Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Queso
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Mon Dec 31, 2007 6:18 pm



Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 49):
subjective maybe?

You're right, sorry. And too late to edit. I rewrote that sentence a couple of times and changed the perspective of it but forgot to change that word.  drunk  B+.
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:08 pm



Quoting Queso (Reply 47):

Is this not "disrespecting another user"? The same comment has been deleted many times since using that interpretation and IIRC a user was banned for it.

That same moderator has also had his name come up a few other times in questionable dealings which would have led to deletions/bans from a "commoner" here at A.net. It's this double standard which causes the lack of credibility and therefore lack of respect from the users towards the mods. I'm sure ANCflyer will tell you that he can't go mug, beat, or shoot someone just because he's a cop. Why can mods get away with stuff just because they're mods?

Quoting Diamond (Reply 40):
So let me be sure I understand: because a small group of users cannot write a simple email with relative politeness and civility - you believe that an entirely new process needs to be created to your satisfaction? There is an existing process that the vast majority of people 'get' and know how to use to get their concerns addressed. And that same process doesn't work for people that are hostile by nature, defensive by habit, or can't take criticism of any kind without believing they've "been done wrong." That's hardly a justification for creating a new process.

Actually, with all due respect, you don't understand what I'm saying. If someone wants to cuss you folks, call you names, etc... then by all means ban them.

What I'm saying is there have been well known instances where it was either:
1) The A.net staff member is who actually instigated or more typically directly exacerbated and added fuel to the fire of the issue.
2) "Simple emails with relative politeness and civility" have been written, emails written without this name calling, cussing, etc. that you speak of... and these emails, just for merely questioning the powers that be and expressing a civil though direct form of disagreement and disgust with what are being viewed as shady dealings and getting the proverbial shaft have also led to long term bans to users with very little prior ban history.

Many of your folks have been known to have written some "personal messages" in your deletion notices which are far more unprofessional, flaming, and offensive than the post actually being deleted. Everyone has a bad day, but when it's your folks who are the ones who dumped the fuel all over the fire... THESE are the situations which should have a "Citizens review board" type of appeals process.

And IMHO, I think your reply to my prior post and others in this thread were written a bit more negatively and condescendingly than it needed to be written... considering that is the point you're trying to make anyways.
 
jafa39
Posts: 4320
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:14 pm

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:54 pm

Quoting DL021 (Thread starter):
But there should be some manner of relief or system of appeal for users who feel that they're being unfairly treated.

Not a bad idea at all but I won't fly I'm afraid, those in power rarely like to share it with the masses, either on or off the interwebs....

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 1):
Perhaps this group could also vote on doling out humor implants on occasion as needed.

Ha ha!!! No comment  

Quoting Diamond (Reply 2):
Usually, a deleted post does not result in a ban ... it is often the name-calling, threats, and promises to make trouble in the future that causes a user to get banned.

Errrr......this has never happened with me, my bans have been summary, although I got two overturned in the past and on the one occaision I did use profanities (for a deletion), KROC gave me a warning and no ban....which I thought was a good way to do business.

ANCFlyer is the best example of "moderation by negotiation" and he appears on my RU list because of that, it was a sticky situation and he was even-handed, explaining that my post was not necessarily inflammatory but I needed to understand that some people would find a way to be offended by it....we worked out how to re-post it in adifferent way but I was warned that it would be pulled if it got silly again....no mention of banning me! it was a useful exercise and one that we should see more of.

I'm not calling you misguided Diamond but the systems you have described seem to differ from the reality for many members. I think there should be a warning system...3 strikes and you're out for the first ban, 2 for the second and 1 warning for the 3rd....after that its fair game but the rules have changed over the last 3 years...I have 1 or 2 bans for swearing and nowadays the language i used is regularly permitted by the mods...I have been banned for using "humour" recently, that in the days of no swearing, would have been permitted.....so I hope you can see why some a.netters have their frustrations and issues with moderation here on a.net.

Quoting Diamond (Reply 2):
We have a lot of documentation of such inquiries, and have many examples of working cooperatively with members

Happened once with me and the next time I tried I was most unhappy with the result as you don't always get an interaction with mods if you try to discuss the issue....mostly I have had no reply to my enquiries.....if you are going to state the way you work, please try to follow through as from an end-user perspective it is very frustrating not to be given an opportunity to discuss it properly and if you've ever been on hold for 90 mins to a complaints dept, you will fully understand how that feels.

It isn't only one's lived experience that is valid, the percieved experiences of others in the scenario is just as valid and that goes for mods and posters alike......if the posters undertake to not threaten mods and the mods work to a consistent interpretation of their own rules i think a lot of the unpleasantness should go away.

We could start with the swearing issue, I try not to swear due being banned for it in the past and others do it regularly....what is the current go on this one please?

[Edited 2007-12-31 13:58:29]

[Edited 2007-12-31 14:02:23]
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:34 pm



Quoting Diamond (Reply 2):
While some people would like more transparency in what's happening behind the scenes, it would often violate a member's privacy to provide it.

A.net could modify the terms of usage agreement to include conditions that conversations with moderators are public communications and specify that A.net and DM will use these communications if necessary to defend themselves from slanderous allegations.

This could greatly help in an environment in which member X, who may have appeared to be an upstanding individual, becomes banned for an extended amount of time and proceeds to cause somewhat of a stir... while forgetting to mention the fact that he included very inappropriate comments in exchanges with moderators.

Quoting Diamond (Reply 2):
To the members who may be watching a given thread - all they see is a post deletion and a subsequent ban. And they assume we're taking unfair action against a rather simple post deletion.

Which is why transparency is vital in any action of authority figures.

Just hop into non-av on any given day of the week and there is guaranteed to be some wacky conspiracy theory. Give the propensity for belief in the ludicrous and insane coupled with an apparently genetically coded mis-trust of any authority figure, that some people demonstrate.. It's only natural to have actions viewed in a light not complimentary to those that have to enforce the rules.. especially when their side of the story isn't ever told.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3):
SIx months ago, Membership reached 50,000. Today, it's over 70,000.

Pep, you and I both know that there aren't 20,000 more active posters today than there were six months ago. There may be 20,000 more registered users, but that's an often worthless number. Civ-av and Non-av are still today largely the same group of people that were posting last year.

Quoting AC320 (Reply 18):
However, its not the business of the entirety of A.net what happens to a specific individual.

When you have the level of community that is found on A.net, where a great many of the members know each other personally, it does become the business of the community what happens to it's members.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 19):
Well - okay, we have gained the fact that the offender is a chicken and won't open his/her record . . .

Well, consider mine permanently open for all matters (other than financial information  Wink ) in the future. Not planning anything, just getting that out of the way. Anyone who ever suggests "transparency" better first apply it to themselves... So there you have it.

Quoting Garnetpalmetto (Reply 32):
To the best of my recollection, the vast majority of the deletions in question were for "Referenced Post Deleted."

Which brings up a question I've been pondering over for some time. I could be wrong, but isn't the number of posts a user has had deleted weighed when considering to ban them? Is there a way to separate out the RPDs (which likely aren't symptomatic of the poster breaking any rules) or is there just an all encompassing "deleted posts" number that judges a user?

Anywho, trash talking or not, I'll still buy all you guys a beer (or non-alcoholic beverage of choice) for the job ya'll do if you ever show up at a meet I'm at. Improving the community is the goal, not bashing the mods.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:06 am



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 53):
Pep, you and I both know that there aren't 20,000 more active posters today than there were six months ago. There may be 20,000 more registered users, but that's an often worthless number. Civ-av and Non-av are still today largely the same group of people that were posting last year.

Irrelevent.

My point remains . . . if we had 500 users or 500,000 users, the Moderators deal - daily - with the same handful of 100 or so and they, sometimes like children, bear considerable watching. Does that sound harsh? Condescending? Distasteful?

It's fact.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 53):
I could be wrong, but isn't the number of posts a user has had deleted weighed when considering to ban them?

Amongst other things. But yes, that comes to play as well.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 53):
Is there a way to separate out the RPDs (which likely aren't symptomatic of the poster breaking any rules) or is there just an all encompassing "deleted posts" number that judges a user?

Already done.


That said, do you have any idea how many posts deleted for RPD are also posts where the members fires a salvo back at a flamebait post? Therefore not only is it RPD, it's also a violation of multiple other rules?

If were only so simple as a simple RPD . . .

As was alluded to earlier, by AC320 I believe, the way to deal with those asinine posts often found is to Suggest Deletion for them. We read the SDs, every single one, they cannot - cannot - magically disappear without a moderator deleting them.

Now, I'll be the first to tell you . . . or maybe the second or third . . . there needs to be some thicker skin on some folk around here.
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:30 am



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 54):

Now, I'll be the first to tell you . . . or maybe the second or third . . . there needs to be some thicker skin on some folk around here.

