

Lassen Forge · Post by **Lassen Forge** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 3:56 pm

It's getting really bad when I agree with RG 2X in a week. Scary.

I got the same impression, tho. I think it was meant as satirical and it immediately got out of hand. It's part of the dangers we face when allowed to speak from the hip and others put a different meaning into it. rightly so, because the inner meaning known to the progonal poster isn't known or shared by all involved.

I did see a potential for this blowing up in people's faces, but it ran away like... a jet engine on steroids... or more like an Uchronia built on a 1000000 gallon storage tank of Gasoline. Right off the git.

So it's now locked, and so be it. Were I a mod I prolly would have done the same thing once it got intense and flamey, inviting commentary from those who had posted before making a decision to pass it up or not. Std. management conflict resolution.

Just my coupla cents, for whatever it's worth. WHich ain't much, but >>shrug<< so be it!

bb

Post by **AntiM** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 4:26 pm

I will post more on Monday, but I had a PM conversation with Joel prior to locking the thread. Yes, I could see it was sarcastic at first, but it degenerated far too quickly. Hand me that in the middle of a spambot attack and I get pretty pissy myself.

I am not a great mediator. And I expect a lot out of an intelligent bunch like this group on their own. So live up to my standards m'kay?

(disclaimer, not 100% sober, which is why I'll discuss this Monday, thanks)

helitack · Post by **helitack** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:08 am

spectabillis wrote:i should also explain that as of jan first of this year i am no longer an active moderator. i am keeping an account for now because it gives me access about some other things i want to get done before i walk for good, that leaves the role pretty much unfilled. antiM was not interested in that part of the role when she came on board, and has helped TREMENDOUSLY with the spamming and commerce side of things which she is more than appreciated to continue.

if she wants to take action she can, and you can discuss it however you want. but the user's of this board want a self-moderating ability so its up to you all to discuss this next phase of evolution and how to handle conflict resolution.

Then why are you posting here?

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:17 am

spectabillis wrote: he then got pissy when it didnt go in his favor and started calling moderator actions into question.

now he's trying to raise some concern to moderators, defiinately that hypocritical and infintile response from him we have come to expect and love!

pardon the fuck out of me.

pissy? hypocritical and infintile? what?

gee, i see my exchange with you entirely different. you asked me to play nice or not post... and i pretty much did that. so, apparently there is no pleasing you, spect.

and now, while i agree cba probably posted it in humor, the humor went south quickly.

joel the ornery wrote:and the circle, be not broken, by and by, lord, by and by

so much for moderation.

this isn't a reference to to "moderators" it is a reference to the lack fo moderation on the part of cba and AIIZ... sheesh.

and the hymm... the circle... how the fuck we got here in the first place... a lack of moderation on the part of people posting... not the role of the moderators.

leave the damn thread out there...

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:52 am

spectabillis wrote:so whats the complaint?

obviously you have one or you never would have commented, but i get the feeling you're going to back down from saying so once you are called on it.

what is your issue?

my complaint... you called me on the carpet for a few statements about somebody needing their meds... and then i followed your prescribed list of actions.

and now... i get attacked... i bring it to your attention, and somehow i become the problem, once again.

yeah, there is a problem, and it isn't me.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:11 pm

helitack wrote:Then why are you posting here?

because he asked.

joel: m'kay, understand the explanation, but that also wasnt the extent of our past discussion. unfortunately dont see any reason in going over it again.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:19 pm

well crap, trying to look over notes and cant find that discussion..

Ron · Post by **Ron** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:17 pm

My unsolicited and probably worthless advice, SB, would be to let it go. That was the past conversation, this is this one. You brining up the last one doesn't really help this one out at all.

Seems to me the heart of what Joel is saying is that he feels he's seen inconsistent moderation. Given the context in which you all had to try to be moderators around here, one could reasonably expect both inconsistent moderation and the perception of same.

In any case, thanks for holding the title for as long as you did, and for all the work you did during that time as well. It's appreciated.

Ron

Archantael · Post by **Archantael** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:01 pm

Anti M, you posted a comment about not being a great moderator. I have to respectfully disagree....please don't sell yourself short like that when the record clearly proves otherwise.

