Policies on Moderators, FAO: Rob

[Josh]

Rob,

Given the events of late, I would appreciate your take on a few issues. In addition to the questionable actions in a thread here, as you are also looking for new moderators it may be wise to have clarification, an official stance of GPTBoycott when it comes to the actions of moderators.

1. Is it acceptable for a moderator to participate as a member in a conversation, and later within the same thread act as a moderator (or vice versa)?

2. Is it acceptable for a forum-specific moderator to post as a moderator in a forum which is not designated to him (i.e. rights without responsibilities or abilities involved)?

3. Is it acceptable for a moderator to post as a moderator while being involved in some way with the site in question (PO, member, affiliate, referral thread creator, etc.)?

4. Is it acceptable for a moderator to post, in bold type, requests/demands (assumedly as a moderator) and later claim that it, and/or other nearby posts with similiar requests written in normal type, were not to be construed as official, but rather as posts as a member?

There is a delicate balance when it comes to moderating a forum, particularly one of this kind. I personally feel that the scale has been unfairly tilted and that in order to clean up this situation, as well as guide all future moderators, and inform your members, having an official set of rules available to the public on moderator actions and duties would be in the best interest of this forum.

Anyone else is more than welcome to chime in with thoughts on this topic - this is meant to be a discussion open to all that will hopefully conclude with Rob's ruling. Please, though, if you have dirty laundry go elsewhere to air it.

[cath2791]

Hi Josh,

All very valid points there i think. That being said tho, i think all moderators on this site would have to be actually members of PTR's or similar to keep "with it" so to speak, so they'd have to be able to join in with discussions etc when matters arise that concern them.

I think that maybe if they just stated in their post that they're replying as a member or moderator might be suffient.

Also... can i vote you to be a mod :p :laugh: I think you'd be a good Mod :D

Cath

[Josh]

Hi Cath. I appreciate your comments and contributions.

I have no concerns with moderators, or anyone, being a member of programs. What I do hold reservations about (on that one of those four issues) is a moderator posting as a moderator when the discussion is on a program which the person has vested interest in, or whose administration the person has affiliations with. Anyone should be welcome to post in a discussion about any site, but to use "forum rank" in a situation where one's affiliation with the site or owners brings the person's judgment into question is IMO detrimental to this forum.

Usually, when moderators post all in bold it is considered to be as a moderator. If they state at the end "Moderator/Staff/Administrator/etc" or simply that their statements are made as staff, then it is also considered to be official.

I was a moderator here but resigned two months ago. Appreciate that though.

Josh

[cath2791]

Hmmmm definately a toughie Josh...

I see where you're coming from and it would be very hard for any one to be a mod and not get personal when there are discussions where they have vested interests.

Will be interesting to see how Rob deals with this, cause i know myself, i speak from the heart at all times & if i was a mod i would find it hard NOT to do things on a personal level.

(hope that made sense, got a head ache, been at work all day & the kids have slipknot blaring so i cant concentrate to well right now lol)

[Josh]

Aye, you need to get some rest and tell them to turn it down or use :music: . :laugh:

The reason they are called moderators is because they are supposed to both "moderate" discussions and be "moderate." That means, amongst many other things, if by participating as a moderator they may be tempted to abuse their powers, they ought to refrain from posting in that manner. Even if it merely appears to be underhanded, it is bad for the discussion, and the forum. If they can post their opinions as a member without resorting to abusing their moderator status, then there shouldn't be anything wrong with the picture.

Hope you feel better soon. Thanks again for the food for thought. :)

Josh

[AloraLyric]

Josh, you mentioned mods posting in bold when acting as a moderator. Well, that's usually just me. Rob generally types everything normally and signs "Rob" at the end.

So how can members tell when moderators are posting as members and when they are posting as moderators? If a mod is reminding you of forum rules - rules which you should be following anyway - you should take that as the mod posting as a mod. Fairly simple, really.

The fact is, that thread was full of attacks and members going off-topic. Ed called them on it. Now some have their panties in a twist over it. Life's tough.

In case you haven't noticed, we are short handed here. This is why Ed stepped in. He has every right to do so, even though he only has editing abilities over certain sections. You, Josh, should remember what it's like.

There are currently no rules regarding mods posting as members and then moderating the same thread. No conflict of interest rules.

Ed asked everyone to abide by the forum rules. There was no abuse of power. That's our job.

[Lia]

Josh, you mentioned mods posting in bold when acting as a moderator. Well, that's usually just me. Rob generally types everything normally and signs "Rob" at the end.

So how can members tell when moderators are posting as members and when they are posting as moderators? If a mod is reminding you of forum rules - rules which you should be following anyway - you should take that as the mod posting as a mod. Fairly simple, really.

The fact is, that thread was full of attacks and members going off-topic. Ed called them on it. Now some have their panties in a twist over it. Life's tough.

In case you haven't noticed, we are short handed here. This is why Ed stepped in. He has every right to do so, even though he only has editing abilities over certain sections. You, Josh, should remember what it's like.

There are currently no rules regarding mods posting as members and then moderating the same thread. No conflict of interest rules.

Ed asked everyone to abide by the forum rules. There was no abuse of power. That's our job.

Wow I am surprised at this response. Josh asked some valid questions and suggested there be an official reply from the owner of the forum and you are getting defensive. I don't think his post implied that there was an abuse of power. I thought his post was to get clarification to avoid future problems. I am surprised that there are not already rules in place for moderators.

IMO there should be a set of rules for moderators just as there is for Members. Moderators should be held to a higher standard than Members of the forum, they have a responsibility and are representatives of this forum.

Lia

[Josh]

I was simply clarifying the different ways staff posts are typically written. It wasn't meant to be a comprehensive guide, or to single anyone out. I'm sorry that I'm not perfect. I'm merely attempting to receive a few answers.

Josh, you mentioned mods posting in bold when acting as a moderator. Well, that's usually just me. Rob generally types everything normally and signs "Rob" at the end.

My question wasn't how I can tell in which manner posts are being written, but whether it is acceptable to jump willy-nilly between two forms.

So how can members tell when moderators are posting as members and when they are posting as moderators? If a mod is reminding you of forum rules - rules which you should be following anyway - you should take that as the mod posting as a mod. Fairly simple, really.

That's fair enough. I only believe that for a number of reasons, detailed in my post above, it wasn't done properly. Is that an unreasonable belief? IMO the ones who deserve to be upset are the ones whose discussion was spoiled by off-topic remarks telling them to stop being off-topic.

The fact is, that thread was full of attacks and members going off-topic. Ed called them on it. Now some have their panties in a twist over it. Life's tough.

I realize that, and it looks as though you're in search of someone or a few people to fill those positions. I applaud that because it will be good to have a more numerous staff, which also lends to diversity of thought, experience and mindset.

In case you haven't noticed, we are short handed here.

I realize that he was given the right to do so. That is why I asked whether it ought to remain that way - rights without the responsibilities and abilities that certainly should be connected.

This is why Ed stepped in. He has every right to do so, even though he only has editing abilities over certain sections.

Actually, I'm not quite sure what you're referencing. As a moderator I was not forum-specific, so that point isn't alike. I also remember clearly that when there were threads (it happened a couple of times) where I was involved as a member, I stepped aside to allow either you or another staff member take care of the moderating duties.

You, Josh, should remember what it's like.

I know that full well. Isn't that why I brought up the topic for discussion, thought and hopefully change? I believe that there ought to be rules on that, as well as on the other areas I noted.

There are currently no rules regarding mods posting as members and then moderating the same thread. No conflict of interest rules.

I beg to differ, and that is why I created this thread. Also, as mentioned, it extends far, far beyond this one questionable area. I believe this forum to be more objective than many of the other similar ones out there, and I would hate for its ways to continue teetering as I see already happening at this time.

Ed asked everyone to abide by the forum rules. There was no abuse of power. That's our job.


General note to anyone who wants to listen:

You know, it may not seem like it depending on what perspective is being taken, but there are some of us who actually do care what goes on in this industry, and in particular at this forum. I've done a lot of learning over the past year, from many sources, people and situations, and for that I'm ever so thankful.

The whole "GPT world" is nothing like when I left it back in 2000. I realize that nowadays it's mostly a battle between two sides who both claim to care about what's going on but have more interest in the petty fights. Unfortunately, it seems that a lot of the other people are now simply leaving, or withdrawing themselves (and their opinions, beliefs and standards) into a corner because they can't take the garbage that goes on.

Well, for those of us who do care, we're tired of moderators abusing their powers. We're tired of battles that have nothing to do with making anything right, but simply with belittling any and every person with a slightly opposing view. We're tired of sitting silent while no stone is left unturned when it comes to finding new ways to cheat someone, anyone, out of time and money. We're tired of listening to rubbish about how we need to accept scammers who have simply closed without paying not once, but twice, and wish to have a third shot to defraud someone. We're tired of the word games played by those in authority just to shut us up, even those of us who have no ill intent!

Personally, I can put up with a lot. As far as I'm concerned, it's saying a lot that this entire industry has made it to the point where I'm this infuriated at what takes place. Even the most underhanded, despicable, unwholesome and malicious means of getting money have become so acceptable that even daring to oppose them (with sound reasoning) has become taboo! There has to be some line where it stops! Far too much goes already, IMO, but when are we willing to say firmly, with clarity and unity, "This can't go!"? If we have no care for our fellow man, he will have no care for us when our GPT model shrivels up. Not that it really matters to very many people, because we seem to want to live for today only, but there are those who do care about others regardless of how much that person will be able and willing to "care" in return.

Is it considered truth that we can do whatever God-forsaken thing we want and it won't have a single repercussion? Why do so many people out there think that all of GPT is a joke, and that it is filled with scams and frauds? Perhaps, just maybe, that's because a good selection of programs are run like jokes, are scams and are frauds. We're at the point now where next to nothing is off-limits, and the effects are already being seen. Will it get better? Well, it could, but unfortunately every time someone tries to make it better they get shot down for being "divisive," "uncaring," "a prude," etc. True, it doesn't help that many people who ostensibly care for the industry at large are simply looking to take cheap shots, but that by all means does not make flagrantly discarding thoughtful and logical concerns acceptable!

Why has it become no longer acceptable to rationally and calmly point out that a lie is a lie, a scam is a scam, and that something needs to be done? Is it that the "everything-goes" mentality holds the trump card, the path to money and power? The evidence overwhelmingly supports the side of those who have taken the time to put together their statements of opposition to the corrupt ways our industry is taking. You can't argue facts with opinions, but apparently it's possible to counter them by surpressing them with character attacks, with lies officially stamped as truth and with the strong arm that is the influence of money, earned illegitimately at any and every cost, by whoever is the most clever to steal the most from his neighbor.

I apologize if this doesn't appear "nice" but it's about time that people get their heads out of the clouds and look at the rain that is pouring down. Wake up and see what's going on before it's far too late.

Thanks for reading, those who did.

Josh

[AloraLyric]

Edited by me

[freecashspace]

I want to make it clear now that this particular post is not being made in a mod capacity. Just me.. posting my thoughts.

Defensive? No. Bitter towards him? Yes.

Valid Questions? Maybe. In my opinion, it's just Josh being himself. Doing his best to play up to members. Pretending to be such a nice, unbiased, whatever guy. Yeah, right.

The abuse of power comment came directly from one of Josh's posts.

And Josh - I'm not going to bother replying to your last post. I spoke with Rob earlier and he may be by later to reply to you.
Your not worth my time anymore.
And on another note - I want the business issues dealt with ASAP so I no longer have to have any contact with you. Feel free to delete my account at your site, too. I'd do it, but since you're the one who set my password, I don't know what it is.

Sorry for being off-topic with the last part there. It won't happen again. I'm leaving for a while.

Guess you got your answer, Josh. The mods can do whatever they want and if you or anybody else doesn't like it, that's just too bad. :(

Cheers,

Wil

[Josh]

Not technically. I did ask the owner of the forum.

I still have hope. :)

Guess you got your answer, Josh. The mods can do whatever they want and if you or anybody else doesn't like it, that's just too bad. :(

Cheers,

Wil

[Rob]

1. Is it acceptable for a moderator to participate as a member in a conversation, and later within the same thread act as a moderator (or vice versa)?

2. Is it acceptable for a forum-specific moderator to post as a moderator in a forum which is not designated to him (i.e. rights without responsibilities or abilities involved)?

3. Is it acceptable for a moderator to post as a moderator while being involved in some way with the site in question (PO, member, affiliate, referral thread creator, etc.)?

4. Is it acceptable for a moderator to post, in bold type, requests/demands (assumedly as a moderator) and later claim that it, and/or other nearby posts with similiar requests written in normal type, were not to be construed as official, but rather as posts as a member?

Hi Josh,

I'd like to address the questions you raise on a point-by-point basis. First, however, I'd like to start by expressing my opinion on the way in which I would prefer moderation be handled. I am a firm believer that regulations and rules have a time and a place, but that community-led, common sense moderation works far more efficiently than endless lists of rules. This is why there is not a firm written code of conduct for our moderators here. I would far prefer to entrust the moderators of this site with the responsibility of exercising their particular special powers in the way that they think right, than to impose a set of rules and regulations which they must strictly abide by. It must be remembered that the moderators here are chosen by myself and other staff members here, and so we stand and fall together in the decisions we make.

Special regard must, however, be had to the particular nature of this forum. The nature of the forum, and its primary subject matter, means that necessarily a delicate balance must be struck between allowing our members to, within the broad framework of rules we impose, express their opinions freely, and the need to ensure that real true discussion does not give way to petty argument and mindless name-calling. If in doubt, my inclination always has been, and will continue to be to uphold the freedom of expression of our members - even where those members' views may be unsavoury, and may even offend the sensibilities of others. The priority is, and always will be, to allow free discussion about get-paid programs. With that comes disagreement between our members, and the consequences of that, in my opinion, are a small price to pay for the functional role this site plays in informing our visitors about dishonest programs.

1. Further to the above, I must conclude that it is offends no principle to allow moderators to express a personal opinion (of course, within our forum rules), and then to act in their capacity as moderator to ensure the discussion conforms with our forum rules. The only time this would present a problem would be if the moderator had acted improperly and in bad faith in the exercise of their particular powers, but this would be the case whether or not they had previously or subsequently entered into that discussion, speaking as a normal member.