And therein lies another problem. Just because 0.5% of the population was rubbed the wrong way by a comment doesn't mean there needs to be a deletion/ban handed out for it... even if the 0.5% happens to be a moderator. When you pander to the thin skinned folks, suddenly you have a website where suddenly everyone must talk like Ned Flanders on the Simpsons.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:40 am



Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 55):
Just because 0.5% of the population was rubbed the wrong way by a comment doesn't mean there needs to be a deletion/ban handed out for it...

I agree, a hundred percent . . . . caveat: As long as said rubbing was not outside the scope of the rules here. You cannot call Tommy Tentpeg here a F*[email protected] in an open forum. In jest or otherwise.

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 55):
even if the 0.5% happens to be a moderator.

In this light, if a Moderator doesn't have thick enough skin he/she oughta resign and bail out . . . go to the kiddie sites or something . . . there's no room for them as a Moderator here. Personal insults to a moderator, well . . . I kinda let roll off me like water off an Otters back . . . I simply don't care. I can't speak for the others.

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 55):
When you pander to the thin skinned folks, suddenly you have a website where suddenly everyone must talk like Ned Flanders on the Simpsons.

 checkmark 

IMO of course.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:42 am



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 54):
Does that sound harsh? Condescending? Distasteful?

It's fact.

Of course not it's fact. There will always be a group of troublemakers.

I'm just saying that pointing to the overall registered users number isn't a good judgement of the growth of the community since the vast majority of those members aren't active posters. Remember, that membership number also includes people who have left the forums.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 54):
That said, do you have any idea how many posts deleted for RPD are also posts where the members fires a salvo back at a flamebait post?

No, I don't.. which is to the point of what we are saying here. How could I?

Seems to me that I may have, or am about to inadertantly step on some toes here.. So instead, I'm just going to back right on out of this thread the way I came and let it be at this... People will always mistrust any authority which isn't fully transparent.. especially when the authority polices itself. The general public can oust elected leaders of have officials replace. Forum members vote with their wallets. I did in October when I removed my first class membership. The mods appear to all be in agreement that the forum hasn't changed. It has, a lot of posters can see it.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:51 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 57):
There will always be a group of troublemakers.

And who do you think is generally sniveling on the other sites about the Moderators here?

C'Mon detective . . . you know the answer . . .

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 57):
No, I don't.. which is to the point of what we are saying here. How could I?

I'm just offering an explanation that we overlook RPDs, but not the RPDs that are also LQ, Flamebait, Disrespecting the original sender, etc. Those we don't discount . . . RPD + other infractions are counted . . . at least by me.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 57):
Seems to me that I may have, or am about to inadertantly step on some toes here

Nope, not at all . . . press on my friend . . .

Good discussion.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 57):
a lot

How many is a lot.

The dozen or two dozen that snivel on Whiners, Non-Av.com, and the other "parody" sites?

The only members that have any credibility with me, at this point, are the ones that have availed themselves of this thread and are openly and honestly discussing the issues.

Not the members at Whiners that are discussing the parentage of my Mother or only post HALF the facts . . . which is the usual tack there.

[Edited 2007-12-31 16:53:07]
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3262
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Tue Jan 01, 2008 1:37 am



Quoting DL021 (Thread starter):
But there should be some manner of relief or system of appeal for users who feel that they're being unfairly treated.

Along the lines, perhaps, of what ShyFlyer was suggesting, would this be a public-advocacy-type-group? One that's granted special permission to lobby the controlling group?

Quoting DL021 (Reply 17):
I can see reasons for perma-banning.

Libturdslayer is always the first that comes to mind there.

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 20):
The moderators are not afraid to be challenged.

If that's supposed to mean that mods welcome feedback that may provoke them to think about their roles, make them stop and listen, inspire them to change and/or otherwise refine their moderating tendenices and so forth, then that's a solid attitude. If that means that mods are unafraid of any user coming full-barreled (whether w/good substance or filled w/vitriol - or both) just because the mods have the final say with the ban function, then that's functionally correct but with a lame attitude. Personally, I haven't had much of any issues w/mods for quite awhile, but, from what I can tell, people are making the distinction that mods as a whole somewhere from often to rarely do the former and more often than they should do the latter.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 23):
ESPECIALLY on Referenced Post Deleted deletion notices where the user has responded to one or more persons and one of those persons caused the deletion, that they are free to repost the other portions of their post

Not 2 days ago, two of my posts were deleted because of RPD's. Following your line of reasoning in conjunction with the portion of the rule below . . .

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 23):
Do not repost without first obtaining the agreement of the moderators otherwise suspension will follow.

. . . does that mean that it's required (or at the least good sense) to consult mods before refining my post for resubmission?
 
Queso
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:13 am



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 59):
Not 2 days ago, two of my posts were deleted because of RPD's. Following your line of reasoning in conjunction with the portion of the rule below . . .

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 23):
Do not repost without first obtaining the agreement of the moderators otherwise suspension will follow.

. . . does that mean that it's required (or at the least good sense) to consult mods before refining my post for resubmission?

Normally when I get RPD notices (and that's the only reason given) it states that you can repost your comments. It's always unfortunate when a long and thoughtfully crafted post is deleted because a tiny fraction of it was referring to a post that was canned for a good reason. If your repost is canned too and you're banned then it seems to me that a fair moderating group would consider that in an appeal.  Wink
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:14 am



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 59):
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 23):
ESPECIALLY on Referenced Post Deleted deletion notices where the user has responded to one or more persons and one of those persons caused the deletion, that they are free to repost the other portions of their post

Not 2 days ago, two of my posts were deleted because of RPD's. Following your line of reasoning in conjunction with the portion of the rule below . . .

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 23):
Do not repost without first obtaining the agreement of the moderators otherwise suspension will follow.

. . . does that mean that it's required (or at the least good sense) to consult mods before refining my post for resubmission?

Two different animals really . . .

Lets talk about the RPD Deletions first:

Generally, if a member has replied to a three people and one of those three has their post deleted, the moderator will immediately - in the text of the deletion notice - invite the member to please repost the response to the other posters.

If the RPD contains the response to only the one member, then of course, the point is moot.

No need to contact a moderator over any of that. In fact, most seasoned members generally recognize what was deleted, why, and repost their reply to the other anyway. I have no issues with that.

Now, the other, which is Rule 26: Seen here entirely: If your post or thread has been deleted, please do not view this as a personal attack against you by the forum moderators. If you believe there was an error, please send us an email in order to bring it to our attention. Do not repost without first obtaining the agreement of the moderators otherwise suspension will follow.

This pertains to those folks that start threads or write posts without source, or post something inflammatory, or reply to a post they've suggest for deletion (  crazy  - ridiculous thing to do - etc. ) or simply say, "Screw You, Moderator", and repost no matter what.


Not necessarily germaine to the RPD issue.

Does that help AllStar??
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5352
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:14 am



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 59):
Not 2 days ago, two of my posts were deleted because of RPD's. Following your line of reasoning in conjunction with the portion of the rule below . . .

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 23):
Do not repost without first obtaining the agreement of the moderators otherwise suspension will follow.

. . . does that mean that it's required (or at the least good sense) to consult mods before refining my post for resubmission?

No. For a Referenced Post Deleted post (AND ONLY RPD. Not RPD+extracurriculars) you don't need to reclear it with us. Repost it minus the bits that were the reason for the deletion (the actual referencing) and you're in good shape. It says so in the deletion notice itself (and that's another thing...you'd be surprised how many people DON'T read through the deletion note and ask why their post was removed or their thread deleted or where is it, why was it moved, etc.)

REFERENCED POST DELETED
You have replied to or quoted a post which has been deleted. When a post is deleted, we have to remove all the posts which make reference to it, otherwise these posts are out of context, and would be confusing to new readers of the
thread. This is not a reflection on the quality post itself (unless otherwise stated above), but rather a routine housekeeping matter. If applicable, you are welcome to make your post again without the reference to the deleted post.
 
Halcyon
Posts: 1622
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:47 pm

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:18 am



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 58):

And who do you think is generally sniveling on the other sites about the Moderators here?

C'Mon detective . . . you know the answer . . .

Some people might not ever complain, but still have the same feelings.
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3262
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Tue Jan 01, 2008 4:08 am



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 61):
Do not repost without first obtaining the agreement of the moderators otherwise suspension will follow.

This pertains to those folks that start threads or write posts without source, or post something inflammatory, or reply to a post they've suggest for deletion ( - ridiculous thing to do - etc. ) or simply say, "Screw You, Moderator", and repost no matter what.


Not necessarily germaine to the RPD issue.

Does that help AllStar??

It made me think that perhaps an edited repost (that didn't include any RPD material) might still be subject to similiar scrutiny, since the member doing the reposting would have knowledge of material now deleted, and might be considered to be attempting to reintroduce material that has been determined fit for deletion. Although, I figured if any such repost would be scrutinized in like manner, that would depend on the content and tone of the post, if there actually was any attempt to reintroduce/allude to an RPD. But clarification does help (as further demonstrated below), and thanks (both).

