PDA

View Full Version : Moderation Clarification.



Alonzo-ny
January 1st, 2009, 07:31 AM
A moderator recently told me they are not obligated to follow forum rules if and when they please, what is the policy on this. If what the moderator said is true then what is the point of having moderators at all.

This moderator also publicly posted content of PMs i sent to them regarding forum issues. I dont find this to be acceptable if we cant post our concerns to a moderator lest they be aired in public.

stache
January 1st, 2009, 07:32 AM
Did you contact Edward?

Alonzo-ny
January 1st, 2009, 07:41 AM
Ill do so but Ive never had any replies from him regarding any other issues Ive had.

ZippyTheChimp
January 1st, 2009, 09:17 AM
A moderator recently told me they are not obligated to follow forum rules if and when they please

Before this goes any further, this was my exact remark:


I can post as an individual, and when I do, I have no more or less obligation to obey forum rules than anyone else.It seems I have to post contents of PMs when they are twisted to benefit a point of view.

That's "more or less." The meaning is clear. When I engage someone else in a debate, we're equals. If it gets out of hand, we're both at fault. But I don't use my status as a moderator to either force my point of view or punish the other person.

No one gets banned just because they piss me off.

lofter1
January 1st, 2009, 10:50 AM
Don't see that there is a real issue if it's just a heated debate without anyone being Banned. We're grown-ups here (for the most part). We can take it.

And where's the problem if Moderators get censured to the same degree that run-of-the-mill Posters are taken to task when either (or both) step out of line?

99% of the time a brou-ha-ha between Posters burns itself out without need for a slap down from anyone.

Often the best course is to take a breath and disengage.

Click: "File"

Click: "Exit"

Jasonik
January 1st, 2009, 11:16 AM
Implying that Zippy abuses his moderator status to intimidate people with differing views or stifle conversation is so totally preposterous I don't know where to start.

Challenging people's naive douchebaggery shouldn't be off limits to those forum members who also perform moderator tasks - banning spammers, deleting spam, merging threads, etc.

Moderators are regular forum members first and foremost who have taken on greater responsibility to keep this place tidy and running smoothly.

It can be a problem that sometimes moderators use their authority to quash personal criticism, or take such criticism as a challenge to their moderator status. ZippyTheChimp is entirely immune from this tendency, and as such should be viewed as a model moderator.

Alonzo, you're barking up the wrong tree here.

Alonzo-ny
January 1st, 2009, 11:39 AM
Jasonik what are you talking about? I said nothing close to what you just said.

My first point: Do moderators need to follow rules. This was clarified it seems. They are forum members first. Thats fine I wanted clarification.

Second point was Zippy posted info regarding things I had PMed to him as a moderator with personal issues I had with the forum. This wouldnt be a problem if it were just PM between two members but it was member to moderator. This shouldnt be talked about on the forum just when a moderator gets pissy and decides to throw it in my face.

And zippy I was referring to the PMs you referred to from weeks ago. Not the one I sent last night.

ZippyTheChimp
January 1st, 2009, 11:49 AM
Second point was Zippy posted info regarding things I had PMed to him as a moderator with personal issues I had with the forum.

From the other thread:

And considering all the PMs I get from you complaining about others, why are you stirring the pot? Followed by:

People around here know Im not happy with some posters. You said it yourself.

I divulged no specifics about your complaints.

Alonzo-ny
January 1st, 2009, 11:58 AM
Not the point it was irrelevant and still a PRIVATE message. People know Im not happy about some posters but they didnt know I was speaking to moderators about specific problems. Im sure people dont really care and I dont really either but thats not your call to make is it.

ZippyTheChimp
January 1st, 2009, 12:12 PM
You inserted yourself in a situation that had ended, did not involve you - and directly made a biased accusation

If, like others, you had said that the entire conversation was at fault, it would have been different But you revived the issue.

As for releasing information about "specific problems" - what specific problems? You were already advised what to do about your complaints by another moderator in another thread.

No one else seems to be concerned about an incident that's over, except maybe bad feelings between the two principals, but that's none of your damn business.

If the question was one of moderation, maybe you'd be happy if I remove both LL and myself from the forum for a week

infoshare
January 1st, 2009, 12:14 PM
Often the best course is to take a breath and disengage.