2. As I mentioned above, if the moderator acted in bad faith, then this may be an issue. On the other hand, if their actions were intended to uphold the rules of the forum and so to further the aim of this forum to encourage discussion, that would not be a course of conduct which would concern me.

3. As for your question concerning potential conflicts of interest, I would perhaps be concerned if a moderator were to post in their capacity as moderator if they had a special interest in the site. In using the term "special interest", I intend to make a distinction between a moderator who happens to be a member of a program, or acts in a way which any reasonable member would, and a moderator who holds some sort of controlling interest in the site.

4. At no time has it ever been explictly said or suggested that messages in bold type are to be construed as in some way corresponding to that member's moderating capacity. While some moderators choose to post in bold, others, including myself, do not. These are merely issues of choice of style and formatting and do not require further elaboration here.

At this stage Josh, I'd like to thank you for raising these questions, and giving me the opportunity to express my opinion on these matters.

Rob

[Rob]

AloraLyric and Josh,

I'd also like to point out at this point that whatever the personal situation between yourselves may be, I am sure that it is not of concern to our visitors, and I am sure it is not in either of your interests to air that dirty linen in public.

If you want to continue discussing your personal problems in front of our visitors, I will not stop you. But I am here personally asking you both as reasonable people to sort whatever problems you may have privately.

That's the last thing I'll say on the matter - I'd rather concentrate my efforts elsewhere on the site - there's a lot to be done :)

Rob

[Josh]

Thanks for explaining your stance, and for taking the time to cover it with precision, Rob.

I appreciate that gesture.

Josh

[AloraLyric]

AloraLyric and Josh,

I'd also like to point out at this point that whatever the personal situation between yourselves may be, I am sure that it is not of concern to our visitors, and I am sure it is not in either of your interests to air that dirty linen in public.

If you want to continue discussing your personal problems in front of our visitors, I will not stop you. But I am here personally asking you both as reasonable people to sort whatever problems you may have privately.

That's the last thing I'll say on the matter - I'd rather concentrate my efforts elsewhere on the site - there's a lot to be done :)

Rob
I've tried handling it privately.

You're right, though. I should not have posted what I did, which is why I edited it. (to all GPTB members) I'm sorry for posting

[freecashspace]

I like the idea of letting common sense take precedence over a whole heap of strict rules, too. I guess the two problems with that is that common sense isn't really all that common, and that at the end of the day, the regular members of this community can't do much if a member of the staff is abusing their power as a Mod or Admin. I'm sure many people have noticed that several members who've tried are now banned.

I also understand the reasoning behind not having rules against a member of staff expressing their views like other members and also modding the thread. But surely it's not hard to see how easily this sort of thing can be manipulated, either by consciously malicious behaviour on the part of the staff member, or inadvertently.

Personally I think the definition of "special interest" is too specific. A person can have quite substantial interest in a program even if they're only a regular member, without controlling interest in the program. People can spend hundreds of dollars (think about how many 1/4 cent ad links that is) promoting a program to build their downline. They can advertise a site that makes them hundreds or even thousands of dollars a month (I hear all those "valid searches" from human clickbots can really add up.) Surely it's not hard to see that a person, eve if they don't hold a controlling interest in a particular program, might not want to see their favorite cash cow end up on the Boycott List.

And it's not hard to see how a staff member of this or other forums might subtly (or not so subtly) use their position to protect their interests.

Cheers,

Wil

[Josh]

You should have an email from me from earlier in the day. If it isn't there I can forward the saved copy. :)

I apologize for the animated nature of my post to anyone whom it might have offended. There comes a time when something goes way too far to accept and that's simply where it has landed. I don't regret anything mentioned, but my point was simply to shake the notion that nothing can be done about something that we feel is wrong. Keep your voices.

Josh

I've tried handling it privately.

You're right, though. I should not have posted what I did, which is why I edited it. (to all GPTB members) I'm sorry for posting

[Josh]

I'd like to respectfully request that this thread be closed. Rob already gave his thoughts, and thus this thread serves no further purpose. If someone else is still interested there's always the option of raising a related question at another time. As for my reason for opening the thread, I've already received my answers.

Thank you.

Josh

[bluedahlia]

Josh, whenever this subject regarding conflict of interest was raised (at other forums as well as this one) it has always been my position that a mod can't get away from a "perceived" intent as to why he/she is posting in any given thread, both as mod and/or member. For that reason, I have always stated that mods should be mods and members should be members. If one is willing to take on the job of a mod, he/she should be willing to give up posting as a member. That's my opinion. Having worked in the private as well the educational sectors, this issue of conflict of interest was always dealt with as a black and white situation......no grey areas.

And I have to agree with you regarding the fact that many have stopped posting (not only here). It just doesn't seem like its worth the trouble anymore for various reasons, one of them being the fact that many really get off on honing in on any individual, for whatever reason, and having a field day with them. It then becomes a discussion/attack on the person rather than the subject. That may be entertaining, but it sure makes one think twice before giving his/her two cents in any discussion.

[freecashspace]

Josh, I'd like to respectfully request that you delay your request, unless the owner of this forum doesn't plan to post here again. I think there are still some unresolved issues that would be good to clear up, and I think it would be more beneficial for people reading and participating if everything were in a single thread.

[investkid]

Josh,

Thanks for not having this thread closed yet.

I personally always found it difficult to understand why mods/admins mod people not posts and use their likes or dislikes of those posters to interfere with the proper reading of the content and intent of the post(s). IMO, it's bad modding, misuse of power and intimidation tactics. Being a mod is policing the threads in order to check if rules of the forum have been broken and help posters in case of need. A mod should always stays polite in all his/her posts. There is no reason and there should never be a reason for a mod/admin to threaten, yell, get upset at a poster while modding. There's only one way to act and it is with polite respect and authority.

Essperanza (I think) mentioned in another forum that you should never choose mods from those who want to be mods because (and I interpret here) if they want to mod it's for the power trip. I'll go further than that, and except for owners of a forum, add that one shouldn't be a mod or an admin for a long period (6 month to a year max). A constant flow of new mods and admins eliminates quite a bit of the power trip and the "I'll defend my friends and make life miserable to my non-friends" types of modding, the constant bias for liked POs and programs and naturally the modding the people who post (and not the posts) according to likes and dislikes.

Personally, a mod that comes 4-5-6 times in the same few pages of a thread to yell "stay on-topic" to one poster, is not doing his job as a mod. He's using his power as a mod to intimidate a poster and failing at it miserably. This is where guidance from the owners of this forum on how to mod and help when modding should come into effect. Rob, I'm all for rules and strict at that about how to mod, where to mod, what to write in a modding post and naturally where to look for help when a thread falls out of hand. You don't have established rules about modding in this forum, as per what you posted earlier. Well, the lack of modding rules shows big time, IMO.

P.S.: For those who think I don't know what I'm talking about, I've been there (been mod at forums) and done that (mod the posts not the people).

[bellestraker]

Personally, a mod that comes 4-5-6 times in the same few pages of a thread to yell "stay on-topic" to one poster, is not doing his job as a mod.



OR...The poster is not doing his job as a poster ( "job" for lack of a better word)


He's using his power as a mod to intimidate a poster and failing at it miserably.





Or is a poster using his powers to trash and bash someone who made him angry and succeeding at it very well.

I am sorry for messing your post and in fact -in general- I agree with a lot of it but I have also seen posters use their dislike of a specific poster to launch a continued bashfest and if they know how to "dance between the lines" it can become a vicious cycle and often ends with the one who has lesser communication skills losing.

In the past few days I am sure there are many who do not agree but who do not wish to post and make themselves targets.

I don't think the day to day modding is really very difficult. It is when the "nicely written" cruelty comes into play or the continued hammering on one site/person that modding becomes difficult.

I have never been a mod so have no first hand experience so can only comment on what I see.

Belle

[investkid]

You know Belle, forums are a written medium. So, yes, I understand where your "lesser communication skills" comes from.

When modding, you read posts as part of a thread. Not a post out of context and certainly not only a post posted by a certain poster. IMO, well written posts rarely break forum rules. Forum rules do not dictate the degree of anger/frustation whatever a poster feel or may feel. Forum rules dictates the way a poster may write about those feelings.

IMO, modding is not for everybody who apply for such positions. Very few in the PTR forums understand that if a rule is not broken by a poster, however much that poster is disliked, then there will be no comment / warning/ banning from mods/admins. Period. And should I add, not that many mods/admins in the PTR forums seem to undertand the "no rule broken" principle.

[bellestraker]

You know Belle, forums are a written medium. So, yes, I understand where your "lesser communication skills" comes from.

When modding, you read posts as part of a thread. Not a post out of context and certainly not only a post posted by a certain poster. IMO, well written posts rarely break forum rules. Forum rules do not dictate the degree of anger/frustation whatever a poster feel or may feel. Forum rules dictates the way a poster may write about those feelings.

IMO, modding is not for everybody who apply for such positions. Very few in the PTR forums understand that if a rule is not broken by a poster, however much that poster is disliked, then there will be no comment / warning/ banning from mods/admins. Period. And should I add, not that many mods/admins in the PTR forums seem to undertand the "no rule broken" principle.



Sadly..I think you are right that forum rules do not moderate grudges, anger or cruelty as long as it is worded "nicely" and IMO this is the reason why these forums have become almost a desert land.

Open season on anyone who disagrees and ruled by the best writers who hide behind wanting the "right thing" and caring about the "industry" to target and abuse at will.

Good people and good sites can be destroyed by a whim. I seriously wonder if it is even worth the "discussions" anymore...It has become a game that I am just too old and too tired to play.

Have a good one...

Belle

[investkid]

This is where we disagree Belle.

Open season on anyone who disagrees and ruled by the best writers who hide behind wanting the "right thing" and caring about the "industry" to target and abuse at will.

IMO, you're judging posters by what they wrote and not necessarily understand the intent of the post itself. If you take away the name of the poster, like nics are not listed, all posts being anonymous, you would not react the way you react (I assume here) to certain posts. Not knowing who posts what is a great way of reading a thread; you end up reading a thread for its content not its posters. And your reaction to certain posts would surprise you especially if you go and look who posted that particular post.

IMO, it's the likes and dislikes of posters for whatever reason that is causing so much problems in forums. Modding without bias, without likes and dislikes is not easy and, like I said before, not for just anybody who asks.

In this forum, we have to add the lack of mods. Something the admins are trying to remedy.

[bellestraker]

This is where we disagree Belle.



IMO, you're judging posters by what they wrote and not necessarily understand the intent of the post itself. If you take away the name of the poster, like nics are not listed, all posts being anonymous, you would not react the way you react (I assume here) to certain posts. Not knowing who posts what is a great way of reading a thread; you end up reading a thread for its content not its posters. And your reaction to certain posts would surprise you especially if you go and look who posted that particular post.

IMO, it's the likes and dislikes of posters for whatever reason that is causing so much problems in forums. Modding without bias, without likes and dislikes is not easy and, like I said before, not for just anybody who asks.

In this forum, we have to add the lack of mods. Something the admins are trying to remedy.





I have actually tried that and I don't think it is "just a dislike of the poster" as in many cases I agree with them although I may not agree with the constant gibes.

I could be a poster child for someone who has gotten a grudge and carried it from the sublime to the ridiculous and I have taken my share of complaints for it ( all earned).

I am not trying to excuse my part in all this but it seems that if no one is supposed to interpret the rules and we just allow forums to become a place where as long as you don't "Really" SAY IT...then it is Ok to make thread after thread of well written cruelty where we politely abuse the hell out of each other.

While it is true that most will not do this...there will always be some who will.

At this time there seems to be an abundance of forums which cater to every appetite so
Maybe it is best to let those who own the forum decide what form of modding they will supply and we can then decide whether we choose to post within it - or not.

Belle

[priestes]

Gads I did not want this to be my first post here but it seems like it is he he .. I have been lurking and watching for a long time and finally joined but had not posted.

Being a mod/admin is a hard job no matter how you look at it. The modding is not the hard part but as mentioned personalities come into play. Personality conflicts don't just happen with members but happen with mods/admins behind the scenes themselves.

It is a bit more complex then just what is right or what is fair.

Let me give you a scenario here.... I have been a mod and admin at another forum I am sure some of you will remember.

As much as I tried to keep my foot out of my mouth in one thread which I won't mention it was very hard to do since my feelings came into play. Here is where a mod posting as a member comes in. Although I did not mod the one thread I had a lot to say in it. I refused to mod a thread I was participating in because I felt like it was a conflict of interest. Another mod/admin did the modding.

But I was told I had no right as an admin to be posting the way I was although I was a member of the program in question and I had lost money and had strong feelings about the issue at hand.

Now I know may would love mods/admins to take over a professional role and do their part as a mod/admin but they too have feelings etc. Perhaps it should be at most forums that mod/admins do not moderate threads they choose to participate in. This I have felt strongly about for some time.

But I do not feel that they should stop posting or commenting when there is something they feel strongly about.

If someone has a personality conflict with someone then they should turn it over to another mod/admin to handle. Plain and simple.

Now to the conflicts that happen behind the scenes. Just like in real life, on the forums or elsewhere there is going to be different ideas, different interpetations of rules and how things can be done. I am not sure how to correct this issue but to deal with it like a job would and have an across board policy and meetings to explain and express with each mod/admin how it is interpetted and what their role and job is.

Remember also most forums do not pay their mods/admins. These are volunteers and much as we disagree with things sometimes who else is going to do it?

Ok I will go back to my corner since I am rambling here and it is time for me to feed critters but will poke back in again :)

Hi Wil ltns .. I see you are still Wil he he.....

[bellestraker]

Gads I did not want this to be my first post here but it seems like it is he he .. I have been lurking and watching for a long time and finally joined but had not posted.

Being a mod/admin is a hard job no matter how you look at it. The modding is not the hard part but as mentioned personalities come into play. Personality conflicts don't just happen with members but happen with mods/admins behind the scenes themselves.

It is a bit more complex then just what is right or what is fair.

Let me give you a scenario here.... I have been a mod and admin at another forum I am sure some of you will remember.