Quoting Garnetpalmetto (Reply 62):
Repost it minus the bits that were the reason for the deletion (the actual referencing) and you're in good shape.

 
IFEMaster
Posts: 4164
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:17 am

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:39 pm



Quoting Queso (Reply 47):
don't agree with that statement at all. Interpretation of forum rules tends to be very objective, partially due to the diversity of the moderating team and a user could post a comment that one mod wouldn't even think skirts the rules while another mod would find to be highly offensive either by content of the post itself or by virtue of who posted the comment.

The classic example: The Gambler Also A Cheater? (by HPLASOps Oct 23 2006 in Non Aviation)

Quoting KROC (Reply 42):
Dude - Does your pussy hurt?

Is this not "disrespecting another user"? The same comment has been deleted many times since using that interpretation and IIRC a user was banned for it.

It's all in the interpretation of the rules so a blanket comment to the effect of...

I'm wondering if we can get a response from a mod on this particular point. Interpretation is everything, and I'm wondering if there are any official guidelines on how mods should interpret rules, or whether it's left to their discretion. If a Mod can post something like this and, according to an interpretation of the rule, not get it deleted, then I'm wondering how the rule is interpreted for mods vs the common folk...
 
jafa39
Posts: 4320
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:14 pm

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Tue Jan 01, 2008 9:09 pm



Quoting IFEMaster (Reply 65):
I'm wondering if we can get a response from a mod on this particular point. Interpretation is everything, and I'm wondering if there are any official guidelines on how mods should interpret rules, or whether it's left to their discretion. If a Mod can post something like this and, according to an interpretation of the rule, not get it deleted, then I'm wondering how the rule is interpreted for mods vs the common folk...

I think Mods are allowed their personal opinions but should be deleted/banned/perma-banned according to the same rules...I had an issue with Sabena332 many years ago about him disrespecting another user and his posts got deleted so it can happen, but as with many things regarding moderation, I feel the rules/boundaries have changed on both sides of the fence.
 
diamond
Posts: 2999
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:01 am

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:15 am



Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 51):
And IMHO, I think your reply to my prior post and others in this thread were written a bit more negatively and condescendingly than it needed to be written... considering that is the point you're trying to make anyways.

Fair observation, and you may be right about the negative aspect. But I do not believe I'm being condescending. I don't write in a tongue-in-cheek style about things like this - so it may come across quite direct - but it is not my intention to be condescending, nor is it how I feel.

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 51):
If someone wants to cuss you folks, call you names, etc... then by all means ban them.

Glad that we agree on that.

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 51):
What I'm saying is there have been well known instances where it was either:
1) The A.net staff member is who actually instigated or more typically directly exacerbated and added fuel to the fire of the issue.

If you'd like to bring any specific incidents to our attention that involved you directly, we'll look at it again. If you want to discuss specifics and the issues are yours to discuss, then let's do so. I don't care if they're old issues or not. But it's pointless to blow a vague (non-specific), generic dust-cloud into the conversation, especially when you may not have been personally affected by it - with a deletion of your own post(s) or a ban.

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 51):
What I'm saying is there have been well known instances where it was either:
2) "Simple emails with relative politeness and civility" have been written, emails written without this name calling, cussing, etc. that you speak of... and these emails, just for merely questioning the powers that be and expressing a civil though direct form of disagreement and disgust with what are being viewed as shady dealings and getting the proverbial shaft have also led to long term bans to users with very little prior ban history.

I can't say this has never happened. Though it's almost never "for merely questioning the powers." We are questioned on more than half the deletions we make, 24/7. It comes with the job. And merely being questioned doesn't create a sense of alarm for anyone. Do you realize how extremely simple the concept of a Referenced Post Deletion is? It is strictly a housekeeping deletion and makes no effort to lay blame or assign fault to anyone. And yet, people have sent us flammable emails and canceled their memberships over their own misunderstanding of a referenced post deletion. In situations like that - some of us, myself included, are capable of getting testy. The RFP deletion spells it out in great detail, and I usually add a personal comment that says:

===================================
The post made by JoeMember has been
removed, so your quotation of it must also
be removed. This is a housekeeping
deletion only.
===================================

And in response, the user is often hostile and convinced that we're just out to get them. When ANCflyer became a moderator, I told him that this particular thing happened all the time, and he laughed and said, "no way." Sure enough, on his first day he had two of these land in his lap.

I am not excusing rudeness on the part of the moderators. I am just showing you how often we are provoked. We all know we're human, and are reminded a few hundred times per day that we aren't perfect. We get it.

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 51):
Many of your folks have been known to have written some "personal messages" in your deletion notices which are far more unprofessional, flaming, and offensive than the post actually being deleted.

Again, if this is specifically about you, and about deletion notices that you have received - and you'd like to open the discussion again, please bring it to our attention. If you're mentioning this on behalf of others, it's really their place to get it resolved, not yours.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 53):
A.net could modify the terms of usage agreement to include conditions that conversations with moderators are public communications and specify that A.net and DM will use these communications if necessary to defend themselves from slanderous allegations.

That's been mentioned more than once and is an interesting idea. But it would be inventing a strange 'lack-of-privacy-policy' that would be almost opposite of any other site around. Though it sounds simple enough, I don't see how this would work in reality.

The entire website does not have to guarantee zero privacy to its member-base so that a few can feel less skeptical about the moderators.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 53):
Which is why transparency is vital in any action of authority figures.

I don't mean this to be condescending - it is an honest question. As a paying member of this site, and as someone who posts on other sites about this site - you are an authority figure yourself. So what transparency ("proof") do we have that you have the site's best interest at heart?

You want some sort of change to the process or structure so that you can feel more trusting of the moderators. Ok. So what are you willing to give or provide to the members of this site that will prove your own intentions?

If we took all the private emails in which your user name was discussed and published them (with your permission) for the world to see - I don't think we'd look incompetent, or evil, or as if we had a vendetta against you. But if we published every comment you made about this site and/or its moderators on other websites - do you think you'd appear to be a positive, open-minded person that really wants the site to do well and is willing to do his part in making it happen?

So where is the transparency on your side?

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 53):
there aren't 20,000 more active posters today than there were six months ago. There may be 20,000 more registered users, but that's an often worthless number ... Civ-av and Non-av are still today largely the same group of people that were posting last year.

And it's the same group of people posting on other sites regurgitating the same old issues over and over. And when things get boring, they bump 3-year old threads just to have something to talk about.

The fact that there are 20,000 more members does indicate the value and appeal of the site, even if many of those people aren't yet posting in the forums.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 53):
When you have the level of community that is found on A.net, where a great many of the members know each other personally, it does become the business of the community what happens to it's members.

It's great that the community is strong and that the site has caused people to get to know each other. But no one should be so arrogant as to assume they need to defend anyone else, or appoint themselves as a spokesperson for another member. Each member of this site is capable of managing his/her own relationship with the site. Most do it effortlessly by following the rules. Some have an occasional problem with the rules, but work through those problems by communicatiing effectively. And a much smaller group has frequent and ongoing problems and is determined to never admit fault, and then brag about their own inflexibility on other sites.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 53):
Well, consider mine permanently open for all matters (other than financial information ) in the future.

That's a nice offer, but as I've said above - it would be a crazy privacy policy that would allow for that sort of thing. I would not want 70,000 members to have to agree to a new 'lack-of-privacy' policy so that the moderators could occasionally display some of the ridiculous messages we get. As for our own privacy, it's violated every day on numerous other websites. So be it.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 53):
Anywho, trash talking or not, I'll still buy all you guys a beer (or non-alcoholic beverage of choice) for the job ya'll do if you ever show up at a meet I'm at. Improving the community is the goal, not bashing the mods.

Much appreciated.
 
WellHung
Posts: 3299
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:50 pm

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:59 am

It is no secret that the moderating team has often been plagued by one or two overzealous moderators who take the job so seriously that they negatively impact the site experience for many users. These folks won't even listen to other moderators, let alone a First Class Peasant. This stubbornness started from the beginning with Hepkat and continues to this day with a current mod or two who have posted in this thread. Obstinate personalities in positions of power can never yield positive results (see GW Bush).

Since there is little to no policing amongst the moderators and they tend to back each other on all decisions, it suggests there is an iron curtain between the mods and the membership. They have the title of 'moderator', but the job doesn't have much responsibility other than deleting posts and dishing out bans. Oh - and let's not forget the all-important locking of threads. I think the title of 'moderator' is disproportionate to the responsibility and gives the 'moderators' a false sense of power and importance. Since the only way they can exercise this 'power' is by deleting posts and banning people, this is what they do to feel like they are doing the job.

In the spirit of addressing the problem first, it is now Demand Media's responsibility to appoint a responsible moderating team so such discussions and committees will not be necessary. This is how bureaucracy's start. A committee to investigate a council that oversees a group and so on. And to be honest, eventually this committee will be in cahoots with the rest of the crew, rendering it a kangaroo court.