Click: "File"

Click: "Exit"

Easier said than done: various members often find themselves being "re-engaged" by other members/mods who refuse to let-it-go.

Wiredny is all-too-often a veritable hornets nest, probably just the result of systemic problems with internet based social networks in general, there are solutions to this problem; to but it will take time.

Reminds me of that famous Joan Crawford quote: "hold on deer, it's going to be a BUMPY ride."

Alonzo-ny
January 1st, 2009, 12:17 PM
I didnt say you released info about specific problems! I said now people would be aware I was discussing specific problems with you. I didnt say you revealed what the specific problems were. My initial gripe was that moderators should be move active at removing themselves from these arguements and going to PM. Thats what everyone is told by moderators to do if we were in your position.

And Ive said this before in other threads, you cant have a private conversation on a public forum. Its in the public view to read so I can say what I damn well please on it if Im forced to read your pissing contest.

Fabrizio
January 1st, 2009, 12:18 PM
Reminds me of that famous Joan Crawford quote: "hold on deer, it's going to be a BUMPY ride."

Now THAT'S worth being banned over.

It's Betty Davis, deer.... and the quote is:

"Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night!"

(But at least this time you had the good taste to use a 3pt font and black type... so I'd make it a mini-ban.)

Zephyr
January 1st, 2009, 12:24 PM
It's Betty Davis,

It's Bette (not Betty) Davis.

And that line was from All About Eve.

Fabrizio
January 1st, 2009, 12:30 PM
I always get confused... actually, she insisted I call her Ruth.

ZippyTheChimp
January 1st, 2009, 02:19 PM
I always get confused... actually, she insisted I call her Ruth.I showed up at the draft board as Ms Davis.

When asked for name, I said Ruth Davis. Thus, unconvinced that my delusion was genuine, they inducted me into the US Army. But I was allowed to keep the clothes.

Fabrizio
January 1st, 2009, 02:39 PM
Lol!

ZippyTheChimp
January 1st, 2009, 03:03 PM
Show business trivia: I was the inspiration for a 70's sitcom character.

http://helmi.home.pages.at/mash/pictures/klinger03.jpg

scumonkey
January 1st, 2009, 03:48 PM
bumpy night...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XypVcv77WBU&feature=related
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg-ckMup6SI)

Zephyr
January 1st, 2009, 10:10 PM
Thanks for that clip scumonkey.

Although All About Eve is one of the finest movies of its kind about backstage New York theatre, it was Joseph L. Mankiewicz's crisp and biting dialogue on display that one remembers most - he was both Director and Writer.

In fact, it is not just that line from character Margo Channing (Ms. Davis) that carries the day, but the repeatedly sharp words honed for the character known as Addison DeWitt (George Sanders).

How about this snippet, which I find particularly appropriate, without any further explanation, after we went off-topic:




Addison DeWitt: What do you take me for?

Eve Harrington: I don't know that I'd take you for anything.

Addison DeWitt: Is it possible, even conceivable, that you've confused me with that gang of backward children you play tricks on, that you have the same contempt for me as you have for them?

Eve Harrington: I'm sure you mean something by that, Addison, but I don't know what?

Addison DeWitt: Look closely, Eve. It's time you did. I am Addison DeWitt. I am nobody's fool, least of all yours.

Eve Harrington: I never intended you to be.

Addison DeWitt: Yes you did, and you still do.

infoshare
January 1st, 2009, 10:13 PM
bumpy night...


Since we are at it, why hypostatize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatization) the word "night". A night can be long, or dark, but not bumpy. That phrase is an illogical conflation of two entities that exist in different spatio-temporal contexts. Once the pedantry starts - there is just no stopping it.

Moral of the story: don't sweat the small stuff - or the large text.;)

p.s. To get back on-topic, I sign-off on this matter: pardon the interruption.

lofter1
January 1st, 2009, 11:31 PM
Pedantry indeed. Go by that ^ rule of writing & imagery and we'll be living in a very dull world.

Together the words "bumpy night" are perfection.

Mankiewicz was sure of it. Look how he directs the scene towards their moment of delivery. No wonder he got it so right. After all, he WROTE it.

It hasn't become one of the most classic lines in the history of American Cinema for nothing. (I dare anyone to come up with an alternative phrase that even comes close to being a better fit for that moment.)