As much as I tried to keep my foot out of my mouth in one thread which I won't mention it was very hard to do since my feelings came into play. Here is where a mod posting as a member comes in. Although I did not mod the one thread I had a lot to say in it. I refused to mod a thread I was participating in because I felt like it was a conflict of interest. Another mod/admin did the modding.

But I was told I had no right as an admin to be posting the way I was although I was a member of the program in question and I had lost money and had strong feelings about the issue at hand.

Now I know may would love mods/admins to take over a professional role and do their part as a mod/admin but they too have feelings etc. Perhaps it should be at most forums that mod/admins do not moderate threads they choose to participate in. This I have felt strongly about for some time.

But I do not feel that they should stop posting or commenting when there is something they feel strongly about.

If someone has a personality conflict with someone then they should turn it over to another mod/admin to handle. Plain and simple.

Now to the conflicts that happen behind the scenes. Just like in real life, on the forums or elsewhere there is going to be different ideas, different interpetations of rules and how things can be done. I am not sure how to correct this issue but to deal with it like a job would and have an across board policy and meetings to explain and express with each mod/admin how it is interpetted and what their role and job is.

Remember also most forums do not pay their mods/admins. These are volunteers and much as we disagree with things sometimes who else is going to do it?

Ok I will go back to my corner since I am rambling here and it is time for me to feed critters but will poke back in again :)

Hi Wil ltns .. I see you are still Wil he he.....



It sounds so simple and I think it is the closest to a solution that I have seen so far.

The only problem I see would be that most anyone who would even agree to act as a moderator...will also be someone who is involved in gptr etc.which means they are likely "involved" in some way with very many sites.

If we stick to the "do not BELONG" to the site it would be Ok but when all the other possible scenarios come into play then it becomes a witch hunt to "catch" someone who may have been the friend of someone who advertised a site or whose third cousin once played cyber footsie with the PO's forum mod's first cousin.
( being silly, yes...but not THAT far off from some I have seen)

I do agree that association does play a part but I know that for anyone who has been around for any length of time it will be hard to find a site they do not have some association with.

I think one of the main things that many of us have lost touch with is that everyone ( Mods and members) are people first and mods/members second.

In any case..it is a good start and sounds like a more realistic plan.

Belle

[priestes]

Belle I think someone who is involved in PTR can be a good mod and even if they are affiliated. In fact I think they can be a better mod then someone who is not in ptr. Who better then to mod a forum related to ptr then someone who knows ptr? I mean if someone is not familiar with it then how can they actually be involved in decisions on a forum that is about ptr?

I think the key is for members to remember mods/admins are people first. Then for mods/admin to remember that if they have a conflict of interest perhaps they should step out and let someone who is inpartial mod a thread.

Just a thought. As I have always strongly believed that if you have a conflict with something you cannot think clearly enough to make a decision on the subject.

Just like I would hope someone would not mod a thread that was about their site.

But I do believe that people involved in ptr are good moderators. Even members of sites can be good moderators.

Moderating is common sense. Although it is not easy to be level headed when you have someone calling you names or you disagree with something going on. But the best thing is to stop, think through something and then reply.

This can go for some posting at times as well he he .. If you got something nasty to say type it out and delete it or vent to someone else ....

[bellestraker]

Belle I think someone who is involved in PTR can be a good mod and even if they are affiliated. In fact I think they can be a better mod then someone who is not in ptr. Who better then to mod a forum related to ptr then someone who knows ptr? I mean if someone is not familiar with it then how can they actually be involved in decisions on a forum that is about ptr?

I think the key is for members to remember mods/admins are people first. Then for mods/admin to remember that if they have a conflict of interest perhaps they should step out and let someone who is inpartial mod a thread.

Just a thought. As I have always strongly believed that if you have a conflict with something you cannot think clearly enough to make a decision on the subject.

Just like I would hope someone would not mod a thread that was about their site.

But I do believe that people involved in ptr are good moderators. Even members of sites can be good moderators.

Moderating is common sense. Although it is not easy to be level headed when you have someone calling you names or you disagree with something going on. But the best thing is to stop, think through something and then reply.

This can go for some posting at times as well he he .. If you got something nasty to say type it out and delete it or vent to someone else ....


Just a quick reply as I am sure people are beginning to wonder if I think this is my personal platform.:)

Not sure if I said it wrong but I do completely agree that it is best for a mod to be involved in gptr.

AND...your last sentence is good advise and speaks volumes...I have been making an effort to do that and found it works well.:p

Belle

[freecashspace]

I've been thinking about this a lot, and to a large extent I agree that it's not likely that a forum mod isn't going to have some kind of relationship with the programs, or the owners of programs being discussed here. To some extent, PTR is a fairly small world.

Maybe the problem isn't so much the connections, and the serious lack of transparency. For example, as I understand it, it's the forum staff here who make the final decision about whether a program gets added to the Boycott List or not. So if a staff member has what Rob has called a "spcial interest" in a program, are they excluded from the discussion and vote? And what if the staff member has a not-so-special interest? In other words, if they don't own a controlling interest in the program, but are members, advertisers, upgraded members, etc? It seems to me in those cases, they might be inclined to vote against boycott to protect their own interests.

As for any issues concerning mods posting as members, or the way they moderate threads, the staff here seem united in their approval of the way things are being done, so I suppose there's not much we can do about it. Except, as Belle mentioned, take our discussions elsewhere. Which is pretty much what I've been doing until recently. I pretty much wrote this forum off after the last round of mass banishment. I'm not sure why I bothered coming back, other than the fact that there are a small number of members here who really do want to improve the industry, and who are pretty cool people to talk to.

Belle, you've been making statements about people who "dance between the lines" for a long time now. As usual, though, you're a little vague when it comes to pointing out examples of these "continued bashfests" with all the "well written cruelty where we politely abuse the hell out of each other." But I'm sure they exist. You wouldn't just make that kind of stuff up, would you?

From my experience most of the personal attacks that occur at this forum aren't well-written or polite. In most cases the attacking poster shows as much disregard for the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar as they do for the rules of the forum, not to mention those of logic, reason and common decency. But maybe your experience is different.

Cheers,

Wil

[sophieca]

I've been thinking about this a lot, and to a large extent I agree that it's not likely that a forum mod isn't going to have some kind of relationship with the programs, or the owners of programs being discussed here. To some extent, PTR is a fairly small world.

Maybe the problem isn't so much the connections, and the serious lack of transparency. For example, as I understand it, it's the forum staff here who make the final decision about whether a program gets added to the Boycott List or not. So if a staff member has what Rob has called a "spcial interest" in a program, are they excluded from the discussion and vote? And what if the staff member has a not-so-special interest? In other words, if they don't own a controlling interest in the program, but are members, advertisers, upgraded members, etc? It seems to me in those cases, they might be inclined to vote against boycott to protect their own interests.

As for any issues concerning mods posting as members, or the way they moderate threads, the staff here seem united in their approval of the way things are being done, so I suppose there's not much we can do about it. Except, as Belle mentioned, take our discussions elsewhere. Which is pretty much what I've been doing until recently. I pretty much wrote this forum off after the last round of mass banishment. I'm not sure why I bothered coming back, other than the fact that there are a small number of members here who really do want to improve the industry, and who are pretty cool people to talk to.

Belle, you've been making statements about people who "dance between the lines" for a long time now. As usual, though, you're a little vague when it comes to pointing out examples of these "continued bashfests" with all the "well written cruelty well written cruelty where we politely abuse the hell out of each other." But I'm sure they exist. You wouldn't just make that kind of stuff up, would you?

From my experience most of the personal attacks that occur at this forum aren't well-written or polite. In most cases the attacking poster shows as much disregard for the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar as they do for the rules of the forum, not to mention those of logic, reason and common decency. But maybe your experience is different.

Cheers,

Wil


From my experience, besides understandable and forgiveable exceptional overreactions or fits in the heat of discussions, it is more the bashing/intimidation and little forum games/abuse that make discussions in forums often useless and imho drove many members away. I can show you many experiences of that kind, and will pick up just one example.

Some time ago you posted here at this forum, you technically didn't breake any rules when posting at GPTB back then, it was well thought, polite and followed the spelling/grammar rules ... but you added in your signature a personal page you had made where you were very nasty and insulting towards some people.
You can disagree with people, think they have done you wrong and whatever you like but making pages with insults and comments like you did back then, was nasty and rude .... and even if you think the people you go after did you wrong, it therefore doesn't make what you did right and justify/excuse it, it was still crual and mean.

So back then, you maybe technically didn't breake the rules but you used this forum to pass on/ promote a hate message which isn't, I hope, what this forum stands for and aims at, "dancing between the lines" would somehow be a good way to describe what happened ...

By this I didn't want to reply for bellestraker but simply showing we all have different experiences on the hand of one example you can't say you were not aware of. People now don't even react anymore when seeing all the nastyness and gossips/insinuations/accusations/harassing going on, it has become some sort of standard accepted behavior unfortunately.


About moderators, yet again the chance is offered to those who want so badly things to change to be part of the changes by participating as moderators/helpers of GPTB, being ready to give up some rights, take on some duties and facing the heat is not easy but might be more efficient and productive than arguing endlessly ... sitting in the pub commenting the game might be more comfy but will never replace the work/dedication and achievements of the players on the field.

Sophie

[freecashspace]

From my experience, besides understandable and forgiveable exceptional overreactions or fits in the heat of discussions, it is more the bashing/intimidation and little forum games/abuse that make discussions in forums often useless and imho drove many members away. I can show you many experiences of that kind, and will pick up just one example.I'm sure you know all about the "little forum games" Sophie. You've played them for many years, and you're playing one now. You're not always particularly good at it, which is presumably why you prefer to play them at forums where you can rely on your status as an Admin to help you win.

I'm not sure what you consider "understandable and forgivable exceptional overreations or fits in the heat of discussions" but I guess maybe that's how you decide who gets punished for breaking the forum rules and who doesn't. And I suppose it's always easier to understand and forgive your friends, or people you agree with, or at the very least people that you're not finished using yet.

Some time ago you posted here at this forum, you technically didn't breake any rules when posting at GPTB back then, it was well thought, polite and followed the spelling/grammar rules ... but you added in your signature a personal page you had made where you were very nasty and insulting towards some people.
You can disagree with people, think they have done you wrong and whatever you like but making pages with insults and comments like you did back then, was nasty and rude .... and even if you think the people you go after did you wrong, it therefore doesn't make what you did right and justify/excuse it, it was still crual and mean.

So back then, you maybe technically didn't breake the rules but you used this forum to pass on/ promote a hate message which isn't, I hope, what this forum stands for and aims at, "dancing between the lines" would somehow be a good way to describe what happened ...I vaguely remember the pages you're talking about, but I can't remember them being "very nasty." I'd agree with rude and insulting. Maybe mean, but cruel is pushing it. And I can't imagine in what context it could've been considered a "hate message," so I assume the exaggeration is just another one of your "little forum games."

But apart from that, I think you hit the nail on the head at the beginning of your post. At the time, having that link in my sig wasn't a violation of the rules here. So what exactly would you expect the staff here to do about it? Warn me or ban me anyway? Edit my sig? As best as I can remember the staff here did the sensible thing and simply changed the rules to cover the situation. How would you have handled it if it had happened at GPF? I'm curious, because again, as best as I can remember, there's no rule there about the content of websites linked to from a member's sig.

By this I didn't want to reply for bellestraker but simply showing we all have different experiences on the hand of one example you can't say you were not aware of. People now don't even react anymore when seeing all the nastyness and gossips/insinuations/accusations/harassing going on, it has become some sort of standard accepted behavior unfortunately.Hang on, first you said it made forum discussions often useless and drove members away, and now you're saying people don't even react any more and it's become standard accepted behavior. Which is it?

About moderators, yet again the chance is offered to those who want so badly things to change to be part of the changes by participating as moderators/helpers of GPTB, being ready to give up some rights, take on some duties and facing the heat is not easy but might be more efficient and productive than arguing endlessly ... sitting in the pub commenting the game might be more comfy but will never replace the work/dedication and achievements of the players on the field.

SophieThat's an interesting perspective you've got there, Sophie. You might find this hard to believe, but a lot of us lowly members actually think we're in the game, too. In fact, to use your analogy we might say that we members are the players, and that Mods/Admins are the referees/umpires. Referees are important, but without players there is no game. I hope other forum Mods/Admins don't devalue the work, dedication and achievements of ordinary members the way you do.

Cheers,

Wil

[sophieca]

I don't play games, you asked a question, I replied with very simple factual example out of so many I could give you, an example of something very wrong without starting assuming or insinuating anything.

The post I made is not related to me being an admin at GPF and how I would have reacted, it is about how people can be nasty and crual and so hush others up, no need to be a mod/admin or a PO to silence others.

Even if here was a loophole in the rules, making such a nasty/hate site just some months ago was wrong, if there is a rule against it or not doesn't matter, people should know better just like they are expected to know one can't cheat a site or take a runner if they own one. You can find any excuses you want to, justify it the way you want to or claim you suddenly can't remember very well, wrong is wrong whatever way you turn it.
It is not because one can post something on the net that it makes it right to do so ...


Hang on, first you said it made forum discussions often useless and drove members away, and now you're saying people don't even react any more and it's become standard accepted behavior. Which is it?
It is exactly the same, people are not interested in discussions anymore and don't even react and take a stand when such abuse happens.

By the 'game' I meant being part of the organisation and running of a forum, I didn't call anyone lowly or anything like that ...

Sophie

[freecashspace]

I don't play games, you asked a question, I replied with very simple factual example out of so many I could give you, an example of something very wrong without starting assuming or insinuating anything.Actually, you didn't answer my question at all, and you certainly didn't provide a "factual example" of anything.

I asked Belle about examples of "continued bashfests" with all the "well written cruelty where we politely abuse the hell out of each other." You posting about a link in my sig doesn't sound like an example of neither.

And it definitely isn't a factual example, since you've only provided your opinion that what was published on that website was nasty or cruel or done to hush anybody up. I've admitted that whatever I wrote on that website was probably rude and insulting, but without any evidence to back up your claims, I really think your use of terms like "very nasty" and "hate message" are nothing more than exaggeration and game-playing.