I also believe that, while not publicly disclosed, Premium Members are subject to longer bans than First Class Members for the same 'offenses'. Something that should also be addressed by DM.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3):
Quoting DL021 (Thread starter):
If a banning lasts a lifetime then there's one less person paying Demand

Inaccurate. For every member that is permanently suspended from the site there are a dozen more tha sign up.

Link?

Um, I hate to do the math, but if a dozen signed up and that one wasn't permanently banned, there would be 13. 13 - 12 (a dozen) = 1. One less member. Accurate.

Quoting Diamond (Reply 5):
Without knowing what was communicated via PM or email? I'm curious to know how bad it would have to get before you would agree that a more lengthy ban is in order.

And this is the problem. Mods are continuously looking for reasons to hand out or extend bans rather than actually trying to fix the problem. Like the 'low quality post' - how about coming up with an actual reason to delete a post, or, you know, maybe chilling out and not axing anything that crosses your monitor.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 13):
Quoting AC320 (Reply 12):
The few irritable members out there can grow thicker skins.

No question about it.

Classic. Ironically, it is the moderators with the thinnist skins of them all...

Quoting IFEMaster (Reply 65):
If a Mod can post something like this and, according to an interpretation of the rule, not get it deleted, then I'm wondering how the rule is interpreted for mods vs the common folk...

If I said that to a moderator (other than KROC who can occasionally have a sense of humor), there is no doubt that I would be suspended. However, I am of the mind that this is the Internet and if you can't handle someone asking if your pussy hurts or can't bear to see someone ask someone else if their pussy hurts, you are better off sticking to Dr. Seuss and Mr. Rogers. However, these 'thick-skinned' moderators (  rotfl  ) apparently feel otherwise.
 
Queso
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:16 am



Quoting Diamond (Reply 67):
And it's the same group of people posting on other sites regurgitating the same old issues over and over. And when things get boring, they bump 3-year old threads just to have something to talk about.



Quoting Diamond (Reply 67):
As for our own privacy, it's violated every day on numerous other websites.

Since we're having a good, open, frank discussion here, I'd like to bring this out in the open a little more too and I invite any of the mods (or all) to comment. It's obvious that the mods either check out other sites themselves or hear about things posted "over there" through the grapevine. A couple of questions about that:

Do you all feel strongly that impartiality can be maintained after you read something "over there" that has been posted about a moderator? If so, why is it (other sites) apparently so important that it been mentioned in this thread several times?

What is your own opinion of the relationship between this site and other "parody" sites? While there may not be a direct relationship, it's obvious there is some relationship because it has been mentioned in this thread several times.

Thanks for your feedback!
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:49 am



Quoting Diamond (Reply 67):
As a paying member of this site, and as someone who posts on other sites about this site...

Well, first off, it's singular. There is only one other site I post on in regards to events on this forum.

Second. If anyone, moderator or not, wants to discuss with me things I say on that other site they can feel free to. If they don't feel that they want to do it in an open forum my e-mail is publicly listed and I do read IM's. Just add a request for confidentiality if you don't want it to be public. I know, that last bit flies in the face of 100% transparency, but I do acknowledge that because of outside interests, certain persons are limited in what they are allowed to "publicly" discuss. That's just life.

Quoting Diamond (Reply 67):
But if we published every comment you made about this site and/or its moderators on other websites - do you think you'd appear to be a positive, open-minded person that really wants the site to do well and is willing to do his part in making it happen?

Being posts on a public forum, I'd say they already are published in the public domain for general consideration.

Quoting Diamond (Reply 67):
So where is the transparency on your side?



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 53):
Well, consider mine permanently open for all matters (other than financial information ) in the future. Not planning anything, just getting that out of the way. Anyone who ever suggests "transparency" better first apply it to themselves... So there you have it.

I'm not kidding. Anything and everything.

Quoting Queso (Reply 69):

I agree. "Other sites" seem to be garnering a lot of attention here, which is actually mildly concerning to me.
 
bhmbaglock
Posts: 2489
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:51 am

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Wed Jan 02, 2008 5:02 am



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 53):
Well, consider mine permanently open for all matters (other than financial information ) in the future. Not planning anything, just getting that out of the way. Anyone who ever suggests "transparency" better first apply it to themselves... So there you have it.

Hopefully this is one case where a "me too" is acceptable; I'm with you 100%.

Quoting Diamond (Reply 67):
But it's pointless to blow a vague (non-specific), generic dust-cloud into the conversation, especially when you may not have been personally affected by it - with a deletion of your own post(s) or a ban.

When the current status quo is one that involves a serious lack of clarity in several areas, i.e. What is offensive? What is flamebait? What is low quality? etc.; we're all affected by it. As a small start, it would be very helpful if the well known "double standard" issue involving" a sore pussy were to be publicly addressed by the mods rather than ignored over and over again.

Quoting Diamond (Reply 67):
Ok. So what are you willing to give or provide to the members of this site that will prove your own intentions?

He's pretty clear about it being a two way street. He's providing transparency on his end in return for it on your end. Classic quid pro quo.

Quoting Diamond (Reply 67):
That's a nice offer, but as I've said above - it would be a crazy privacy policy that would allow for that sort of thing.

I don't think it's helpful to refer to a sincere idea from a respected user as "crazy". As you may gather, I have rather the opposite opinion personally; I can understand you disagreeing but your choice of words is unfortunate.

Quoting Diamond (Reply 67):
As for our own privacy, it's violated every day on numerous other websites.

How so? Is there a rule requiring that communications between mods and users be kept confidential? Personally, I don't see any problem with this unless selective editing/posting occurs. Again, this problem could be solved with a more open system.

I'm still curious to see an answer for the following question(reposted in case it got lost in the chaos above):

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 49):
Do you think there's any significance to the fact that not one non-mod user has chimed in here saying that all is good and this is a waste of time?



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 70):
I agree. "Other sites" seem to be garnering a lot of attention here, which is actually mildly concerning to me.

Ironically, it's one of the a.net mods who originally told me about the "other site". Personally, I find it more useful for calling out users than mods but each to his own.
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Wed Jan 02, 2008 5:11 am



Quoting Diamond (Reply 67):

Again, if this is specifically about you, and about deletion notices that you have received - and you'd like to open the discussion again, please bring it to our attention.

It is about a situation involving me personally so no I'm not referring to another member's problem. That said, it is water under the bridge, almost 2 years ago now... and not worth the drama that it will cause reopening it in its entirety and the bad blood spilled over it when reopening it won't fix it, but if you're still interested shoot me a PM/email (no need dragging it all out in this thread, eh?) and we can continue this.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 70):

I agree. "Other sites" seem to be garnering a lot of attention here, which is actually mildly concerning to me.

Yeah which is more than just mildly concerning to me. Especially when there was always that gentleman's agreement supposedly. Although 2 years ago yet I received correspondence from moderators here on A.net with direct quotes that I said, cut/pasted straight out of "the other site," so this is nothing new nor unexpected.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:25 pm



Quoting WellHung (Reply 68):
Link?

Just do that math and skip the semantics . . . and the silly games.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 68):
Mods are continuously looking for reasons to hand out or extend bans rather than actually trying to fix the problem.

That is pure hogwash. YOU have that experience because YOU have brought it upon yourself. It's what is referred to as a Self-Incflicted wound on your part. You've been shelved enough times, you know what I'm talking about.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 68):
Like the 'low quality post' - how about coming up with an actual reason to delete a post, or, you know, maybe chilling out and not axing anything that crosses your monitor.

I think this point has already been addressed in this thread, but in case it hasn't . . . . generally, at least in my case, unless it's blatantly obvious - like some of the inane pictures you post - the Moderators will explain the reason for the Low Quality. Most times however, it's so blatantly obvious - like the inane pictures with absolutely no relevence to the thread that you post - an explanation is not necessary.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 68):
it is the moderators with the thinnist skins of them all...

Enforcing the rules on this site isn't being thin-skinned. Once again you've missed the mark . . .

Quoting Queso (Reply 69):
Do you all feel strongly that impartiality can be maintained after you read something "over there" that has been posted about a moderator? If so, why is it (other sites) apparently so important that it been mentioned in this thread several times?

I do. Because I could care less what's posted elsewhere. Comes with the job.

It does howver show what kind of hypocrites and two-faced multi-personality folks we have in the membership. Quite interesting to read. Laughable in most cases.

Quoting Queso (Reply 69):
What is your own opinion of the relationship between this site and other "parody" sites?

There is no relationship. The parody sites are, these days, ridiculous.

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 72):
Quoting MDorBust (Reply 70):

I agree. "Other sites" seem to be garnering a lot of attention here, which is actually mildly concerning to me.

Yeah which is more than just mildly concerning to me. Especially when there was always that gentleman's agreement supposedly.