Lucky for us Davis had the balls and the smarts to deliver it just so (if things had gone as planned in Hollywood it would have been Claudette Colbert downing that martini and shooting the zinger).

lofter1
January 1st, 2009, 11:39 PM
btw: Zip, I love your hat.

stache
January 2nd, 2009, 12:47 AM
"Eve will have a milkshake!"

ablarc
January 2nd, 2009, 08:10 AM
Lucky for us Davis had the balls and the smarts to deliver it just so (if things had gone as planned in Hollywood it would have been Claudette Colbert downing that martini and shooting the zinger).
Safe to say Claudette would also have done the line justice. Intelligent actress.

eddhead
January 2nd, 2009, 02:58 PM
Before this goes any further, this was my exact remark:


No one gets banned just because they piss me off.

I can vouch for that ;)

Ninjahedge
January 5th, 2009, 03:56 PM
I always get confused... actually, she insisted I call her Ruth.

Maybe you should have said DiMaggio?

Gregory Tenenbaum
January 18th, 2009, 02:02 AM
This is all too funny. And familiar.

Alonzo get the Royal Guards to help you. THE QUEEN COMMANDS YOU!

Zippy being aggressive as a mod? NEVER!

Alonzo-ny
January 18th, 2009, 07:50 AM
Poor little Anglophobe. We all know you want to be British but the Queen just doesnt want you.

ZippyTheChimp
January 18th, 2009, 09:01 AM
If I was an aggressive moderator, GT would have already been banned.

You can thank (or blame) me.

Alonzo-ny
January 18th, 2009, 09:12 AM
I know about the GT policy you're not able to ban him.

infoshare
January 18th, 2009, 09:45 AM
............you're not able to ban him.

You may be right about that: but why ban him. You know the saying how some people come off great "on paper" - so to speak - but are awful, "in person".

GT is the opposite: He doesn't always come off to well "on paper" : but he is a complete gentlemen "in person". Humorous, intelligent, fair-minded - a class act all the way.

Besides, why ban any one - if you do not like what they are saying: don't read their posts (or use the IGNORE button) and scroll right by them - it is that easy. And most importantly, if you find him argumentative: you can choose to not argue with him.

Alonzo-ny
January 18th, 2009, 09:55 AM
What about the time he called me a sheep shagger? Was he being a gentleman then? He is an a-hole who wastes everyones time and stops some Uk topics being discussed because the British posters here knew there is no point as it would be spammed up by him. I started a thread about British buildings and immediately he starts posting about the British Empire or whatever. Is someone who continually posts 'harry balls' good for the site? Its childish and its spam. I cant use the ignore function because i know exactly what he is posting.

I think peoples true nature comes out when they have nothing to answer to and thats what is happening here. GT is a sad, pathetic, hate filled person.

Gregory Tenenbaum
January 18th, 2009, 10:10 AM
If I was an aggressive moderator, GT would have already been banned.

You can thank (or blame) me.

You are an aggressive moderator. Changing the contents of my posts without initially disclosing it. Talking down those you disagree with. The fact that I make a contribution here is nothing to do with you, its despite you.

Alonzo-ny
January 18th, 2009, 10:11 AM
You don't contribute anything around here.

Gregory Tenenbaum
January 18th, 2009, 10:12 AM
I know about the GT policy you're not able to ban him.

Its because I am here under the sufferance of The Queen's protection, along with members such as Bleater MacDuff, and others.

ZippyTheChimp
January 18th, 2009, 10:16 AM
You are an aggressive moderator. Changing the contents of my posts without initially disclosing it. Talking down those you disagree with. The fact that I make a contribution here is nothing to do with you, its despite you.We had an agreement, which you continue to violate.

Stop acting like a little boy, and see Edward if you have a problem.

Gregory Tenenbaum
January 18th, 2009, 10:19 AM
We had an agreement, which you continue to violate.

Stop acting like a little boy, and see Edward if you have a problem.

There was no agreement. Except the one that exists only in your mind.

Hiding behind your moderator tag to talk down to members Zippy. Tsk Tsk.

infoshare
January 18th, 2009, 10:21 AM
..........wastes everyones time and stops some Uk topics being discussed because the British posters here knew there is no point as it would be spammed up by him. I started a thread about British buildings and immediately he starts posting about the British Empire or whatever. Is someone who continually posts 'harry balls' good for the site? Its childish and its spam.