The post I made is not related to me being an admin at GPF and how I would have reacted, it is about how people can be nasty and crual and so hush others up, no need to be a mod/admin or a PO to silence others.Fine, if you don't want to answer my question about how you'd handle it as a GPF mod, you could at least answer my question about what you think the staff here should've done about it. The thread is about the GPTB forum staff, after all.

Even if here was a loophole in the rules, making such a nasty/hate site just some months ago was wrong, if there is a rule against it or not doesn't matter, people should know better just like they are expected to know one can't cheat a site or take a runner if they own one. You can find any excuses you want to, justify it the way you want to or claim you suddenly can't remember very well, wrong is wrong whatever way you turn it.
It is not because one can post something on the net that it makes it right to do so ... But Sophie, I'm not trying to make excuses to justify anything. I made a website where I posted some info about various people (you, Mystical, and Jakob I think, but I could be wrong). Some of that info was factual, and some of it was my personal opinions. If you think what I did or said was wrong, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. From what I can remember, quite a few other people thought my comments were pretty spot on.

The staff here changed the rules, and as you'll notice the link is no longer in my sig. No forum rules were broken. And I can't really see how it would matter whether any staff members here liked or agreed with what I wrote at that website, or whether they, like you, thought it was nasty and cruel and wrong.

It is exactly the same, people are not interested in discussions anymore and don't even react and take a stand when such abuse happens.I don't know, Sophie. I've seen lots of people take stands against all sorts of abuse and other bad things. If you look around the forums, particularly here and GPF, I think you'll notice a lot of them are either banned, quit, or just don't bother to post any more. I guess those are some of the consequences of taking the wrong stand.

As I mentioned in another post, I've taken stands against unsustainability, incentivized searches, deadbeat/runner/abusive POs, forced/tracked searches, headless chicken programs, corrupt forum staff, and various other things. Whether you think so or not, I think it takes a lot of work and dedication to deal with those issues and try to improve the industry.

By the 'game' I meant being part of the organisation and running of a forum, I didn't call anyone lowly or anything like that ...

SophieYou didn't have to say it, Sophie. What you meant was clear. And I'll say again, the way I see it, members are part of the organisation. That you don't seem to think so explains why you Admin the way you do.

Cheers,

Wil

[sophieca]

Wil

I am not going to argue with you for 100s of pages, been there, done that before, thanks but no thanks :laugh:
Am not impressed by the fact that you have a very selective memory, nor by the little insinuations you posted in your replies to me and the way you twisted my words, if the GPTB staff was forced to change the rules of the forum because of what was in your signatures, it speaks volumes to me ... pity we experience it over and over again these days that rules are always needed for some members to make them behave decently towards other people.
It basically says it all in my signature for a long time now, if you don't understand what it says ... we'll just agree to disagree.


I do sincerely hope that many members who are concerned about the GPT community and GPTB will apply as moderators here as there is obviously not enough manpower to achieve all the goals of this site for now and without applications am not sure how mods can be found right now.

Have a nice day all

Sophie

[freecashspace]

Wil

I am not going to argue with you for 100s of pages, been there, done that before, thanks but no thanks :laugh:
Am not impressed by the fact that you have a very selective memory, nor by the little insinuations you posted in your replies to me and the way you twisted my words, if the GPTB staff was forced to change the rules of the forum because of what was in your signatures, it speaks volumes to me ... pity we experience it over and over again these days that rules are always needed for some members to make them behave decently towards other people.
It basically says it all in my signature for a long time now, if you don't understand what it says ... we'll just agree to disagree.


I do sincerely hope that many members who are concerned about the GPT community and GPTB will apply as moderators here as there is obviously not enough manpower to achieve all the goals of this site for now and without applications am not sure how mods can be found right now.

Have a nice day all

Sophie
Any time you want to refresh my memory, please feel free Sophie. I can't remember every post I've made or every word I've ever written on all of the many websites I've created over the years. If you're not impressed, I can live with it.

I've freely admitted that whatever I wrote on that website was rude and insulting. I meant it to be. I wasn't trying to behave decently towards the people I made the comments about because I didn't think they deserved it. I they've all shown that they were, and are, more than capable of being rude and insulting, and of not behaving decently towards others, myself included.

I'm glad you're not going to argue with me for 100s of pages, because to be honest your games get tiresome, Sophie. As usual you've posted your warped and twisted version of reality hoping that people will buy it. But most people can see right through your little games, Sophie. If they want to.

Cheers,

Wil

[sophieca]

Any time you want to refresh my memory, please feel free Sophie. I can't remember every post I've made or every word I've ever written on all of the many websites I've created over the years. If you're not impressed, I can live with it.

I've freely admitted that whatever I wrote on that website was rude and insulting. I meant it to be. I wasn't trying to behave decently towards the people I made the comments about because I didn't think they deserved it. I they've all shown that they were, and are, more than capable of being rude and insulting, and of not behaving decently towards others, myself included.

I'm glad you're not going to argue with me for 100s of pages, because to be honest your games get tiresome, Sophie. As usual you've posted your warped and twisted version of reality hoping that people will buy it. But most people can see right through your little games, Sophie. If they want to.

Cheers,

Wil

Wil,

You proved belle's point by your post, better agreeing with you or hush, otherwhise you'll think you have the right to be insulting and nasty often without any proof but insinuations and assumptions, just like the many unkind things you said to me in this thread.
I don't see why people would continue discussions if the only option is to agree with some vocal posters or end up being their target.

Sophie

[freecashspace]

This isn't about agreeing or disagreeing, Sophie. This is about you coming into this thread and accusing me of having had a link in my sig to a website where I was "very nasty and insulting towards some people." You've accused me of having had a sig to "promote a hate message." I don't know about you, but I happen to think those are some pretty big accusations, and I believe big accusations should be backed up with evidence.

I think most people know the difference between disagreeing with somebody, and making unfounded accusations against them.

I think most people can see the difference between a person who chooses not to continue a discussion because they're being unfairly attacked and one who just wants to get off a few cheap shots and then run away.

Cheers,

Wil

[Mallerie]

This isn't about agreeing or disagreeing, Sophie. This is about you coming into this thread and accusing me of having had a link in my sig to a website where I was "very nasty and insulting towards some people." You've accused me of having had a sig to "promote a hate message." I don't know about you, but I happen to think those are some pretty big accusations, and I believe big accusations should be backed up with evidence.

Cheers,

Wil

not to end up being a new target but didnt you just admit it here:

I've freely admitted that whatever I wrote on that website was rude and insulting. I meant it to be. I wasn't trying to behave decently towards the people I made the comments about because I didn't think they deserved it. I they've all shown that they were, and are, more than capable of being rude and insulting, and of not behaving decently towards others, myself included.

Cheers,

Wil

if a board has to make up a rule after you do something istn that pretty much the board saying we dont aprpeciate what youre doing using the board to link to something not acceptable?

[freecashspace]

not to end up being a new target but didnt you just admit it here:

if a board has to make up a rule after you do something istn that pretty much the board saying we dont aprpeciate what youre doing using the board to link to something not acceptable?And if you'll notice, I don't have a link in my sig to anything that is considered unacceptable or breaking the forum rules.

I did have a link in my sig that led to a website where I wrote some rude and insulting things. Not "very nasty" and not "hate messages." And I just checked my saved PMs and I don't have any from any member of the GPTB staff saying anything about the sig link. Quite a few from fellow members, but none from any staff. So I don't know if they found my sig link particularly unacceptable, or just thought it would be a good idea in general to make a rule against that sort of thing.

Cheers,

Wil

[Mallerie]

And if you'll notice, I don't have a link in my sig to anything that is considered unacceptable or breaking the forum rules.

I did have a link in my sig that led to a website where I wrote some rude and insulting things. Not "very nasty" and not "hate messages." And I just checked my saved PMs and I don't have any from any member of the GPTB staff saying anything about the sig link. Quite a few from fellow members, but none from any staff. So I don't know if they found my sig link particularly unacceptable, or just thought it would be a good idea in general to make a rule against that sort of thing.

Cheers,

Wil

rude and insulting to you can be very nasty and hatful to someone else. subjective. i guess the best coarse to follow would be not to link to anything like that?

i dont nkow wil you do things like that i wouldnt ever think of doing that. i guess in my mind it would be breaking one of the policies here.

2. Comments meant to incite, embarrass or ridicule another member, including personal attacks;

if you post hateful or mean or nasty comments here, thats obviously agains the rules. but linking i believe falls under that as well because youre USING the board linking abilitiy to do that very thing, make comments that are not allowed to be directly posted here. you know that you cant post thos things here so youre trying to skirt around the rule and do what you want anyways.

just a way to get around the direct rule so anothe rule as to be made up to cover it. its very hard to sit and think what each member might or might not do to get around a direct rule and not have 500 rules that people have to read.

[freecashspace]

Yes, I agree that Sophie might consider whatever I wrote to be some sort of very nasty hate message, and that she has a right to her opinion. But she's claimed that she was giving a "factual example." Sophie posted facts? Where?

As I said to her before:


Actually, you didn't answer my question at all, and you certainly didn't provide a "factual example" of anything.

I asked Belle about examples of "continued bashfests" with all the "well written cruelty where we politely abuse the hell out of each other." You posting about a link in my sig doesn't sound like an example of neither.

And it definitely isn't a factual example, since you've only provided your opinion that what was published on that website was nasty or cruel or done to hush anybody up. I've admitted that whatever I wrote on that website was probably rude and insulting, but without any evidence to back up your claims, I really think your use of terms like "very nasty" and "hate message" are nothing more than exaggeration and game-playing.

Cheers,

Wil

[investkid]

Could somebody clue me as to what Sophie's cheap shots at Wil's sig of months ago has to do with the subject at hand in this thread?

[Mallerie]

Yes, I agree that Sophie might consider whatever I wrote to be some sort of very nasty hate message, and that she has a right to her opinion. But she's claimed that she was giving a "factual example." Sophie posted facts? Where?

As I said to her before:


Cheers,

Wil

i dont know what is going on with you and sophie but i personally agree its nasty to put a website with mean and rude comments about someone then link to it. a person doesnt post a link to something without wantig others to look at it.

what were youw anting to happen? expecting to happen? did you want to push someones buttons? 'say' something you know you wouldnt be allowed to say on boards because of their rules?

if it were just as simple as you wanting to state your mind and be done with it you wouldnt have given a link so others can see. you wanted something.

just my 2 or 3 cents and no disrespect intended but you do things like this then overdissect it to death. i think youre very smart and very good with words and you do understand things easily.

my take is taht sophie gave you an example of how people can/are mean to each other here. you can turn and twist my words however you want or keep spltting every hair possible but it boils down to the fact you did something and are getting called out on it and dancing around all kinds of words. you say 'rude' and mean' she says 'nasty and 'hate messages'. well both of you are saying words that imply total negativty. so really how is what either if you are saying different? just because her words are different doesnt make your intention different.

anyone can change words without changing their intent.

again i admire your intelligence and how many times you think of things but at times like this you just make me blink at the screen. as an outsider it appears as if you want to do nothing more than argue with sophie even though what it boils down to is you both are saying the same thing - what you posted at that website wasn't nice. youll keep what i call 'pecking' and pecking at her until she cant explain things any other way gets frustrated and gives up, then you say you never get any answers.

i know its probably not my place to but i just dont understand why. you make it very clear youre a very intelligent person yet it seems as if youll dance around the simpliest things until another gets frustrated. unles thats the real point all along?

[Mallerie]

Could somebody clue me as to what Sophie's cheap shots at Wil's sig of months ago has to do with the subject at hand in this thread?

lolol you know youre right. guess i got lost off on a tanget there.

[sophieca]

Could somebody clue me as to what Sophie's cheap shots at Wil's sig of months ago has to do with the subject at hand in this thread?

Hi,

I see you call my posts cheap shots when Wil admits what he did was insulting and rude, my post was just an example in reply to Wil's post saying this :


Belle, you've been making statements about people who "dance between the lines" for a long time now. As usual, though, you're a little vague when it comes to pointing out examples of these "continued bashfests" with all the "well written cruelty where we politely abuse the hell out of each other." But I'm sure they exist. You wouldn't just make that kind of stuff up, would you?

From my experience most of the personal attacks that occur at this forum aren't well-written or polite. In most cases the attacking poster shows as much disregard for the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar as they do for the rules of the forum, not to mention those of logic, reason and common decency. But maybe your experience is different.

Cheers,

Wil

You can call replying to Wil with an example he can't deny or say he hasn't noticed a cheap shot if you want to and turn a blind eye to what really happens ... everyone can choose to see what they want to see.

The point I made is that people can be very mean and rude without breaking rules and then go on and on until everyone else gives up, modding that is not as easy as some want to make it appear and it unfortunately also drives many nice people who don't need to be some other people's target away.

[bellestraker]

A lot has been "discussed" in this thread which had nothing to do with the topic so I wonder why nothing was said before.I think an example of how people in general and mods specifically are treated fits right in with the thread.

We dance with words like "was it hateful or was it rude" while many have laughed and thrown up the high five smileys to congratulate the one who manages to get the best cheap shot in and if someone tries to defend themslves THEY are the ones giving cheap shots...The example given was not new but IMO nothing has changed.

Yes it is hard to bring examples because it is not one post or one sentence but often an ongoing assault with each word carefully chosen to hit the hardest but not "quite" break the rules. Maybe they need to go to kindergarten mentality and lay each rule out covering every possibility but even then I am sure devious minds could get around it.

Most of us read the rules with the intent of trying NOT to break them while some read them with the intent of finding a loophole with which they can be rude,cruel,hateful or? with impunity.

I keep hearing that few post because some have been banned.I really doubt that the loss of a few members ( no matter how "enjoyable or sporting" their posts may be) will cause the downfall of any forum.

IMO few post anymore because if they do not agree with some then they become targets.

Pretend it isn't so if you like but MANY members no longer post because they simply do not feel like being attacked and anyone who may have been interested in applying for a mod position has certainly learned that accepting ( or being accepted) will open you up to constant bashing and having your personal life torn to shreds while you are smeared by lies and insinuations and even your personal life is not sacred. It seems that anything goes if it is against a mod or admin.