Interestingly, said "Gentlemans Agreement" hasn't been breached here on this site, at least as far as I can tell. But look at the "other" site - Whiners - and tell me the same is true. There is no Gentleman's Agreement there. And most often - including VERY recently - what is copied/pasted there is horsecrap and half truth anyway. It can be proven so, but not without breaching the trust and privacy of this site.

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 72):
Although 2 years ago yet I received correspondence from moderators here on A.net with direct quotes that I said, cut/pasted straight out of "the other site," so this is nothing new nor unexpected.

Unfortunate . . . I wouldn't have wasted my time . . .
 
Farcry
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:39 pm

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:45 pm

I have been reading this thread with much interest. I have found most of it almost absorbing. But, there are one or two issues I think need to be looked at.



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 58):
The dozen or two dozen that snivel on Whiners, Non-Av.com, and the other "parody" sites?

If my memory serves me correctly ANC, weren't you at one time one of those dozen/two dozen on Whiners (along with SRB)?

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 58):
The only members that have any credibility with me, at this point, are the ones that have availed themselves of this thread and are openly and honestly discussing the issues.

So the rest of the membership, at this point, have no credibility with you because they have not posted in this thread? Not really a good attitude to portray surely? (As a Mod that is)

I'm not digging at you personally ANC. (sorry if i seems that way)

This site has/is changing and it's not all for the better. When run by Johan, it was, (in my opinion), more relaxed and easy going. Yes there were rules, but a certain lee-way was allowed when posting your thoughts. Now, it seems since the site was re-located the 'bosses' have decided to take in the slack and we have to 'toe the line'.

Quoting Queso (Reply 69):
Since we're having a good, open, frank discussion here, I'd like to bring this out in the open a little more too and I invite any of the mods (or all) to comment. It's obvious that the mods either check out other sites themselves or hear about things posted "over there" through the grapevine. A couple of questions about that:

Do you all feel strongly that impartiality can be maintained after you read something "over there" that has been posted about a moderator? If so, why is it (other sites) apparently so important that it been mentioned in this thread several times?

What is your own opinion of the relationship between this site and other "parody" sites? While there may not be a direct relationship, it's obvious there is some relationship because it has been mentioned in this thread several times.

Thanks for your feedback!

As one of the people who was lambasted on Whiners for disclosing on A.Net that a certain new Mod had mentioned a certain s---list, an answer to the above quote would be good.

If I've offended any Mod in this thread, I apologise. But, I thought it was airing your views and being honest.

HoJoCo
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:33 pm



Quoting Farcry (Reply 74):
So the rest of the membership, at this point, have no credibility with you because they have not posted in this thread?

NO. The members here that post on Whiners with their vitrioic sniveling but haven't the gut to come here to try to resolve the issues they raise have no credibility . . . . sorta like the person that doesn't vote in an election, but has the gut to complain about who is in office. Waste of my time.

Quoting Farcry (Reply 74):
I'm not digging at you personally ANC. (sorry if i seems that way)

No worries . . . that's what this thread is about, solving problems . . .
 
miamiair
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:42 pm

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:42 pm

So what happens when there are numerous complaints about how a mod is handling things/behaving?

What mechanism is in place to prevent abuse to the members?


I have received one three day ban. Did I think I deserved it? No. Did I bitch about here or there? No. If someone needs to appeal/argue about a ban a deletion, do it in a civil way. You're not going to get very far with profanities. Then again, you shouldn't have to kiss ass either. Be straight up about it. It is ther friggin internet after all, and at the end of the day that is all it is.
 
WellHung
Posts: 3299
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:50 pm

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:31 pm



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 73):
Just do that math

Ignoring the facts?

 checkmark 

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 73):
skip the semantics . . . and the silly games.

Being a hypocrite?

 checkmark 

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 73):
That is pure hogwash. YOU have that experience because YOU have brought it upon yourself. It's what is referred to as a Self-Incflicted wound on your part. You've been shelved enough times, you know what I'm talking about.

Finger pointing? Dismissing criticism out of hand?

 checkmark   checkmark 

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 73):
I think this point has already been addressed in this thread, but in case it hasn't . . . . generally, at least in my case, unless it's blatantly obvious - like some of the inane pictures you post - the Moderators will explain the reason for the Low Quality. Most times however, it's so blatantly obvious - like the inane pictures with absolutely no relevence to the thread that you post - an explanation is not necessary.

Taking their job too seriously? No sense of humor?

 checkmark   checkmark 

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 73):
Enforcing the rules on this site isn't being thin-skinned. Once again you've missed the mark . . .

Missing the point?

 checkmark 




The marks of an overzealous a.net moderator.

And maybe this is why the OP felt the need for this committee in the first place.

Quoting Miamiair (Reply 76):
So what happens when there are numerous complaints about how a mod is handling things/behaving?

You email them. While you probably will get a response, your concerns will be ignored. Since Johan was pretty much hands-off as far as the forum was concerned, moderators felt no need to address such concerns. Hopefully DM will take a more active stance (at least initially) to try to solve any issues.

Quoting Miamiair (Reply 76):
What mechanism is in place to prevent abuse to the members?
















 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:42 pm



Quoting WellHung (Reply 77):
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 73):
Just do that math

Ignoring the facts?

The fact is, if we permanently suspend someone we don't NEED them here . . . the loss - financially - is minimal, the loss to the site allowing them to stay is greater. So, even with your fuzzy math, you're still out of the ball park.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 77):
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 73):
skip the semantics . . . and the silly games.

Being a hypocrite?

Pointing out the blindingly obvious . . .

Quoting WellHung (Reply 77):
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 73):
That is pure hogwash. YOU have that experience because YOU have brought it upon yourself. It's what is referred to as a Self-Incflicted wound on your part. You've been shelved enough times, you know what I'm talking about.

Finger pointing? Dismissing criticism out of hand?

Nothing to dismiss. Criticism from some that's been shelved so often isn't criticism, it's sniveling.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 77):
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 73):
I think this point has already been addressed in this thread, but in case it hasn't . . . . generally, at least in my case, unless it's blatantly obvious - like some of the inane pictures you post - the Moderators will explain the reason for the Low Quality. Most times however, it's so blatantly obvious - like the inane pictures with absolutely no relevence to the thread that you post - an explanation is not necessary.

Taking their job too seriously? No sense of humor?

See my previous remark, immediately above.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 77):
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 73):
Enforcing the rules on this site isn't being thin-skinned. Once again you've missed the mark . . .

Missing the point?

No point to miss, none was made, therefore nothing to acknowledge.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 77):
And maybe this is why the OP felt the need for this committee in the first place.

Highly doubty that since the OP and I are personal friends . . . off line . . . likely he'd have called me like he did from the top of a mountain in Hawaii several weeks ago . . . missed again Hung.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:43 pm



Quoting DL021 (Thread starter):
I'd suggest that we discuss creating a panel of non-moderating users who agree to review decisions that are questioned by enough users and privately or openly (based on the users desire) share why the decisions were correct or privately return an opinion to the moderators that their decision could stand further thought.

You would essentially give other user double the amount of complaints that they could give, plus the added hassle of an additional level of bureaucracy to go thru. Decisions by committee, in my experience, will never fully satisfy everyone.

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 71):
What is offensive? What is flamebait? What is low quality? etc.; we're all affected by it

Impossible to fully define, as those can easily change from person to person. Things that may offend me may not offend others, my sense of humor is a lot blacker than others, etc.

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 71):
Personally, I find it more useful for calling out users than mods but each to his own.

There are some of us who use far more colorful language in normal circumstances, and find places where we can whine in liberty. For example, there is no way I could use my normal workplace vocabulary in other places. But overall, this is only the internet, and it should be far easier to control our baser impulses, rather than let every little things crawl under our skin. Very easy to walk away and ignore certain people in the anonimity of the internet.
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:46 pm

Awhile back I brought up the idea of retention votes for moderators in a thread here in SR. Now some people would probably say to oust the whole lot of 'em, but those more rational folks among us would realize that would be a far worse situation.

A system which allows you to vote for mods in a Yay or Nay fashion would likely lead to an > 50% Nay for all the mods (no offense meant folks, I'm just thinking of the mob mentality and lack of maturity displayed by many on the site, including one in this thread) so that is obviously not a good idea.

However a system involving ranking them possibly would be much more fair. By that way you'd be forced to pick a *BEST* a *WORST* and rate those in between. No matter what you think of a crew of people whether highly or lowly regarded, there is always a best and worst of them all. Of course, only allowing one "ballot" per member would be necessary, and the coding for that would be quite simple for a company as big as DM once they get through all the other teething problems here on A.net.

From the results you could just bump out the lowest mod(s) and then bring in new ones if it is deemed that replacements to keep the staff at a constant level are needed. There are a couple mods (without mentioning names) on this site who are IMHO glaring examples of poor leadership, and likewise there are a few who IMHO do a great job. I think we can all agree that we all have some similar sentiments, even if our goods and bads are all different people. If there is a definitive consensus on one moderator continually being voted as doing a bad job (which would weed out all the personal problems people have with the mod who most recently deleted/banned them... since supposedly only 100 or so of us ever have deletions/bans to worry about) they most likely are doing a poor job. With thousands of members able to vote, if someone's rating is significantly worse than his peers... it would have to show he/she is doing a pretty bad job. Margins of error, of course, decline with the broad sampling given by having this open election. There are only a handful of us here posting, but I would hope the election would get upwards of a thousand votes.