Yes, your point is well taken. I am not exactly clear as to why the "ignore feature" will not work for you: as a member I found it to be a very useful way to bloc out abusive/argumentative posters. But, if that is not working for you we will have to devise other means of protecting threads from being SPAMMED: but I do not know how to do that at this point.

BTW, I do not think most American readers understand your usage of the word 'spammed' : here in the USA I think it is always taken to mean ADVERTS.

I understand your usage of the word and I agree that GT has, in the past, "spammed up" a thread to the point where other 'friendly' posters just choose (understandably) to exit the thread. As, I said; at this point I have no answers - it's a work in progress.;)

Consider changing you own posting policy, where you respond only to those people who are on your 'contacts/friend' list, then you may be able to keep the thread going between yourselves and not be bothered by any troll/spammer that may also be posting on the same thread.

For now all I can say is "IGNORE", and move-on. :confused:

Cheers

P.S. - For the YanKS (LOL). This vid shows (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE) how the term 'spamming-up' got started. Basically the term means: 'crowding-out' or 'shutting-down' what others have to say.

ZippyTheChimp
January 18th, 2009, 10:22 AM
There was no agreement. Except the one that exists only in your mind.

Hiding behind your moderator tag to talk down to members Zippy. Tsk Tsk.As per agreement, see Edward to be reinstated.

Alonzo-ny
January 18th, 2009, 10:25 AM
Sorry I cant do it. If I see that he has posted I know he is belittling two things, my country and this site with his hate filled tripe. I would report every post of his as spam/off-topic if I didn't already know he is in bed with the boss and therefore pointless.

Alonzo-ny
January 18th, 2009, 10:26 AM
Oh look GT has been banned, it will be very inconvenient for him to cry to Edward to be reinstated again.

lofter1
January 18th, 2009, 12:14 PM
...he is in bed with the boss ...

Quite the claim. I've been threatened with banishment for far less incendiary remarks regarding the powers that be.

Plus I don't see how a poster's reference to GT as an "a-hole" is any better than the flaming garbage that periodically spews forth from his keyboard.

Any dialog that veers into personal invective should be self-censored. We all know it's pointless and invariably the one who posts it comes off looking like more of an dimwit than the one being flamed.

But I've opted-out of any Moderator responsibilities, so now: I shut up :cool:

Alonzo-ny
January 18th, 2009, 12:17 PM
I was merely countering the claim that GT is a gentleman. I prefer not to but in this case it is the only suitable description.

infoshare
January 18th, 2009, 01:20 PM
If I see that he has posted I know he is belittling two things, my country and this site with his hate filled tripe. I would report every post of his as spam/off-topic .....

I will agree with you again here: he clearly has some gripe with the Brits. I would would venture to guess it has something to do with being an Ausie; is there not usually a lot of animosity (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/sep/04/cricket) between the two nationalities.

Are you aware the he is an Australian citizen? That may not solve our problem: but it may help to explain why he is a bit abusive toward everything British.

You have raised some good points, and I will work on way to keep some threads on this forum from being "spammed-up" by abusive/argumentative posters. For now my advise still stands, IGNORE and move-on, because if it is not GT, it is going to be someone else: after all this is a PUBLIC forum.

Excerpt from above liked article - You might imagine that a grown-up relationship between England and Australia would result in less puerile point-scoring; but it's precisely because the relationship is so mature that it permits such harmless silliness. In fact, in this era of instant umbrage, it seems an almost unseemly luxury to be able to diss any country, and an act of delicious fun to give it back. What Australia's longest-serving prime minister Sir Robert Menzies observed in Wisden a generation ago regarding relations between England and Australia still holds true: "We know each other so well that, thank heaven, we don't have to be too tactful with each other."

Alonzo-ny
January 18th, 2009, 01:25 PM
Well he posts much more abusive things than most.

It does explain it a bit more however there isnt normally much of a cultural clash between Aussies and Brits. Many British people move to Australia and vice versa. Our cultures are very similar. I dont care what his issues are he should take them somewhere appropriate.

I have many gripes with the US but I do not go on a rampage here with my criticisms, insulting people as I go.