SB, we have some differences and I don't always see eye to eye with you. But I want to say Thank You for all that you've done as a moderator....and that performance has been a 98% good, 2% that...well it's ok to disagree and we'll move on. I hope you can make some progress behind the scenes...while I'm thinking of it when is the last time anyone saw a Spanky post on here? The point I'm trying to make should illustrate the need for ANY kind of under the hood help for the board. I wish you the best of luck!

helitack · Post by **helitack** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:16 pm

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:22 pm

Ron wrote:My unsolicited and probably worthless advice, SB, would be to let it go. That was the past conversation, this is this one. You brining up the last one doesn't really help this one out at all. Seems to me the heart of what Joel is saying is that he feels he's seen inconsistent moderation. Given the context in which you all had to try to be moderators around here, one could reasonably expect both inconsistent moderation and the perception of same. In any case, thanks for holding the title for as long as you did, and for all the work you did during that time as well. It's appreciated.Ron

thanks everyone.

ron: thats why i said i dont see any value in going over it again, i asked joel if he had saved the pm's because i have gaps in notes and still wanted to give him an opportunity to discuss it.

helitack · Post by **helitack** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:50 pm

Got any more ICCL/WGAS announcements there squirt?

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:06 pm

helitack wrote:Got any more ICCL/WGAS announcements there squirt?

whats that, headcase?

helitack · Post by **helitack** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:08 pm

Just checkin, lil feller

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:11 pm

riiiiiight

SED · Post by **SED** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:19 pm

Posts like these make me proud to be who I am.

helitack · Post by **helitack** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:20 pm

As you should be...

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 4:21 pm

spectabillis wrote:
Ron wrote:My unsolicited and probably worthless advice, SB, would be to let it go. That was the past conversation, this is this one. You brining up the last one doesn't really help this one out at all. Seems to me the heart of what Joel is saying is that he feels he's seen inconsistent moderation. Given the context in which you all had to try to be moderators around here, one could reasonably expect both inconsistent moderation and the perception of same. In any case, thanks for holding the title for as long as you did, and for all the work you did during that time as well. It's appreciated.Ron
thanks everyone.

ron: thats why i said i dont see any value in going over it again, i asked joel if he had saved the pm's because i have gaps in notes and still wanted to give him an opportunity to discuss it.

i don't have the orginal PMs.
i let the issue go a long time ago.
now, i wish some people (must i really name them) should exercise some self restraint. when that doesn't happen, then the community should respond.

hey dude, you're harshing my experience.

okay, back to developing my studio/home and lots of sex.

Toolmaker · Post by **Toolmaker** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:35 pm

Please don't leave SB!!
And I also agree that Anti-M is GREAT!!
By all mean promote her to super-pokemon moderator as well.
New mods?
I nominate Badger.

As far as banning users.. well just look at a users past 20-30 posts.. if they have over 75 percent negative and hateful posts I would say go ahead and nuke em.

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 6:20 am

if anyone cares, i am a proponent of self-moderation, which i currently exercise.

Archantael · Post by **Archantael** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:15 am

Toolmaker wrote: I nominate Badger.

I consider Badger to be my online arch-enemy. Dropping that for a minute and approaching this from a purely practical perspective I have to second the suggestion. Can anyone name a better candidate? We're talking about a Ranger here with conflict resolution skills, a willingness to be heavy handed but only if needed, he's off and on here at all times of the day and night, and he's very well respected in the BM community. He's also "feared" by some of our general miscreants online. Name one other person on here that has all that going for him!

Now coming from me the above is going to sound strange but I'd like to see the board cleaned up and the spammers tossed above all else. If he's willing to take it on, how quickly can he be appointed?

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:12 pm

Toolmaker wrote: I nominate Badger.

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:28 pm

Me? A moderator?

Folks, that's the sort of thinking that got Bush on the Republican ticket the first time around.

I sorta like the idea of a rotating the the duty to people who're more level headed and less of a prick than I often am.

I also like the idea of giving some deleting permissions to the moderator. I'm seconding the perception that it seems that the tech crew are all but ignoring the board. Hey, I'm not chewing here but it seems that if your job is computer/IT support that you might make the effort to put in the occasional appearance to at least look like you give a fuck about this place. Not that the inmates shouldn't run the asylum to some extent.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:40 pm

Badger wrote:I also like the idea of giving some deleting permissions to the moderator.

have the technical ability, but rarely use it in anything other than spamming. if it were possible i would rather see the ability to delete topics in the hands of the people who create them, as well as editing.. updating.. blah blah blah...

helitack · Post by **helitack** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:54 pm

Badger wrote:... Hey, I'm not chewing here but it seems that if your job is computer/IT support that you might make the effort to put in the occasional appearance to at least look like you give a fuck about this place. ...

Maybe cuz the board makes no money for the BORG? ANd it is a for profit corporation, is it not?