I realize the powers that be will strongly disagree with this idea, again. But this is (except for one poster here) a peaceful, rational discussion that can and should lead to positive relationships between users and staff. I'm not trying to step on any toes here... because like political figures if you're doing a good job you've got nothing to worry about.
 
mirrodie
Posts: 6797
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 3:33 am

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:01 am

Hey Ian, thanks for starting this and sorry to add to it so late. I just perused and got a sense of the entire conversation and well, have some comments.

First, I'd looked over the comments made by other mods and I have to say, I agree with them all. I found that most of them covered bases that would have brought up already. So I simply want to comment on whats already been said.

Second, Ian,

Quoting DL021 (Thread starter):
Every time someone is banned for any period there's going to be two stories.

thank you for acknowledging that there are 2 sides to each coin.

Quoting Queso (Reply 8):
This would ensure the membership felt like they had some say in the process. In theory, their job wouldn't entail much, just reviewing bans issued by the mods.

So, again, to review, is this entire thread really boiling down to simply HOW the mods decide what bans are given? That seems to be the main idea here, that we are ban happy. Is that pretty much it? If so, then I think we are all open to hearing how we can do better.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 17):
What if the member in question was offered the option to open the records of their exchanges when they complain?

Like Pep, I'd love to see it happen. But some time ago, I distinctly recall posting, for all to see in site-related, a nasty email that I received from a user, sans any personal info. The response by some was shock. By others, it was "who care's what you mods go through" Makes you really wonder if transparency helps at all.


These next two quotes, by different folks, are important:

Quoting Halcyon (Reply 42):
Whether or not the general members trust the moderators is important.



Quoting Queso (Reply 69):
Do you all feel strongly that impartiality can be maintained after you read something "over there" that has been posted about a moderator?

We can talk about gentlemen's agreements, but trust is a two way street and Pep touched upon this briefly. I do recall once trying to work with a user regarding an issue some years ago. And I think the other mods will agree that I'm pretty lenient about bans and deletions. But I learned that said user was on a parody site, conveniently editing our email exchange to make them look innocent and went further to slander me. At that point, I decided two things.
1. Don't be led by others to a parody site, its a waste of time and b) don't waste my time with that user trying to work things out when its clear they have other issues.

Now, Queso and all, read carefully. Can my impartiality be maintained? Yep. And Its incredibly easy. You see, let's say user Pep'sPooch, has an issue but he was really slandering me and working against me on some parody site. And let's say I found out about it. And say 2 weeks later, one of his posts is in the queue for deletion. I'll look at the post but I won't act on it. I'd rather another mod use their judgement. That is how I maintain being impartial.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 73):
It does however show what kind of hypocrites and two-faced multi-personality folks we have in the membership.

yes, hence my way of maintaining impartiality.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 68):
Since there is little to no policing amongst the moderators and they tend to back each other on all decisions, it suggests there is an iron curtain between the mods and the membership.

You could not be more wrong. We mods do challenge each others decisions when warranted. And yes, some mods get smacked for doing wrong from time to time.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 68):
I also believe that, while not publicly disclosed, Premium Members are subject to longer bans than First Class Members for the same 'offenses'. Something that should also be addressed by DM

wow. Well you can beleive that, but that sounds pretty off course. When we review SDs or consider bans, we don't review those criteria you mentioned.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 73):
Interestingly, said "Gentlemans Agreement" hasn't been breached here on this site, at least as far as I can tell. But look at the "other" site - Whiners - and tell me the same is true. There is no Gentleman's Agreement there. And most often - including VERY recently - what is copied/pasted there is horsecrap and half truth anyway. It can be proven so, but not without breaching the trust and privacy of this site.

Spot on Pep. The problem with Gentlemen's Agreements is that at least a pair of gentlemen is needed.

Quoting Miamiair (Reply 76):
What mechanism is in place to prevent abuse to the members?

And to take it a notch further, what mechanism prevents abuse to the mods? And yes, I am being quite serious. I ask this because while I see much good discussion here with good intent, I can't help but note how reply 68 starts off as such and just continues to take jabs at the moderating team without any iota of real intent to ameliorate said conditions that are supposedly so terrible. The mere opening remark and follow ups w/ him are just dead ends. You want ot add to ideas to help improve the stie, that is great. But to have a piss on the mods, I think you'd do well on those other sites.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 68):
It is no secret that the moderating team has often been plagued by one or two overzealous moderators who take the job so seriously that they negatively impact the site experience for many users.



Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 80):
If there is a definitive consensus on one moderator continually being voted as doing a bad job (which would weed out all the personal problems people have with the mod who most recently deleted/banned them... since supposedly only 100 or so of us ever have deletions/bans to worry about) they most likely are doing a poor job. With thousands of members able to vote, if someone's rating is significantly worse than his peers..

So I just want to clarify. If only 100 or so have deletions/bans to worry about and the rest of 70,000 basically don't have any true interaction with the mods to know what type of job they are doing, what criteria is being used for the masses to vote? How do those 70000, besides picking names out a hat, decide who is a good mod or bad if they never had any real interaction except for maybe a half dozen posts removed for being in the wrong forum, off topic or low quality over 2 year time frame?

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 80):
I'm not trying to step on any toes here... because like political figures if you're doing a good job you've got nothing to worry about.

...except for allegations of rape, sexual relations, misconduct, public drunkness, scandal, and least of all, slander  Wink

Quoting Miamiair (Reply 76):
It is ther friggin internet after all, and at the end of the day that is all it is.

If only it were that easy.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:33 am

OK, now I think I got my thoughts a little straighter:

This has to do with a member who was permabanned, that for all I know (I know I am not privy to all the information) was a member that was overall a fairly decent person to hold discussions with and was never really known to throw insults about, demean or basically be a PITA person.

IMHO, the permaban seems excessive. But to repeat myself, I am aware of not having all the information at hand.

But I know that justice is a matter of degrees.

By this I mean to say that a member is good standing is usually given chances to redeem themselves, and if they do NOT avail themselves of these chances, then the ultimate punishment is and SHOULD be a permaban.

What should be done, and again IMHO, should be a clearcut list of offenses and punishments.

For example:

1st personal insult to a member = 2 week ban
2nd = 3 month ban
3rd = 1 year ban
4th = permanent ban

All these offenses can have the same methodology applied to them.

Offenses againsts mods can have similar punishments, as I have been made very aware of the crap that some mods are submitted to for even deleted posts.

This way, a member can be very well aware of the consequences of their actions, and mods impartiality cannot be questioned if these punishments are applied according to a very well written out policy.
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:58 am



Quoting Mirrodie (Reply 81):

...except for allegations of rape, sexual relations, misconduct, public drunkness, scandal, and least of all, slander Wink

Those would be the one's NOT doing what is called a "good job," sir. There are good politicians out there, believe it or not. And the one's doing a good job get re-elected, no sweat, usually.

Quoting Mirrodie (Reply 81):
and the rest of 70,000 basically don't have any true interaction with the mods to know what type of job they are doing, what criteria is being used for the masses to vote? How do those 70000, besides picking names out a hat, decide who is a good mod or bad if they never had any real interaction except for maybe a half dozen posts removed for being in the wrong forum, off topic or low quality over 2 year time frame?

So you're saying the only interaction a user has with a mod is if the mods do something directly to a user? We can't respect mods for their cleaning of threads that NEED cleaned, their proactive stances in such threads, their impartiality, etc.? That's giving yourself less credit than even the mob does.

Manning up and holding open dialogue in this thread is respect worthy, especially ANC's no nonsense approach he has taken in this thread. A few in here though are still toeing the company line it seems, but that comes with the territory.
 
VC-10
Posts: 3552
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 1999 11:34 am

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:04 am



Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 82):
What should be done, and again IMHO, should be a clearcut list of offenses and punishments.

For example:

1st personal insult to a member = 2 week ban
2nd = 3 month ban
3rd = 1 year ban
4th = permanent ban

That is essentially what happens now. We start with a 3-day suspension and work up through 7-day, 14-day, one month, 2 month etc for repeat offences.

There some members who believe that each ban wipes the slate clean and complain when they get another suspension saying it is unfair to get a one month ban for a single post, conveniently forgetting their prior misdemeanour's
 
bhmbaglock
Posts: 2489
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:51 am

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:09 am



Quoting Mirrodie (Reply 81):
So, again, to review, is this entire thread really boiling down to simply HOW the mods decide what bans are given? That seems to be the main idea here, that we are ban happy. Is that pretty much it? If so, then I think we are all open to hearing how we can do better.