I can only try to ignore him but when he insults people constantly and nothing happens by moderators its pretty hard to ignore.

infoshare
January 18th, 2009, 02:19 PM
I was merely countering the claim that GT is a gentleman.

I will counter your counter-point here only to illustrate why I think it is best to simply - in general- avoid protracted 'debates': from what I have observed, nothing is ever proven, nobody every wins, and worst of all; it creates a 'hostile' environment that drives-off other members.

On to the DEBATE: I SAID: I will admit GT "doesn't always come of well 'on paper' - but, I find him to be different "in person".

In so many words, I agree with you; he is not always a gentlemen when posting. So, you need not make for a counterpoint to draw me into debate?

I wish I could use my IGNORE list: because I would probably add you to it as well.:D Just Kidding Here.

With that said, I will now sign-off on this topic; I will continue working on ways to make the threads TROLL proof - for now GT is a moot point.

p.s. Speaking of coming-off well on paper. I borrow the 'bold face' highlight style from Wikipedia: I now see that boldface style works much of better on their website for making an emphasis - my apologies, the boldface in this particular font does seem a bit harsh.

Cheers

Alonzo-ny
January 18th, 2009, 02:23 PM
On to the DEBATE: I SAID: I will admit GT "doesn't always come of well 'on paper' - but, I find him to be different "in person".

In so many words, I agree with you; he is not always a gentlemen when posting. So, what was the need for a counterpoint?

The counter point is that I dont think he EVER comes off well on paper and that him being a gentleman in person (I find that hard to believe) is irrelevant and doesnt excuse anything. But I think you will agree with that.


At this point I wish I could use my IGNORE list: because I would probably add you to it as well.:D Just Kidding Here.

Cheers

;)

infoshare
January 18th, 2009, 02:44 PM
The counter point is that I dont think he EVER comes off well .......... But I think you will agree with that.


O.K. I see your point. Hey, maybe this debate thing does work after all! :rolleyes:

Cheers.

195Broadway
January 18th, 2009, 03:03 PM
I was once a member of a forum where the policy was "What you post stays - no forum censorship" That policy made one think twice before hitting the "Enter" key.

Ninjahedge
January 20th, 2009, 02:20 PM
Yes, your point is well taken. I am not exactly clear as to why the "ignore feature" will not work for you: as a member I found it to be a very useful way to bloc out abusive/argumentative posters. But, if that is not working for you we will have to devise other means of protecting threads from being SPAMMED: but I do not know how to do that at this point.

The same way you are not supposed to rubberneck.

Ignore is not really invisible. You can still see that they posted something, and others can still quote them.

I ignore a few peopel on here and actually un-ignore selected posts on othe threads I know are "safe". If we could actually ignore a user on a particular thread, that would be GREAT, but I don't think that is a feature they have made for these things yet.


BTW, I do not think most American readers understand your usage of the word 'spammed' : here in the USA I think it is always taken to mean ADVERTS.

Actually, spamming originally came as a dumping of a lot of material on something with little actual substance. Spam is a cheap meat-like substance that fits the bill. You "spam" something by putting a lot of worthless stuff all over it.

Advertisments Spam in the same way, so spam actually came from something different than adverts at first (in my world).

And that world is NJ! ;)


I understand your usage of the word and I agree that GT has, in the past, "spammed up" a thread to the point where other 'friendly' posters just choose (understandably) to exit the thread. As, I said; at this point I have no answers - it's a work in progress.;)

He just has to learn that some people do not appreciate that kind of thing and will not listen to what he says when he does it.

Many are guilty of the same thing. Does not make it any more acceptable, but whatever.


Consider changing you own posting policy, where you respond only to those people who are on your 'contacts/friend' list, then you may be able to keep the thread going between yourselves and not be bothered by any troll/spammer that may also be posting on the same thread.

For now all I can say is "IGNORE", and move-on. :confused:

Again, easier said than done. But it does make life easier!


P.S. - For the YanKS (LOL). This vid shows (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE) how the term 'spamming-up' got started. Basically the term means: 'crowding-out' or 'shutting-down' what others have to say.

Actually, I have a link too, there are two vids (part 1 and 2) showing post spammage ("LOL" "pwn3d" "Hitler" etc etc). I will try and track it down!