Obviously this is not all about wil. It seems that joining in what IMO has become hateful bashing of certain people has become a symbol to show that some are "rebels"...How sad.

Why would anyone ever want to put themselves in that position.( modding)..beats me...

Belle

[Josh]

Wow.

My original intent for this thread was for discussion on moderators and policies/guidelines regarding them (what moderators do properly). I have no idea how this shifted to what members do wrongly, and I really have no guess as to why the topic needs to stray onto Wil and his signature selection from the past.

Since this specific thread doesn't exactly seem the recipient of heavy-handed moderating, I'd like to politely request that we stay on topic. It seems interest in the discussion may still be here, which is half of the reason I opened this thread originally, so I have no problem if the staff wants to leave it open, but sticking with the theme would be much appreciated. Thanks for the reminder about the topic, investkid. Unfortunately, that wasn't the only off-topic ramble, it's been going that way for a few days now.

I agree with Lia on her thoughts in the first page. Moderators should be held to a higher standard than members. Even (especially, I might add) when a member is participating outside of forum rules, or simply being a "tough cookie," the moderator has the obligation to maintain a calm demeanor. Isn't that one of the reasons they are here (meaning any forum)?

Also, although it is commonly forgotten, forums are provided as a service to the members. Members are requested to abide by the rules, whatever those may be, and are allowed to use the forum while remaining within those boundaries. Moderators are hired, or volunteer, for a position in order to maintain the quality of that service. Regardless of whether it is a paid or unpaid position, that service means that the moderator should be willing to serve the members, not speak down to them or abuse them. Yes, part of that service is to take the necessary measures to stop improper and rule-breaking activity, in order to maintain order and allow the other members to participate as they please, unfettered, but within the rules.

Now, a lot of interesting topics that have been discussed here. I'm glad people are interested enough to speak out. Discussion, thought and sharing of ideas were what I hoped would take place here. It's been too long since I've replied in this thread and now there is a lot, so don't be offended if I snip or skip some parts. Mainly I am interested in responding to comments that relate to this thread's proposed theme.

vBulletin just told me my post was too long so I'll split it into two...

[Josh]

You present a good argument, bluedahlia. It makes good sense, and naturally, a number of members will feel intimidated when seeing a moderator post with opinions that differ from their own (even though the mod is not using any staff powers). That is one "perceived" intent which discourages the members and hinders the discussion. "Perceived" intent can also work against the moderator, as his non-moderating discussion may be viewed as "title abuse" thus turning the members off to what he may have to say.

I was hoping for carefully considered opinions, and you offered one. Thank you.

Josh, whenever this subject regarding conflict of interest was raised (at other forums as well as this one) it has always been my position that a mod can't get away from a "perceived" intent as to why he/she is posting in any given thread, both as mod and/or member. For that reason, I have always stated that mods should be mods and members should be members. If one is willing to take on the job of a mod, he/she should be willing to give up posting as a member. That's my opinion. Having worked in the private as well the educational sectors, this issue of conflict of interest was always dealt with as a black and white situation......no grey areas.


You're absolutely correct IMO, investkid. On top of that, I would add that moderators as leaders should not only be portraying a good manner in which to act civilly on a community forum, but should also be guiding others in that direction by responding to unruly comments with factual and stern, yet polite, remarks.

I personally always found it difficult to understand why mods/admins mod people not posts and use their likes or dislikes of those posters to interfere with the proper reading of the content and intent of the post(s). IMO, it's bad modding, misuse of power and intimidation tactics. Being a mod is policing the threads in order to check if rules of the forum have been broken and help posters in case of need. A mod should always stays polite in all his/her posts. There is no reason and there should never be a reason for a mod/admin to threaten, yell, get upset at a poster while modding. There's only one way to act and it is with polite respect and authority.


Limited term staff is a very interesting topic. I won't get much into politics here ( :hehe: ), but it definitely draws a close comparison. Take for example offices which are not voted on by citizens, and yet the person taking one of those up is eligible to remain for life so long as he doesn't engage in anything so awful that there is no choice but to throw him out. Since the members of most forums also don't vote on moderators (which is a good thing, IMO), limiting the time length of moderatorship would provide a bit of balance. Of course, the reasons you mentioned are quite valid as well.

Essperanza (I think) mentioned in another forum that you should never choose mods from those who want to be mods because (and I interpret here) if they want to mod it's for the power trip. I'll go further than that, and except for owners of a forum, add that one shouldn't be a mod or an admin for a long period (6 month to a year max). A constant flow of new mods and admins eliminates quite a bit of the power trip and the "I'll defend my friends and make life miserable to my non-friends" types of modding, the constant bias for liked POs and programs and naturally the modding the people who post (and not the posts) according to likes and dislikes.


Yes, Belle, some members at most forums do seem to enjoy making life difficult not only for the other members but for the moderators, as well. The difference is that moderators should be the ones who are well-versed enough in communication skills to point out, without being rude, that a member's attempts essentially to circumvent the forum rules are not welcomed.

Moderating at any forum with activity is never an easy task. For a good moderator, or administrator, so much thought goes on behind the words, yet is never seen.

I don't think the day to day modding is really very difficult. It is when the "nicely written" cruelty comes into play or the continued hammering on one site/person that modding becomes difficult.


Isn't it amazing how different PTR and GPT forums are from most other genres?

Very few in the PTR forums understand that if a rule is not broken by a poster, however much that poster is disliked, then there will be no comment / warning/ banning from mods/admins. Period. And should I add, not that many mods/admins in the PTR forums seem to undertand the "no rule broken" principle.


Unfortunately, moderating grudges would open the scenario up to a whole world of problems. How does a moderator know that what a person is saying is being spoken with a grudge? Is that person incapable of speaking reasonably, and if so, who decides that? Even if the words are being spoken with contempt, does that necessarily make them against forum rules, or even untrue?

IMO "Comments meant to incite, embarrass or ridicule another member, including personal attacks" are still what they are, even if they are disguised, that is, put in "nice" terms. A good moderator would be able to grasp the true disparaging nature of the remarks, even if he were blindfolded when it came to the member's name. You are correct that well-written attacks should be disallowed. Not all well-written and harsh words are necessarily meant to incite, embarrass or ridicule anyone, however. Truth, even put carefully, often is harsh, and also is received best when it is in a well-written package.

Sadly..I think you are right that forum rules do not moderate grudges, anger or cruelty as long as it is worded "nicely" and IMO this is the reason why these forums have become almost a desert land.


You're absolutely correct, as I see it. Aside from looking for a policy for the general public to see, I also asked Rob because I personally wanted to know.

Maybe it is best to let those who own the forum decide what form of modding they will supply and we can then decide whether we choose to post within it - or not.


I agree, priestes. IMO it should extend beyond that, though. If any situation whatsoever were to be a detriment to the moderator's judgment (or lack thereof), actions or commentary, that person should neither attempt to moderate nor throw his weight around "as a member."

If someone has a personality conflict with someone then they should turn it over to another mod/admin to handle. Plain and simple.


I share your concerns, Wil. Those are questions for which answers would be appreciated.

Maybe the problem isn't so much the connections, and the serious lack of transparency. For example, as I understand it, it's the forum staff here who make the final decision about whether a program gets added to the Boycott List or not. So if a staff member has what Rob has called a "spcial interest" in a program, are they excluded from the discussion and vote? And what if the staff member has a not-so-special interest? In other words, if they don't own a controlling interest in the program, but are members, advertisers, upgraded members, etc? It seems to me in those cases, they might be inclined to vote against boycott to protect their own interests.


I agree with you that this is the case most, though certainly not all, of the time. As a moderator, one should avoid lawlessness of all kinds. It lends to his respect amongst members, which makes his job easier, and makes their time more enjoyable, and beneficial. After all, we can either "fight the get-paid-to... scams!" (or other theme) with the guidance, service and help as necessary from a moderator, or we can have a moderator who detracts from the conversation by his posts, actions and demeanor. I know anyone truly interested in the discussion area of any particular forum would only have one acceptable choice there.

From my experience most of the personal attacks that occur at this forum aren't well-written or polite. In most cases the attacking poster shows as much disregard for the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar as they do for the rules of the forum, not to mention those of logic, reason and common decency.


Since it has something to do with moderating, I'll also add that when the terminology of the forum rules was being tweaked to include: "hyperlink to or include URL's to" - I was all for the addition. It's not reasonable to have no rules regarding linked material. What good do the other rules do if although being unable to post certain comments, a member can post a link to them? Whether some specific things which would not be allowed directly on the forum ought to be allowed links is always up for discussion, but in general, I believe it's wise to have a rule of some sort on the issue. Without that, a person could even link to illegal material and technically could not even be given a warning.

Thanks for all the good thoughts. They made a great read. :)

Josh

P.S. Aren't spell-checkers great? I hope this one didn't miss anything. :\

[investkid]

A lot has been "discussed" in this thread which had nothing to do with the topic so I wonder why nothing was said before.I think an example of how people in general and mods specifically are treated fits right in with the thread.

(...)
Belle

Sorry for the snipping here Belle, but I wanted to address this part of your post.

I reviewed the thread a second time and, except for the posts from Sophie and Wil's response posts, the balance of the posts were pretty much on topic and were relating to the OP's first post and the subject at hand.

There were no bashfests with all the "well written cruelty where we politely abuse the hell out of each other" in this thread, except for a few posts meant either to put down a poster or demonstrate how badly treated some mods/admins are or seem to be. I'm sorry but when in the public eye and with a "power" position in a forum, especially as big as gpt, there'll be consequences and not all of them positive.

We agreed before that modding is not for everybody and not an easy task. IMO, we can agree once more.

[sophieca]

Hi,

I don't know if you referred to my posts investkid but they were aimed to show how members treat other members and the result of that for the members who should be able to post without being scared of retaliation, not about how members treat mods or admins.
How should good mods react in order to make their members feeling comfortable expressing themselves on the forum ?

I have read many of the ideas about how a moderator should be, I agree with most of what is said but I have still one question : How can forum management find such moderators ?

Sophie

[freecashspace]

My apologies for making so many off-topic posts in response to Sophie's off-topic, unfounded, and very nasty and hateful attacks against me. ;) Especially after I was the one that asked you to reconsider your request to close the thread. Doh!

Mallery, you raised some good points and deserve a reasonable and honest reply, but to be fair to Josh, and to everybody else (including myself) who's interested in discussing the original topic of the thread, this probably isn't the best place to answer them.

Josh, I definitely agree that forum mods should try to lead by example. And they should think carefully about what moderating really means and how it should be done. Unlike Belle I don't think being a good mod is easy at all. But I wonder how much instruction and support is given to staff members in GPT-related forums to help them learn to moderate, as in "To lessen the violence, severity, or extremeness of" discussions.

Cheers,

Wil

[bellestraker]

My apologies for making so many off-topic posts in response to Sophie's off-topic, unfounded, and very nasty and hateful attacks against me. ;) Especially after I was the one that asked you to reconsider your request to close the thread. Doh!

Mallery, you raised some good points and deserve a reasonable and honest reply, but to be fair to Josh, and to everybody else (including myself) who's interested in discussing the original topic of the thread, this probably isn't the best place to answer them.

Josh, I definitely agree that forum mods should try to lead by example. And they should think carefully about what moderating really means and how it should be done. Unlike Belle I don't think being a good mod is easy at all. But I wonder how much instruction and support is given to staff members in GPT-related forums to help them learn to moderate, as in "To lessen the violence, severity, or extremeness of" discussions.

Cheers,

Wil



Did I say it WAS easy...I think I said it WOULD be easy..if it were not for all the games and the constant twisting- kinda like what is being played in this post.

In any case...Have at it...

Belle

[sophieca]

My apologies for making so many off-topic posts in response to Sophie's off-topic, unfounded, and very nasty and hateful attacks against me. ;) Especially after I was the one that asked you to reconsider your request to close the thread. Doh!


Cheers,

Wil

Wil, I don't think you are the victim of anything but of the consequences of your own questions and actions ...

I was interested to share experiences and exchange point of views with people who see it differently or from another side, apparently that doesn't interest some or everything has to be twisted and turned into something else ... off I am, have fun

Sophie

[freecashspace]

Did I say it WAS easy...I think I said it WOULD be easy..if it were not for all the games and the constant twisting- kinda like what is being played in this post.

In any case...Have at it...

Belle
Actually, what you said was:


I don't think the day to day modding is really very difficult. It is when the "nicely written" cruelty comes into play or the continued hammering on one site/person that modding becomes difficult.

I'm saying that I don't agree that the "day to day modding" is easy.

No game-playing or twisting involved, Belle. Just a simple disagreement with a comment you made. That's allowed, isn't it?

Cheers,

Wil

[michaellaskey]

Hi,
How can forum management find such moderators ?

Sophie

Certainly not by hiring the admin team from the latest SCAM sites:hehe: :stupid:

[investkid]

Certainly not by hiring the admin team from the latest SCAM sites:hehe: :stupid:

Right on Michael.

What does it say about bias, favorism and integrity of a forum when a forum hires people like those mentioned in your post? But, on the other hand, some forums display a total disregard with what constitute a scam and who are scammers. Well, as we have been told so many times, a certain forum (maybe more but at least one that I know of) is not the PTR police and IMO, makes scams and scammers more than welcome. This forum at least is warning people against scams and scammers and could certainly not afford to hire those infamous persons as mods.

Now a days, I agree more and more with some who say that mods should have absolutely no tie with the PTR world.

[freecashspace]

Now a days, I agree more and more with some who say that mods should have absolutely no tie with the PTR world.
I've thought the same thing in the past, but I do accept the view that this isn't likely to happen. And even if it were, it would probably create its own problems. Because I think a mod needs to have a pretty good understanding of what goes on in this industry to be able to mod effectively. But thinking about the skills needed to mod, maybe they should be considered more important than industry knowledge.

Honestly, unless they were paid, I can't imagine why anybody would want to mod a ptr-related forum unless they were involved in the industry one way or another. But I think that involvement doesn't necessarily have to be a problem, as long as people are honest, and everything's out in the open.

And I totally agree with Mike that it doesn't look good for a forum when they choose mods who have shady pasts and in some cases shady presents!) themselves.