No, the mechanics of how bans are given out are pretty well known and understood. The thread's been somewhat de-railed but the point is to find some reasonable accomodation to provide an independant review when a user or users feel they've been wronged by mod(s).

Quoting Mirrodie (Reply 81):
And say 2 weeks later, one of his posts is in the queue for deletion. I'll look at the post but I won't act on it. I'd rather another mod use their judgement. That is how I maintain being impartial.

This is a good model IMO. Of course if you have a user trashing every one of you and you all pass on action, he'll have a license to kill.  devil  Unfortunately, I think a few people are trying this.

Quoting Mirrodie (Reply 81):
And to take it a notch further, what mechanism prevents abuse to the mods?

Not a thing other than aversion to the very large stick(virtual) that you as individuals and as a group wield, this is considerably more than users have either as individuals or as a group.

Quoting Mirrodie (Reply 81):
except for allegations of rape, sexual relations, misconduct, public drunkness, scandal, and least of all, slander

You guys have all the fun. :}

Getting back(hopefully) to a solution, I have an alternate to Ian's idea to throw out for comments that hopefully addresses the problems that have been found with its proposed application:

The gist of the problem seems to boil down to the intracacies of privacy vs. public discussion and accountability as I read it. An ideal solution should allow for both - seemingly impossible, but maybe not.

To address privacy, let's handle it very simply. Leave the current system in place, untouched. Use it in a dispute if privacy is an issue for you.

If, on the other hand, you (the user) think an open discussion would be useful or is needed, then start a new thread in a new and dedicated forum, let's call it the User-Mod Conference Table for starters. Obviously, without some differences in how this forum is handled, it could quickly turn into a flamefest of epic proportions so here's a few simple differences that would be needed:

1. Super strict enforcement of forum rules regarding flame bait, abuse of users/mods, etc. Zero leeway for both sides.
2, When starting a thread in this forum, the user will be required to agree to terms beyond those required for normal threads, i.e. agreeing that by bringing the grievance to a public forum he agrees to allow all past, present, and future correspondence regarding the topic at hand can/will be made public. That is, a decision(not forced, purely voluntary) must be made by the user to give up his normal right to privacy.
3. Allow only Crew and the thread starting member to post in any individual thread. This will serve to keep things clean and keep threads on topic. All other users would be able to read the threads but not post.
4. A concerned user could of course e-mail the mods if he had something to contribute and assuming it was not inflammatory or a diversion off topic, I believe that there would be a moral obligation on the mods to copy the comments with credit in the thread. It might also be OK to allow users with RR exceeding some set number, perhaps top 1-2% general access to post in these threads. As we've already established there are a few high RR members who can be difficult in these situations then perhaps a further limitation could be added, i.e. top 2% users in RR who have had no more than 3 or 7 days in the can over the last year.
5. It might not be a bad idea to make this forum available only to logged on users. Essentially make it public only to those who it concerns.
6. This one's a bit delicate, but I think even banned members should be allowed to start a thread and participate in it in this forum only. Obviously abuse of this should lead to very severe sanctions. Not much different than the way it is now other than the fact that the offender's behavior is out in the open and nobody will question the extra vacation time.
7. Short of a post that could cause legal problems or is offensive well beyond what would normally be deleted, no post or thread should ever be deleted from this forum. Good or bad, whatever you post stays there warts and all a evidence of your behavior.

OK, there it is. I'm sure there are problems but maybe this will help to stimulate some real talk about real solutions,
4.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:24 am



Quoting VC-10 (Reply 84):

Are you saying that our latest permabanned member had priors?
 
miamiair
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:42 pm

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:21 pm

I have a question that has yet to be answered?

Is telling someone to "Get a grip," Harsh Language or Disrespecting User?
 
AC320
Posts: 2809
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 11:29 pm

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:29 pm



Quoting Miamiair (Reply 87):
I have a question that has yet to be answered?

Is telling someone to "Get a grip," Harsh Language or Disrespecting User?

Your e-mail query was answered on 12/19/07
Should you still have questions please reply to that e-mail.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:33 pm



Quoting Miamiair (Reply 87):
Is telling someone to "Get a grip," Harsh Language or Disrespecting User?

OK, I'll give it a shot. Not knowing the history of WHY you're asking this . . . . here goes:

Context is important. Let me say that again, Context is important

IMO, context considered, it's Get a Grip is not Harsh Language nor is it Disrespectful. No more disrespectful than, "Are you Kidding" or even this:  faint  . . . . that is of course my opinion. Some here may differ, or have thinner skin . . . .

As was mentioned earlier this thread . . . some people simply need to toughen up. And as one user here used to say: Life is tough, Wear a Helmet.
 
miamiair
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:42 pm

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:51 pm



Quoting AC320 (Reply 88):
Your e-mail query was answered on 12/19/07
Should you still have questions please reply to that e-mail.

AC320, I do not have an answer to that question. I just looked. I have the post deletion note and the mod's reply which doe not contain the answer. If you want to post it here, be my guest, you have my permission.

ANC's answer in reply 89 was what I was looking for. There is no right or wrong answer, just an answer. And here is one of the problems I see; ask a simple question, you should get a simple answer. Don't tap dance around it, there's no need to.

Something else, which I have done in the past, if I see a member's posts getting close to asking for trouble, I will PM him/her and simply state you need to back it off or doom will visit you. Maybe the mods can do the same. It is in the best interests of the member to heed such a "suggestion."
 
AC320
Posts: 2809
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 11:29 pm

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:59 pm



Quoting Miamiair (Reply 90):
AC320, I do not have an answer to that question. I just looked. I have the post deletion note and the mod's reply which doe not contain the answer. If you want to post it here, be my guest, you have my permission.

ANC's answer in reply 89 was what I was looking for. There is no right or wrong answer, just an answer. And here is one of the problems I see; ask a simple question, you should get a simple answer. Don't tap dance around it, there's no need to.

MiamiAir, there's no tap dancing. Simply a simple note that such queries were previously replied to and what to do if any questions linger.

We've said it before, the moderators are not going to ignore any questions.

If you do not receive a reply to a question submitted to us, simply follow up with a "hey guys, what's up?" because chances are merely some e-mail wires got crossed on teh interwebs.

We'll re-forward the answer to your e-mail question and if you have questions regarding that you're more than welcome to ask.

Otherwise dealing with individual deletion/post questions or issues on here will fast become tangential to the topic.
 
miamiair
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:42 pm

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:04 pm



Quoting AC320 (Reply 91):

Thanks.
 
IFEMaster
Posts: 4164
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:17 am

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:53 pm



Quoting IFEMaster (Reply 65):


Quoting Queso (Reply 47):
don't agree with that statement at all. Interpretation of forum rules tends to be very objective, partially due to the diversity of the moderating team and a user could post a comment that one mod wouldn't even think skirts the rules while another mod would find to be highly offensive either by content of the post itself or by virtue of who posted the comment.

The classic example: The Gambler Also A Cheater? (by HPLASOps Oct 23 2006 in Non Aviation)

Quoting KROC (Reply 42):
Dude - Does your pussy hurt?

Is this not "disrespecting another user"? The same comment has been deleted many times since using that interpretation and IIRC a user was banned for it.

It's all in the interpretation of the rules so a blanket comment to the effect of...

I'm wondering if we can get a response from a mod on this particular point. Interpretation is everything, and I'm wondering if there are any official guidelines on how mods should interpret rules, or whether it's left to their discretion. If a Mod can post something like this and, according to an interpretation of the rule, not get it deleted, then I'm wondering how the rule is interpreted for mods vs the common folk...

Does any mod want to tackle this question of consistency? I ask because I think it would go a long way to dispelling the 'them and us' culture that appears to have developed, and silence over questions of 'one rule for the mods, another rule for the regular folk' is akin to an admission of inconsistency.

Anyone? Pep? AC320?
 
mirrodie
Posts: 6797
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 3:33 am

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:39 pm



Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 83):
Those would be the one's NOT doing what is called a "good job," sir. There are good politicians out there, believe it or not. And the one's doing a good job get re-elected, no sweat, usually.

I'm sorry you missed my point, that being, regardless of any good job done, any good politician is suceptible to false allegations and slander which may be damaging even when proved untrue.

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 83):
So you're saying the only interaction a user has with a mod is if the mods do something directly to a user?

I didn't say that and its pretty clear that I did not. What I did was ask you a question which you really didn't address IMHO. You made a reference to 100 or so users but I really don't see how much 70000 users really know all that much about the mods abilities. It's a stretch to say they can know how we moderate individually based on how we post.

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 83):
We can't respect mods for their cleaning of threads that NEED cleaned, their proactive stances in such threads, their impartiality, etc.?

Cleaning the threads, yes, but most of the time, unless we announce it, no user can which indiviudal mod cleaned up a thread. If you use proactive stances in threads as criteria, is it criteria, yes, but it speaks nothing about how a mod performs their duties. Impartiality, I already answered.