Cheers,

Wil

[sophieca]

Hi,

I think it's better to call a spade a spade when discussing things instead of insinuating all kind of stuff.

GPTBoycott : Lexie owned Rewards Divine and as far as I know it's now gone
GPTF : one admin owned sites and those are gone too, the admin doesn't show up there anymore
GPF : Zola was an admin back then, we were told his investment site was 'hacked' and after that he was no longer admin at GPF. As far as I know he made partial paymentsback to members.
At those forums, the owner couldn't know that those situations would occur when hiring the mods/admins

WIW : Harlum moderator and host had opened a site called above5cent and took a runner without ever paying his members
GPF : some moderators have been helpers at sites or moderators of the support forums of sites where the owner took a runner.

Now those are the infos I could find or can remember on the top of my head and the question still remains, we of course all would love to see unbiased always perfect/helpful/polite/committed etc .. moderators but practically, how is the management of a forum going to find those little diamonds ?

[mlev]

Well, I didn't really want to participate in this thread, but thought I would put in my 1/10¢.

I am one of those that stop posting.
I am one of those that quit trying to help this "industry".

And I will tell you why, and I think, can be related to lots of those that don't participate anymore.

First lets start by saying that this "industry" has probably become a good subject for a student in social behaviour.

It's total anarchy, and lots of people would do about anything for 0.001 ¢

This "industry" needs knights to keep some kind of apparance/credibility.

Instead, what I see, is that much is done, to the contrary, to silence these knights.

Instead of taking a stand, and fighting to help keep this "industry" clean, I see fora that could, that should, that don't.

Instand of taking actions, I see fora where stalling and denigrating is rule.

You see, in fact, it is quite simple. When it is wrong, it is wrong.

For a forum like here, which serves a specific goal, I can't see why this is so hard.

All you need is a set of guiding rules, such as but not limited to:
- running PO, once, at least put the PO (not just the program) on "watch list", twice, automatically boycott PO and any past/present/futur sites.

- 0 Iframe/search fraud: same thing for members and POs: you use them, we all know it's wrong, from watch list (PO/programs) to Boycott (PO/programs) or ban (members)
As for 0 Iframes some members are not aware they exist on sites they promote: make them aware, once or twice, no more.
Some POs don't verify the ads they get: First time around, maybe, after that [unallowed word]

- Non-paying programs: that too is very easy, automatic watch list for those beyong terms. If delinquent too often, or too long, boycott. And don't make me laugh with "any reasonable time" showing in TOS.

There are more, but why should I bother.

And as for the role for a mod, don't you think it would be much easier when a forum has standard rules, where even members can help pinpoint culprits.

Beats arguing with a friend of a delinquent. Or someone benefiting from the delinquent.

Beats arguing about how they are in person. Who cares !
You see, who cares if my co-worker is the greatest dad or lover or mom, at work he could still be just an a...

So what does all this have to do with the subject of this thread.
Very simple: even if I had the time, I wouldn't want to be mod in a forum (in general) where people play games and only rules enforced are esthetical (sp ?). Where every chance is used to fall back on gray areas to stall.
Again, when it's wrong it's wrong.

How could someone mod properly if the person has to:
-check a list of maybes
-check a list of friends/foes
-is this person in or out these days
-who's feelings you are not allowed to hurt
-work with other mods who have lost all respect from members while being pampered by admins/other mods

To all those that are willing to take the job, and do it for the right reasons...
I raise my hat and wish you all the luck and patience in the world !

Keep in mind that this is only my opinion, and does not necessarly represent anybody else's opinion.
I will now go back to my corner, and try not to disturb too much.
Good day to all !

[michaellaskey]

Hi,

I think it's better to call a spade a spade when discussing things instead of insinuating all kind of stuff.?

Is that so Soph... I know of many many that have been banned by YOU.. For calling a spade.. A spade:laugh:

GPF : some moderators have been helpers at sites or moderators of the support forums of sites where the owner took a runner.

Some??? Only Some... I love how you minimize things to save face Sophie.. Just love it.. More accuratly.. A good number of your Mods were previously DIRECTLY involved in the Admin aspect of programs that SCAMMED LIED TO and CHEATED their members.. Some of them actually Assisted the Scam PO and Flamed some of the very members they now moderate.

See Sophie if it were merly Some there wouldnt be TWO sets of Admins from two of the BIGGEST scams in History.. ALL hired as Mods.. Anyone with any kind of sense can CLEARLY see that YOU have a habit of putting Ex SCAMMERS.. Or Helpers of such in positions of power..


I'll also ask you.. Is all the negative publicity that GPF recieves for these Mods worth it? :stupid:

Now those are the infos I could find or can remember on the top of my head and the question still remains, we of course all would love to see unbiased always perfect/helpful/polite/committed etc .. moderators but practically, how is the management of a forum going to find those little diamonds ?

Again.. I reitterate.. NOT at the latest SCAM site!! :)

[sophieca]

Is that so Soph... I know of many many that have been banned by YOU.. For calling a spade.. A spade:laugh:



Some??? Only Some... I love how you minimize things to save face Sophie.. Just love it.. More accuratly.. A good number of your Mods were previously DIRECTLY involved in the Admin aspect of programs that SCAMMED LIED TO and CHEATED their members.. Some of them actually Assisted the Scam PO and Flamed some of the very members they now moderate.

See Sophie if it were merly Some there wouldnt be TWO sets of Admins from two of the BIGGEST scams in History.. ALL hired as Mods.. Anyone with any kind of sense can CLEARLY see that YOU have a habit of putting Ex SCAMMERS.. Or Helpers of such in positions of power..


I'll also ask you.. Is all the negative publicity that GPF recieves for these Mods worth it? :stupid:



Again.. I reitterate.. NOT at the latest SCAM site!! :)

Come on Mike, don't make it personal, I won't even reply more to this as it is just one big biased attack based on not much truth and I prefer to stay out of these nonsenses. Moreover if I reply more some would say I go off topic ...

[michaellaskey]

Come on Mike, don't make it personal, I won't even reply more to this as it is just one big biased attack based on not much truth and I prefer to stay out of these nonsenses. Moreover if I reply more some would say I go off topic ...

So par for the course Sophie.. Someone asks valid questions or makes a Valid point.. It conveniently Personal, And thats not the case.. If it were personal I would have included how I feel about you as an individual.. Or a person if you will.. And I didn't.. Actually I think I did VERY well at remaining unbiased.. Thats what "I" and many others see Sophie.. Take that to the bank;)

[bellestraker]

I see everyone say how the mods should ( and should not) be and what they should ( and should not) do but I must be missing the rush to apply.

We all sit around complaining about who has been chosen and give our reasons why they are not the best choice... Best out of what ?

If you need 4 mods and 8 apply ( just numbers) and there are no "gems" amongst them..or there are only 2 true gems and a couple with flaws..what then?

What happens if you need 1 and none of those perfect applicants show up..

It would be nice if they were all ( whoever all is?) trained in being perfect moderators but this is a gptr forum...not a fortune 500.

Maybe we need to be a bit more realistic on what we expect and not be so quick to jump on any misjudgment.

IMO I don't think there will ever be a mod who does not get flack for some real
( or imagined ) error and it often dies out but if they happen to get on the wrong side of a few then they will be chewed up and spit out without hesitation.

Yep...I just don't understand why there are not more applicants...


Belle

eat.
People say to get on topic so if this is a discussion about mods in general why is it all about sophie..

[sophieca]

I don't have an opinion about you as an individual Mike as I don't know you and I don't think you know me.

As a PO however, I do consider that you did last months exactly what you blame some mods of GPF for, regarding relation with a PO who took a runner, lies, flaming etc ... I don't judge you for it as I am not a member of any of your sites anymore but I am sorry, considering you did exactly what you blame others for, the posts here don't make a lot of sense to me and can only be personal.

You don't agree with how GPF is run and modded, that's ok, then if the propositions you might have made didn't come true, why don't you simply move on instead of trying each time again to retaliate, what good will it bring to anyone ? GPF is really not the end of the world !
There is a forum that I don't like and don't agree with for many reasons, one of them being the admins giving out my IP and personal infos to a member, well, having seen that it is how it works there, I simply went away and only occasionally read or post there, that's all... don't make your blood pressure go so high about all that, it's not healthy.

Now each forum has their own way of recruting mods, training them and moderating in general, I am interested to see how it will happen here and the ideas offered as I would like to see this site becoming better and better and I also always am eager to learn something for myself and my further activities as an admin.

For example, people said, don't take mods who applied to be mods as those people are on a power trip, I personally find that very unfair towards many people on various forums who do a marvelous job but I can understand the reasoning behind this ... but then, how else could one do to find moderators, it's very good to say don't do it this way but then what to do instead ?

[Josh]

These two together since they're related. That's an excellent question, Sophie. They certainly don't pop out of the woodshed, and they aren't a dime a dozen. I suppose the issue mostly hinges around looking in the right places, and looking for the right attributes. A lot of GPT forum administrators (and certainly some in other genres) would like to have moderators that agree with them, rather than moderators that agree to moderate. Many would pass over the good ones, simply because they don't fit their style and set of beliefs. If there is a good set of qualifications that make an acceptable moderator, there is no excuse for ruling out a potential new staff member simply based on his personal opinions. If he were meeting those standards, it would include being able to stick to moderator guidelines above his personal opinions, meaning that they wouldn't affect his work. Also, ruling that his opinions make him unfit for the job is completely hypocritical, because it would be the administrator's opposing opinions that were ruling his opinions unworthy. At that point, fair judgment might as well be thrown out the window.

I have read many of the ideas about how a moderator should be, I agree with most of what is said but I have still one question : How can forum management find such moderators ?

Now those are the infos I could find or can remember on the top of my head and the question still remains, we of course all would love to see unbiased always perfect/helpful/polite/committed etc .. moderators but practically, how is the management of a forum going to find those little diamonds ?


Well, I'm glad you did appear this time, mlev. You had a superb post with excellent points, and I hope everyone took the time to read it.

I am one of those that stop posting.
I am one of those that quit trying to help this "industry".


You may not consider them "feelings" per se, but they are still personal comments, Mike. You said:

"Is that so Soph... I know of many many that have been banned by YOU.. For calling a spade.. A spade"
"I love how you minimize things to save face Sophie.. Just love it.."
"Anyone with any kind of sense can CLEARLY see that YOU have a habit of putting Ex SCAMMERS.. Or Helpers of such in positions of power.."

You've contributed great points. Let's not make the conversation about Sophie, okay?

If it were personal I would have included how I feel about you as an individual.. Or a person if you will.. And I didn't..


Perhaps that is good, Belle. I know that GPTB is looking for moderators, but it would be good if those interested considered the full gamut of responsibilities involved. It's good for the sake of those interested, and the sake of the site, that even those not interested in applying should share their opinions, whatever they may be. It may just spare someone who thought it would be a cakewalk and didn't expect to be under the microscope until seeing this. It may cause some who previously didn't have interest to see how much of a benefit a good moderator can be, and therefore decide to take up the challenge.

I see everyone say how the mods should ( and should not) be and what they should ( and should not) do but I must be missing the rush to apply.


That's when the administration needs to make a decision, take a stand and live with the consequences, to one way or the other. I seriously doubt that there are even a handful of people in PTR who would come near to being a perfect moderator (which itself no one would reach), and to that end, the good aspects in each one should be appreciated and gratefully received. That's why I wanted to ask Rob what he does expect them to do. Guaranteed imperfection shouldn't put an end to criticism, though. It shouldn't shut the door on thankfulness for the good facets, either. Both avenues of expression should be available. That keeps moderators accountable for their actions, and also lends assurance to the legitimacy of the discussion.

If you need 4 mods and 8 apply ( just numbers) and there are no "gems" amongst them..or there are only 2 true gems and a couple with flaws..what then?

What happens if you need 1 and none of those perfect applicants show up..

[sophieca]

These two together since they're related. That's an excellent question, Sophie. They certainly don't pop out of the woodshed, and they aren't a dime a dozen. I suppose the issue mostly hinges around looking in the right places, and looking for the right attributes. A lot of GPT forum administrators (and certainly some in other genres) would like to have moderators that agree with them, rather than moderators that agree to moderate. Many would pass over the good ones, simply because they don't fit their style and set of beliefs. If there is a good set of qualifications that make an acceptable moderator, there is no excuse for ruling out a potential new staff member simply based on his personal opinions. If he were meeting those standards, it would include being able to stick to moderator guidelines above his personal opinions, meaning that they wouldn't affect his work. Also, ruling that his opinions make him unfit for the job is completely hypocritical, because it would be the administrator's opposing opinions that were ruling his opinions unworthy. At that point, fair judgment might as well be thrown out the window.

Thanks for your reply Josh but my question is not how to decide who one accepts as new moderator, at GPF for example, trying to be as fair as possible, it is a voting process and each administrator and current moderators of the section votes, no one has more power to vote than the other, so at the end, often no one has his entire personal list selected which is normal and we learn to all live together with our different opinions and experiences ...

Before deciding how to accept or refuse a potential moderator, the more crucial and practical question is where can current staff look for people who might fit most of the requirements posted by members ?
Application procedures were considered bad, so where does the staff go to find those potential moderators ?

[Josh]

I apologize that I didn't quite make my response clear, Sophie. A major premise of my response was that how you find them goes hand-in-hand with, and in fact depends upon, how you choose to accept and reject them.

As I also stated, finding a perfect moderator isn't a possibility. The goal should be to have a set of qualifications, and based upon those select a merited and willing individual. Perfection isn't to be expected, and if a person met every requirement on a good list, he would do well at the job, and would be respected by those who understand what a moderator should be. I can guarantee that.

In other words, there are qualified individuals out there, in fact, all around us. Are they numerous? Probably not, but that would depend on what numerous is defined as. If you're requesting a particular location at which to find them, I don't have any specific suggestions, but would say that communities that practice common decency, respect, and the art of well-thought arguments would be good places to begin. In such groups you would find a wide array of potential people who have the mental makeup of a good moderator.

When you find some, or they find you, then everything would boil down to whether they are accepted or rejected based upon the aforementioned qualifications, or different criteria. If other reasoning is used in the decision, then a thousand potentially keen moderators could be found, but none selected.

In the end, compiling a fair and good list of requirements, and choosing in line with that, each become difficult tasks, possibly far more difficult than finding the suitable moderators.

I hope that I did better this time. :) Thanks for the questions.

Josh

Thanks for your reply Josh but my question is not how to decide who one accepts as new moderator, at GPF for example, trying to be as fair as possible, it is a voting process and each administrator and current moderators of the section votes, no one has more power to vote than the other, so at the end, often no one has his entire personal list selected which is normal and we learn to all live together with our different opinions and experiences ...

Before deciding how to accept or refuse a potential moderator, the more crucial and practical question is where can current staff look for people who might fit most of the requirements posted by members ?
Application procedures were considered bad, so where does the staff go to find those potential moderators ?

[sophieca]

Yes but that is still all theories I am afraid, since I read some time ago the first who said :"Don't take people who apply" I have asked at many places and to various people ... where to find people then ?

Theorically your ideas seem very nice and are very close to what many people told me before but when I ask : "Ok, then practically, how do forum staff go to work, if you are interested in the forum, can you help finding some potential mods ?" Then, as much as they try and want to help, they don't really come up with a lot of propositions and we end up asking for applications again


When you find some, or they find you, then everything would boil down to whether they are accepted or rejected based upon the aforementioned qualifications, or different criteria. If other reasoning is used in the decision, then a thousand potentially keen moderators could be found, but none selected.
Also, bear in mind you can't approach someone, ask him if he would agree to become a mod and only then start looking if he really fits the requirements ... it would be really rude to ask someone if they might agree to be a mod and then later tell him, sorry but after second thoughts, we don't want you after all ....


Also, depending of what kind of job the moderators will do, you'll have toset different requirements, one person could be very good at modding one type of section but not at all for another type of section ...

Anyway, am tired now and wishing GPTB admin good luck with their difficult task

Sophie

[Josh]

That's what I was attempting to answer for you.

I have asked at many places and to various people ... where to find people then ?


Definitely! For a forum with specific types of moderating required, naturally the expertise should be applied to the area where most helpful. Of course, some underlying aspects should be the same for all moderators, but certain attributes are most helpful in specific situations, while of little or no use in others.

Also, depending of what kind of job the moderators will do, you'll have toset different requirements, one person could be very good at modding one type of section but not at all for another type of section ...


Thanks again for bringing it to the table.

Josh

[sophieca]

That's what I was attempting to answer for you.



Yes I saw that but unfortunately, practically it is very difficult to implement in real situations .... to be honest, I never saw it happening at any forum and trust me, I have watched many to learn from all of them.

Thanks anyway

[freecashspace]

One thing I think would help would be to try to explain to potential applicants what's involved in being a mod. Or better yet, actually show them. Again, it comes down to transparency. Personally, I think being a bit more open about what the mods actually do might not only improve the whole application process, but it might improve things between the mods and members as well. Obviously some mod stuff needs to be kept private, but does all of it?

Cheers,

Wil

[Josh]

That's why I feel this thread would be a helpful read for any potential applicant here. While it doesn't exactly have confidential moderator information, it does have a back and forth discussion about how moderators should be behave, how they are viewed, etc. They would know some of what to expect just by seeing what has transpired right here.

Learning never hurts. Being taught about aspects of the job they may not know about would be great as well. Seeing first-hand what it is like would probably be of help, too.

Transparency is good, where possible. Of course we know that situations around these forums do get tense. If instead of thinking "what if...?" the members actually knew a little bit more about what went on, some doubts might be erased as a part of the "darkness" would be gone. I think that would be one good step, out of many that need to be taken by both "groups" so to speak.

Josh

One thing I think would help would be to try to explain to potential applicants what's involved in being a mod. Or better yet, actually show them. Again, it comes down to transparency. Personally, I think being a bit more open about what the mods actually do might not only improve the whole application process, but it might improve things between the mods and members as well. Obviously some mod stuff needs to be kept private, but does all of it?

Cheers,

Wil

[sophieca]

They would know some of what to expect just by seeing what has transpired right here.


To be totally honest, even if I have never applied myself to be a moderator, if I had to start all over today, reading this thread would probably make me run away from every modding application.

[Josh]

In fairness, the majority of this thread is of a "critical" nature.

Then again, that's what it was meant to be when it was opened. Discussion on responsibilities always involves critical review. A moderator should know of that. If he expects to be a moderator without understanding both the full range of responsibilities and the amount of criticism he will receive, then the administration has not done its part in preparing him.

That is why I believe information such as this is pertinent. He should act properly as a moderator, and his actions will be subject to criticism. Why not let him know that first?

That's my take on it, and the reason for making the statement you quoted. :)

Josh

To be totally honest, even if I have never applied myself to be a moderator, if I had to start all over today, reading this thread would probably make me run away from every modding application.

[sophieca]

In fairness, the majority of this thread is of a "critical" nature.

Then again, that's what it was meant to be when it was opened. Discussion on responsibilities always involves critical review. A moderator should know of that. If he expects to be a moderator without understanding both the full range of responsibilities and the amount of criticism he will receive, then the administration has not done its part in preparing him.

That is why I believe information such as this is pertinent. He should act properly as a moderator, and his actions will be subject to criticism. Why not let him know that first?

That's my take on it, and the reason for making the statement you quoted. :)

Josh


Whatever you do Josh, you won't ever make all the members happy and some will always moan and go after your mods unless you give them licence to post without any rules and if you do that, it's not difficult to see what kind of anarchy it becomes.

If someone applies to be a moderator to be popular, he is totally wrong and you are right it needs to be told to potential mods before they become mods. It is very logical that someone whose job is to make sure all works well and rules are followed won't always be welcomed by the members they have to notify of rule breakings ....

[freecashspace]

Whatever you do Josh, you won't ever make all the members happy and some will always moan and go after your mods unless you give them licence to post without any rules and if you do that, it's not difficult to see what kind of anarchy it becomes.

If someone applies to be a moderator to be popular, he is totally wrong and you are right it needs to be told to potential mods before they become mods. It is very logical that someone whose job is to make sure all works well and rules are followed won't always be welcomed by the members they have to notify of rule breakings ....
That is very logical, but I think those sorts of problems can be reduced if the rules (and how they're interpreted) are understood as clearly as possible by everybody -- members and mods alike. And also if there's a general sense of trust and fairness towards the mods.

I know that I've received courtesy notes or warnings or rule reminders or whatever, and the mod was right, and I've said so and apologized for going over the line. In other cases, the mod has been so obviously full of it that I've argued, reasoned, contested, appealed and anything else I could think of. But even though a lot of mods will admit in general that they're only human and they make mistakes, I've seen few examples of one admitting to a particular mistake and reversing a bad decision, removing an undeserved warning, etc.

Even when they consult with other staff members, my feeling is that often there's a certain amount of 'groupthink' at work, as well as the knowlege that, as long as the forum owner doesn't have a problem with it, the staff are pretty much free to do whatever they want. And as is often said, if members don't like it, they can just go find another forum.

Of course you're right that it's impossible to please everybody. But just because people don't agree with the way you're doing things, that doesn't mean they're just 'moaning and going after mods.' I'm sure it's never occurred to you, but there's always the possibility that they're right and that the issues they're raising should be discussed.

Cheers,

Wil

[sophieca]

That is very logical, but I think those sorts of problems can be reduced if the rules (and how they're interpreted) are understood as clearly as possible by everybody -- members and mods alike. And also if there's a general sense of trust and fairness towards the mods.

I know that I've received courtesy notes or warnings or rule reminders or whatever, and the mod was right, and I've said so and apologized for going over the line. In other cases, the mod has been so obviously full of it that I've argued, reasoned, contested, appealed and anything else I could think of. But even though a lot of mods will admit in general that they're only human and they make mistakes, I've seen few examples of one admitting to a particular mistake and reversing a bad decision, removing an undeserved warning, etc.

Even when they consult with other staff members, my feeling is that often there's a certain amount of 'groupthink' at work, as well as the knowlege that, as long as the forum owner doesn't have a problem with it, the staff are pretty much free to do whatever they want. And as is often said, if members don't like it, they can just go find another forum.

Of course you're right that it's impossible to please everybody. But just because people don't agree with the way you're doing things, that doesn't mean they're just 'moaning and going after mods.' I'm sure it's never occurred to you, but there's always the possibility that they're right and that the issues they're raising should be discussed.

Cheers,

Wil

Wil if a moderator tries to reply and help a member for months and months, patiently trying to find a solution for each request and the member is never satisfied and goes on and on with the smallest things he can find, at one point the moderators need to move on and spend time doing things that are efficient for everyone and not just for one member who as he said himself does it only for fun and it's time to continue helping people who will use the help given.

[freecashspace]

Wil if a moderator tries to reply and help a member for months and months, patiently trying to find a solution for each request and the member is never satisfied and goes on and on with the smallest things he can find, at one point the moderators need to move on and spend time doing things that are efficient for everyone and not just for one member who as he said himself does it only for fun and it's time to continue helping people who will use the help given.I wasn't talking about any specific circumstances, Soph's. Just in general.

Cheers,

Wil

[michaellaskey]

I wasn't talking about any specific circumstances, Soph's. Just in general.

Cheers,

Wil

Ya better watch it Wil.. She might attempt to dictate your postings here too.. That Soph's thing.. I think she dun like that:baaa:

[sophieca]

I wasn't talking about any specific circumstances, Soph's. Just in general.

Cheers,

Wil


Me too

Sophie

[sophieca]

Ya better watch it Wil.. She might attempt to dictate your postings here too.. That Soph's thing.. I think she dun like that:baaa:

As a matter off fat, it is what you did saying I couldn't refer to other foums as it wasn't my business and calling my posts irrelevant etc ...

[freecashspace]

Heh. Soph's ain't the boss of me! :hehe:

Haven't you been paying attention, Mike? I'm so scary that through sheer force of will (or is that force of wil? ha! I crack myself up!) I can silence people.

Unfortunately, while they may be silent (who'd know?), it sure doesn't seem to stop them from posting cheap shots about how "this entire thing" is just an effort to hide "shaddy things."

The funny thing is, while Sophie's here playing her little games in a thread about better forum moderation, some yahoo at GPF is telling everybody his favorite PTR cheating technique.

Cheers,

Wil

[freecashspace]

Me too

SophieI dunno, Soph's. Maybe it's just me, but "Wil if a moderator tries to reply and help a member for months and months, patiently trying to find a solution for each request and the member is never satisfied and goes on and on with the smallest things he can find, at one point the moderators need to move on and spend time doing things that are efficient for everyone and not just for one member who as he said himself does it only for fun and it's time to continue helping people who will use the help given" sounds pretty specific to me.

Unless of course that sort of thing happens all the time, and that's what you meant when you said "some will always moan and go after your mods." I guess that's a lot shorter and easier to type. Hmmmmmmm.... :stupid:

Cheers,

Wil

[sophieca]

Heh. Soph's ain't the boss of me! :hehe:

Haven't you been paying attention, Mike? I'm so scary that through sheer force of will (or is that force of wil? ha! I crack myself up!) I can silence people.

Unfortunately, while they may be silent (who'd know?), it sure doesn't seem to stop them from posting cheap shots about how "this entire thing" is just an effort to hide "shaddy things."

The funny thing is, while Sophie's here playing her little games in a thread about better forum moderation, some yahoo at GPF is telling everybody his favorite PTR cheating technique.

Cheers,

Wil


Well, I see that you now end up having no other solution than to mock and post sarcasms, oh well, your choice.

As for GPF, there are other mods available, I am free to post at GPTB whenever I want to and am not bound to be moderating 24 hours a day, am sure that if a member sees some cheating technique promoted it has been reported already, that never last very long as I must say most of the membrs are very concerned about those things and they quickly PM or report and help us remove the bad stuff like that.

Sophie

[sophieca]

I dunno, Soph's. Maybe it's just me, but "Wil if a moderator tries to reply and help a member for months and months, patiently trying to find a solution for each request and the member is never satisfied and goes on and on with the smallest things he can find, at one point the moderators need to move on and spend time doing things that are efficient for everyone and not just for one member who as he said himself does it only for fun and it's time to continue helping people who will use the help given" sounds pretty specific to me.

Unless of course that sort of thing happens all the time, and that's what you meant when you said "some will always moan and go after your mods." I guess that's a lot shorter and easier to type. Hmmmmmmm.... :stupid:

Cheers,

Wil


Well yes, many members when posting a request/concern are happy with the solutions we find together as we work with them to figure it out and find the best way for them and the forum, soemtimes we can't find a solution but we explain them why as well so generally everyone knows the other was trying to look for positive solutions and we all move on .. with some members however, whatever one tries, it'll never be good and unfortunately as we can't plase them 100% they think we don't care and don't listen to members ...

[freecashspace]

Whatever you say, Soph's. I'm sure you're right and that, generally speaking, there's no mod at any forum who actually doesn't care and doesn't listen to members. I'm sure that, generally speaking, any time there's a disagreement between a member and a mod at any forum, the mod is always right.

What was I thinking???

Cheers,

Wil

[sophieca]

Whatever you say, Soph's. I'm sure you're right and that, generally speaking, there's no mod at any forum who actually doesn't care and [/i]doesn't[/i] listen to members. I'm sure that, generally speaking, any time there's a disagreement between a member and a mod at any forum, the mod is always right.

What was I thinking???

Cheers,

Wil

I didn't say that and sarcasms never prooved anything ...

[Josh]

Sophie, as I did say earlier, he would be respected by those who understand what a moderator should be. I never said everyone, and I specifically worded in the way I did so that my point couldn't be twisted around and used against my case as whole. Making all members satisfied is irrelevant, because it's impossible, just as finding a perfect moderator is. You and I both know that, and there's no reason to draw attention away from the real conversation by making everything sound like a lost cause.

Whatever you do Josh, you won't ever make all the members happy and some will always moan and go after your mods unless you give them licence to post without any rules and if you do that, it's not difficult to see what kind of anarchy it becomes.

If someone applies to be a moderator to be popular, he is totally wrong and you are right it needs to be told to potential mods before they become mods. It is very logical that someone whose job is to make sure all works well and rules are followed won't always be welcomed by the members they have to notify of rule breakings ....


That's why having a clarification on the moderator policies here was something I wanted, Wil. A member won't have any recourse against improper moderator actions if he doesn't know which ones are considered improper by the owner. The "power" is already (sadly) considered in the hands of the moderators, and it's great to have a little "checks and balances" once in a while. You know, those things that stop one party from exerting too much power and abusing it?

Moderators should be doing their jobs on a forum, simple as that. As I have said before, they should be serving the members, and of course the needs of the forum owner. They should not be on a power trip.

Even when they consult with other staff members, my feeling is that often there's a certain amount of 'groupthink' at work, as well as the knowlege that, as long as the forum owner doesn't have a problem with it, the staff are pretty much free to do whatever they want. And as is often said, if members don't like it, they can just go find another forum.


Is the moderator the one deciding that the matters are the "smallest things he can find," or who else is making that ruling? I know a lot of things that certain moderators would say are either unimportant or wrong, but I think are highly important and absolutely correct without a doubt. If I were to raise a lot of those issues, and the moderator thought I was just being tough and trying to make his life miserable, would he be right in warning or banning me?

Wil if a moderator tries to reply and help a member for months and months, patiently trying to find a solution for each request and the member is never satisfied and goes on and on with the smallest things he can find, at one point the moderators need to move on and spend time doing things that are efficient for everyone and not just for one member who as he said himself does it only for fun and it's time to continue helping people who will use the help given.

[sophieca]

Hi,

Josh, I don't make everything sound like a lost cause but basically everyone thinks they know what a moderator should be .. and trust me not everyone respect moderators doing a good job.

About going on and on about not important stuff, let me give you a simple example :
Some members asking to correct things said and done in 2003 when the current rules didn't exist yet and wondering why this and this from 3 years ago hasn't been edited. If a moderator then explains that each time a rule is changed, it is not automatically retroactive, that member then says : "OK so you agree it remains publically seeable on the forum even if now it is against the rules, isn't that double standard as it can remain on forum but can't be posted now ?" and then follows an endless discussions about that post of 2003 ...

Practically, yes, current matters and requests for example are more important/urgent than replying back and forth to such comments if they occur really regularly.

ETA : I hadn't seen the last part of your post :
If I were to raise a lot of those issues, and the moderator thought I was just being tough and trying to make his life miserable, would he be right in warning or banning me?
If a moderator feels like that he shouldn't mod that himself, if he feels harassed or thinks rules are broken, he should enter a formal complaint and let other mods handle it.

[mlev]

I personaly don't see why it seems so hard to figure out.

Maybe it wouldn't be as easy at another forum, but this one here, took a role of "policing" the industry or at least a partial one.

Easy question: what makes a program deserve to be on the watch list, or to be banned.

In some case, why wait for 10 complaints.

As I said in earlier post, although some things may be harder to verify, some points are quite easy and apparent.

For example, how many times does a PO needs be caught using/promoting 0-Iframe. Do we need 10 complaints for that.

A PO does a runner, hmmm, should be easy enough to figure out.
The same PO opens another program, what should we do.

Again, why do I bring these points ?
To help bring forward issues a mod may have to deal with.
Once clear rules are spelled out, it easy for everyone to follow.

Then the hard part, the gray areas. There will always be some.

But then again, if some basic decisions appears to require consultation with a higher being, how would one feel at ease modding.

I also have a question. Is this about moderators in any forum, or just GPTB ?

[Josh]

Sophie, for the third time, I never said everyone respects moderators who do their job well. If you fail to discern what I say, please don't proceed to put words in my mouth. That's all I have to say on that matter.

Josh, I don't make everything sound like a lost cause but basically everyone thinks they know what a moderator should be .. and trust me not everyone respect moderators doing a good job.


I understand your point about retroactive rules, however, that doesn't satisfy the concern that I was sharing. My question was, who does the deciding about what are the "smallest things he can find"? As you seem to think that it is wrong for a member to continually bring what you believe to be trivial matters, wouldn't that mean that the importance of their concerns (and thus the decision of whether to warn or ban them for having multiple concerns) lies in the hands of the moderators' opinions of what is "important"?

Moderators should not be deciding which concerns are important and which concerns are worth warning or banning members for. Broken rules should determine that.

About going on and on about not important stuff, let me give you a simple example :
Some members asking to correct things said and done in 2003 when the current rules didn't exist yet and wondering why this and this from 3 years ago hasn't been edited. If a moderator then explains that each time a rule is changed, it is not automatically retroactive, that member then says : "OK so you agree it remains publically seeable on the forum even if now it is against the rules, isn't that double standard as it can remain on forum but can't be posted now ?" and then follows an endless discussions about that post of 2003 ...

Practically, yes, current matters and requests for example are more important/urgent than replying back and forth to such comments if they occur really regularly.

[Josh]

I meant for it to be a chance for Rob to share GPTB's policies, mlev. Of course, thoughts on moderating in general are welcome for the discussion on the topic.

Josh

I also have a question. Is this about moderators in any forum, or just GPTB ?

[Josh]

Thanks for adding that. :)

In the end though, the other moderators would still have to decide whether my concerns were attempts to trivially perturb the other moderator. That's why, in essense, this doesn't solve the problem I posed.

You still need to decide who is declaring that the concerns are unimportant enough, and repeated enough, to warrant administrative action. As I said, I don't see why any concern should merit that, so long as forum rules are not broken, but that's only my opinion. I was hoping for yours on the issue as well.

Josh

ETA : I hadn't seen the last part of your post :
If I were to raise a lot of those issues, and the moderator thought I was just being tough and trying to make his life miserable, would he be right in warning or banning me?
If a moderator feels like that he shouldn't mod that himself, if he feels harassed or thinks rules are broken, he should enter a formal complaint and let other mods handle it.

[sophieca]

Sophie, for the third time, I never said everyone respects moderators who do their job well. If you fail to discern what I say, please don't proceed to put words in my mouth. That's all I have to say on that matter.

I am sorry, I think I simply don't understand what you mean ... maybe you could explain it differently ?




I understand your point about retroactive rules, however, that doesn't satisfy the concern that I was sharing. My question was, who does the deciding about what are the "smallest things he can find"? As you seem to think that it is wrong for a member to continually bring what you believe to be trivial matters, wouldn't that mean that the importance of their concerns (and thus the decision of whether to warn or ban them for having multiple concerns) lies in the hands of the moderators' opinions of what is "important"?

Moderators should not be deciding which concerns are important and which concerns are worth warning or banning members for. Broken rules should determine that.

I did never say that members should be warned/banned because they bring up less important matters ... not too sure where you got that from

[Josh]

As I said that would be my last on the issue, I'll just give you my original message (http://www.gptboycott.com/forum/showthread.php?p=72102#72102). What you wish to read out of it is your prerogative.

"Perfection isn't to be expected, and if a person met every requirement on a good list, he would do well at the job, and would be respected by those who understand what a moderator should be."

I am sorry, I think I simply don't understand what you mean ... maybe you could explain it differently ?


I got it from here (http://www.gptboycott.com/forum/showthread.php?p=72170#72170). This is what you stated:

"Wil if a moderator tries to reply and help a member for months and months, patiently trying to find a solution for each request and the member is never satisfied and goes on and on with the smallest things he can find, at one point the moderators need to move on and spend time doing things that are efficient for everyone and not just for one member who as he said himself does it only for fun and it's time to continue helping people who will use the help given"

Emphasis mine.

If you weren't talking about warning or banning, I apologize. We've been discussing it for a number of posts now, and it appeared that the context had been established as administrative/staff action. I'm not sure why that context is no longer accepted.

As you wish though, if that's not what you were talking about then I'll drop it.

Josh

I did never say that members should be warned/banned because they bring up less important matters ... not too sure where you got that from

[sophieca]

As I said that would be my last on the issue, I'll just give you my original message (http://www.gptboycott.com/forum/showthread.php?p=72102#72102). What you wish to read out of it is your prerogative.

"Perfection isn't to be expected, and if a person met every requirement on a good list, he would do well at the job, and would be respected by those who understand what a moderator should be."




I got it from here (http://www.gptboycott.com/forum/showthread.php?p=72170#72170). This is what you stated:

"Wil if a moderator tries to reply and help a member for months and months, patiently trying to find a solution for each request and the member is never satisfied and goes on and on with the smallest things he can find, at one point the moderators need to move on and spend time doing things that are efficient for everyone and not just for one member who as he said himself does it only for fun and it's time to continue helping people who will use the help given"

Emphasis mine.

If you weren't talking about warning or banning, I apologize. We've been discussing it for a number of posts now, and it appeared that the context had been established as administrative/staff action. I'm not sure why that context is no longer accepted.

As you wish though, if that's not what you were talking about then I'll drop it.

Josh


I still don't udnerstand what the point is you try to make with your message, I don't read anything out of it to be honest ;)

In my post you quoted I didn't say anything about warning/banning, I just said the moderator would move on to other things.

[Josh]

If you still don't understand then that's the way it will have to be, I suppose. :)

My reference to your post was the original message. As I stated the context of our carried on conversation was what established that it was about warning and banning. As I also stated, if that was not your intent then that's fine. I can accept that.

Josh

I still don't udnerstand what the point is you try to make with your message, I don't read anything out of it to be honest ;)

In my post you quoted I didn't say anything about warning/banning, I just said the moderator would move on to other things.

[freecashspace]

It's not a problem with the way you're explaining it, Josh. I get what you're saying. But then again, I'm not here playing silly forum games. :hehe:

I think in many cases, it's the mods themselves that decide which members deserve help and which ones need to be ignored or punished or gotten rid of. And as I said before, as long as the forum owner lets them do it, there's probably not a lot to stop them. Although I suppose if things get bad enough, sooner or later they'll just be modding themselves, because the members will leave and go elsewhere.

Presumably most forum owners want members to be active, so they choose mod staff carefully, train them well, and try to make their forum a place where members want to be active and participate.

I agree that having clear moderator policies is a good idea. As I've said before, I also think more transparency helps.

Other things I've thought of over the years that I'd like to see tried at a forum include things like:

Rules review committees, made up of owner, mods, and members

Public posting of rules violations, mod actions, explanations, etc.

Member feedback during mod staff selection -- not letting the members pick the mods, just letting them voice their opinions about those being considered

I don't know what would work and what wouldn't (and it would probably be different for each forum) but I'd like to see somebody give it a shot and find out.

Cheers,

Wil

[Josh]

Apologize for the late reply, Wil. I've been doing a lot of reading today, but haven't had much time for posting as it's been one of them busy days. :hehe:

Rule review committees sound intriguing. Of course, it wouldn't help if the staff chose the members who were on the committee, because then it would essentially be the staff (admin and mods) and their "chosen ones." How would you propose putting one such committee together, in a GPT forum? Could you explain a little more about how the forum as a whole would benefit from such a committee? What obstacles and hurdles do you imagine would be the greatest, and do you perceive any downfalls from the concept? I have my own thoughts in response to those, but it would be nice to hear yours since you first mentioned the idea here. I'm sure others around would be interested in the topic if they saw it in greater detail. :)

I agree. Giving good ideas a shot and living with the consequences thereof may be "dangerous" but it's definitely a good alternative to allowing a bad situation to stagnate or deteriorate.

I still can't understand either why any forum owner wouldn't want a forum to be a comfortable place for members to get together and discuss, debate or just joke around. Acting against that really wouldn't make sense. What I do think is that in some cases, one member may be loathed by 5, 10 or whatever number. That doesn't mean he's broken any rules, he could even be one of the most helpful around. Well, those 5 or so other members could all go complain to the owner or a staff member (who could relay), and what's the owner going to do? If those other members really didn't like the one, enough that they might threaten to take a break if he wasn't removed, it could become a choice between sacrificing quantity or quality. Beyond that, it would even be between whether to stick with the vocal majority or with the rules.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Josh

[teedy]

Seems to be the time of year for mod-tales. :p (This is not the first one Ive read this week).

A thankless job sometimes but then someone has to do it.

Basically a mod just adding the words "Personal post" does it for me if they want to join a topic. If that particular topic later needs moderating, shout for another mod to do it. Simple and easy

[Josh]

Uh oh, maybe that has something to do with campfires? :laugh:

Unfortunately, it often becomes a thankless job, and it shouldn't be that way. Moderators should do their jobs, well, and members should be respectful of them and appreciative of the job well-done. No, moderators shouldn't bank on waiting for a "thank you" note, as it is their job anyway, but it's always nice to have confirmation that your efforts are appreciated.

Glad to see you contribute.

Josh

[buffy807]

This is just my opinion, but I don't think there should be an application process when it comes to hiring new mods. I run several forums, and I've had people asking me all the time if they could be a mod, and not once have I said yes. A lot of times, people who are asking to be a mod just want the power. I think the best thing to do is ask members who post regularly on the forum, and actually contribute to the discussions if they would like to be a mod. I know this wouldn't be easy, but this is how I do it at my forums.

[Josh]

Hi buffy807,

You have a well thought out opinion, and apparently it comes from experience. I'm glad you posted what you were thinking.

Contributing members who have a track record on the forum, and are known for being composed, sensible and level-headed, would make good candidates.

Thanks for taking the time to share. :)

Josh

[Mallerie]

This is just my opinion, but I don't think there should be an application process when it comes to hiring new mods. I run several forums, and I've had people asking me all the time if they could be a mod, and not once have I said yes. A lot of times, people who are asking to be a mod just want the power. I think the best thing to do is ask members who post regularly on the forum, and actually contribute to the discussions if they would like to be a mod. I know this wouldn't be easy, but this is how I do it at my forums.

this is a great sugestion about chosing mods for a forum and makes a lot of sense.

[surfjunky]

This is just my opinion, but I don't think there should be an application process when it comes to hiring new mods. I run several forums, and I've had people asking me all the time if they could be a mod, and not once have I said yes. A lot of times, people who are asking to be a mod just want the power. I think the best thing to do is ask members who post regularly on the forum, and actually contribute to the discussions if they would like to be a mod. I know this wouldn't be easy, but this is how I do it at my forums.

And might help in situations like this ..........

http://www.getpaidforum.com/forums/is_this_okay_-t446176.html


SJ