As an aside, I just remembered. I won't name who but I do recalling banning an anetter, someone who's actually been to my home and have drinks with, for 2 weeks, while I was on vacation. So I do think I'm pretty impartial, but that's just an example.

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 83):
A few in here though are still toeing the company line it seems, but that comes with the territory.

Since we are talking about transparency, please be blunt there and expand.

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 85):
The thread's been somewhat de-railed but the point is to find some reasonable accomodation to provide an independant review when a user or users feel they've been wronged by mod(s).

Thanks. But again, to clarify, it seems that the underlying cause that spurred this thread was the issue of wrongful bans.

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 85):
Of course if you have a user trashing every one of you and you all pass on action, he'll have a license to kill.

And honestly, if a user is trashing ever single mod, then I don't think you need to see that the user has some serious issues. That is not a moderator issue. That is a user with issues.

Quoting Miamiair (Reply 87):
Is telling someone to "Get a grip," Harsh Language or Disrespecting User?

Personally, I think Pepe nailed it, it has to do with context.
 
ORFflyer
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:42 am

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:00 pm



Quoting AC320 (Reply 91):
We've said it before, the moderators are not going to ignore any questions.

This is where I'll have to disagree. I've personally swapped e-mails with some of the mods over a post-deletion or thread deletion, and while the e-mails were civil and polite, my questions were answered with a simple:

"I stand by my decision, and I'm not going to answer anymore of this"

That may not be verbatim, but damn close. Personally - I'd like to see a little bit more detail in the "personal notes" part of deletion notices.

I'll also add that I've swapped emails with mods and have received well written answers. I think sometimes users have a bad hair day, and I thing sometimes the moderators have a bad hair day. The sun still came up the next morning, and so far, we're still here.

Quoting IFEMaster (Reply 93):
Does any mod want to tackle this question of consistency?

I'm not a mod, but here's my take. It seems that there isn't a real argument that the moderation of AIRLINERS is not consistent, nor are the rules applied evenly. Many posts in this thread among others have tried to answer as to why this is.... I think the best answer is that this is a worldwide site, with moderators from all walks of life. Insulting to one may not be to another. What I think the real beef here lately is that there certainly seems to be a shorter fuse on the firecracker nowadays. Could this be related to the sale from Johan to DM? I think it might. Back when it happened, there was a thread, or several about it. Folks were lining up on each side of the church like it was a wedding - groom's family on the right, bride's on the left. A whole LOT of bitching went on..... from users and moderators. (yes - they can share their opinions) After that, we had the whole server migration fiasco. (and that's being nice) A whole lot MORE bitching went on between a lot of us - me included.

Things are settling down a bit now from those two major events - maybe we all should too.

 twocents 
 
AC320
Posts: 2809
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 11:29 pm

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:11 pm



Quoting ORFflyer (Reply 95):
This is where I'll have to disagree. I've personally swapped e-mails with some of the mods over a post-deletion or thread deletion, and while the e-mails were civil and polite, my questions were answered with a simple:

"I stand by my decision, and I'm not going to answer anymore of this"

I do have to disagree, this is not an example of ignoring questions. Rather the nature of the position requires the delicate touch, but other times we must be firm, clear, and blunt. While we will indeed answer questions, we sometimes must make it very clear that we have or are providing the answer and that the answer is firm.

Sometimes things simply are the way they are despite personal opinions and feelings to the contrary that a user/individual might have, and we have to communicate that.

I'm sincerely sorry if the occasional bluntness and firm decisions required can be misinterpreted as ignoring.

Quoting ORFflyer (Reply 95):
not a mod, but here's my take. It seems that there isn't a real argument that the moderation of AIRLINERS is not consistent, nor are the rules applied evenly. Many posts in this thread among others have tried to answer as to why this is....

We need to be very, very clear on something we've discussed endlessly here so in no particular order:

The forum rules apply to all. Everyone agrees to them in order to participate here.

Active crew members have indeed been suspended or otherwise disciplined when necessary.

There are no shit lists of people to target over others.

The are no differing sets of standards (official or unofficial) that differentiate the following groups from one another: Photographer/membership class/Crew member/RR/Administrator/Troublemaker/Previously banned/Never banned/Administrator/Religion/Nationality/Boeing-fan/Airbus-fan/Liberal/Conservative/Anything

Where much of the issues raised regarding consistency stem from have been addressed many times: We consider many factors in decided how to proceed with a individual which includes prior deletions/suspensions (and doesn't include any factor mentioned in the previous paragraph or anything even remotely related).

The crux lies in say user A and B both post in a thread and post flames at one another.
User B has had many problems for this before including lengthy suspensions, while A has been relatively trouble-free.
B can therefore be suspended for a period longer than A.

Now we do recognize the forum growns and evolves, and what works on the forums changes as a result.
The approach to A vs B used to be more lenient until all hell broke loose
Sheep jokes used to be popular
Signed by posts used to work better
Some local things don't translate well to an international audience
Big news events are now consolidated in official threads due to the madness caused by the rush of everyone to post a new thread first
Picture threads in the hobby forum had to be consolidate
Etc...

Hence I'd caution against digging up old content when the content was found to not work well on the forums at a later date. You can probably find some A vs B in civil av from a little back that would earn immediate consequences today. If you don't see phrases or things being thrown around still today, it's a pretty big hint right there.

Some will be happy to know sheep jokes are at an all time low.

That said considering some of the e-mails we get and reasons some cite for us to remove something and the need to toughen up a bit, well maybe we need to include a certain infamous phrase as an option for deletion notices/responses to deletion suggestions. Just kidding.

Seriously though, I think we can also recognize some of the concern may stem from the generic nature of the deletion notices, where some may feel its mods hiding behind vague computer-generated statements, it's merely doing what we can with the tools provided as quickly and efficiently as possible. Perhaps this can be addressed and the notices be rebuilt to cite specific rules.

Instead of flamebait/harsh language you get: Your post was found in violation of the following rules:
6)Do not post slanderous or defamatory statements. These include, but are not limited to, false or malicious statements injurious to a person's reputation, job, family or private life.
3) Do not post a message on how you find a topic or user irrelevant, boring, childish or stupid.
If you have and questions or concerns regarding this notice please reply to this e-mail and one of our moderators will get back to you as soon as possible.

Obviously that's pretty rough, but something to consider and discuss between us mods and the keepers of the A.net programming group.

We need to remember the mods are human. While we're not perfect we try very hard to do the best job possible, and that means working with the realization we cannot satisfy every party or provide everything that everyone wants. What we do strive for is a high quality community (and yes even the definition of that can be debatable to many) and learning from any mistakes, shortcomings, or new experiences.

Now I think we all need a nice break and some relaxation, someone start a new innuendo thread or something.
 
IFEMaster
Posts: 4164
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:17 am

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:12 pm



Quoting AC320 (Reply 96):
someone start a new innuendo thread or something.

Will it get deleted?  Wink Just kidding. Thanks for the clarifying post.
 
Queso
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:08 pm



Quoting IFEMaster (Reply 97):
Thanks for the clarifying post.

Agreed, thanks for a very well-written post, AC320.
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: Moderator IG/Review Panel For A.Net

Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:31 pm



Quoting Mirrodie (Reply 94):

Since we are talking about transparency, please be blunt there and expand.

Here's 1 direct example... nobody has yet answered the Queso, et al question about KROC's "Does your pussy hurt?" comment. It has been brought up a handful of times now and still no word from the official body... why not?

Next example....

Quoting Mirrodie (Reply 81):
Quoting Miamiair (Reply 76):
What mechanism is in place to prevent abuse to the members?

And to take it a notch further, what mechanism prevents abuse to the mods? And yes, I am being quite serious. I ask this because while I see much good discussion here with good intent, I can't help but note how reply 68 starts off as such and just continues to take jabs at the moderating team without any iota of real intent to ameliorate said conditions that are supposedly so terrible. The mere opening remark and follow ups w/ him are just dead ends. You want ot add to ideas to help improve the stie, that is great. But to have a piss on the mods, I think you'd do well on those other sites.

No offense, but in your quest to point out the shortcomings of Reply 68 (which I agree with) you failed to pay any attention to the main idea of the post you were quoting... part of which you quoted, and part of which you seem to have ignored:

Quoting Miamiair (Reply 76):
So what happens when there are numerous complaints about how a mod is handling things/behaving?

Once again, that is a bit of a Texas-Two-Step, or whatever the Long Island equivalent to that dance is.  Silly

But failing to answer these questions by Queso and Miamiair is important. That's the crux to many of the problems the users have with the moderation staff here. When certain moderators (and it often times is the same couple offenders over, and over, and over again... see my point about retention votes?) are blatently overextending their powers, using biases, being inconsistent, etc. what is the solution?

I know one thing for sure, sending an email to [email protected] doesn't necessarily work because of the chance that at times it just gets intercepted by the moderator being noted in the email... and then something about manure and oscillating devices occurs.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos