Originally posted by pradtfI beg to disagree Prad.
each time we get into a situation where we do a thread on the inadequacy of our mods, it shows disregard for these people who are volunteering their time here and doing what is being made to be a job more difficult than it needs to be.
Showing Inadequacies, shortcomings and inconsistencies does not necessarily lead to disregard.
It can be very constructive and can bring forth positive changes.
Ofcourse, it does depend on how a message is projected:
- Is the critisism constructive or destructive?
- Is the critisism name-calling or generalised?
- Are alternatives offered?
It also depends on how self-assured the receiver of the message is:
- Can the person deal with critisism?
- Is the enviroment around the receiver safe?
- Is the publicness of the message the normal procedure?
I'm not going to judge RC's or your opinion on the matter, because I have a tingling feeling my views on the subject at hand will not be objective, but to state that critisism automatically leads to disregard is wrong.
Originally posted by pradtfNo they don't have to but in this case they have, they created a forum called "Help & Site Ideas" and perhaps that's exactly where this thread should have been posted.
no, of course they aren't dictators.
but proprietors don't have to ask their customers to vote on policy, right?
that is why i said that if russ wanted a discussion on this, then he would have asked.
in friendship,
prad
Surely in a public forum people should be free to post and discuss anything freely so long as it does not break the forum rules? It strikes me that such a thing as possible moderation unfairness - even if it has not happened - is the very thing that *should* have a place on the discussion board.
Though I would imagine that, to have anything come of the discussion, you would end up having to take such an argument to PM.
My question would be whether whoever it was who was banned has himself complained about the ban? If not, it would seem odd to want to reverse the decision, or to claim it unfair on his behalf.
Originally posted by mrmistSometimes you fight a fight for someone. There can be many reasons to do so.
Surely in a public forum people should be free to post and discuss anything freely so long as it does not break the forum rules? It strikes me that such a thing as possible moderation unfairness - even if it has not happened - is the very thing that *should* have a place on the discussion board.
Though I would imagine that, to have anything come of the d ...[text shortened]... If not, it would seem odd to want to reverse the decision, or to claim it unfair on his behalf.
As for the person in question, we wouldn't know if he contested the ban or not now, would we? I believe he situation is that he can't post any more...
Originally posted by royalchickenrc,
The incident in question occurred in a thread in which, so I am told, you were a participant. Empty speculationi on my part would be that you alerted the moderator, but do not want to be taken to task for your somewhat unconventional interpretation of the ToS.
i presume you are talking about belieke's thread on personal attack.
where did you get this idea that i alerted the mods? i didn't.
i only went into the thread to make this sort of isomorphic post because i saw that cribs had criticized a mod for doing something. feivel in turn criticized cribs.
all i did was say that cribs shouldn't do this sort of thing and pointed out that he took great pains in another thread to confirm that he wasn't mod bashing. i also told him that feivel was correct in telling him he shouldn't bash mods.
i rarely push the alert mod button except in cases where i feel it is pretty obvious.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by shavixmirThat is correct; the person's posting rights have been suspended.
Sometimes you fight a fight for someone. There can be many reasons to do so.
As for the person in question, we wouldn't know if he contested the ban or not now, would we? I believe he situation is that he can't post any more...
I apologize to Prad for suggesting that he alerted the moderator.
I also make a motion to have the thread ''What constitutes a personal attack?'' reinstated, closed, so that we all have a better idea of what occurred and can see whther an inconsistent ban occurred (keeping in mind that objectionable PMs should not lead to curtailing of posting rights).
I find this whole discussion rather cryptic. If we're going to discuss an incident why can't someone just say what happened, who was banned, for how long, etc. I can't possibly decide whether the mods were correct if I don't know what happened! Or is the person in question not only banned but the mere mention of his name is banned too (like Stalin in the 60's)?
Originally posted by pradtfFrom the point of view that reads things like GEB, this is an aesthetically pleasing situation--someone banned for allegedly attacking someone over that person's admonitions that they shouldn't attack people in a thread on personal attacks, especially since if what you say is true the catalyst was a metapost about talking about attacking 😉.
rc,
i presume you are talking about the thread on belieke's thread on personal attack.
where did you get this idea that i alerted the mods? i didn't.
i only went into the thread to make this sort of isomorphic post because i saw that cribs had criticized a mod for doing something. feivel in turn criticized cribs.
all i did was say that cribs shouldn ...[text shortened]... the alert mod button except in cases where i feel it is pretty obvious.
in friendship,
prad
Do you understand why posts which blindly defend mods because they are volunteers, and which try to suppress the issue of what is moderable, are for one rarely on topic and for another rarely of any use?
I don't see how this discussion can advance until the thread is reopened.
Originally posted by Exyi agree completely!
No they don't have to but in this case they [b]have, they created a forum called "Help & Site Ideas" and perhaps that's exactly where this thread should have been posted.[/b]
that is the place where such discussions should take place.
in friendship,
prad
As I understood we're not discussing that particular incident but examining what constitutes a ban, as the initial post quotes posts that have not resulted in bans.
If there is going to be a banning policy that will deter the kinds of posts that are objectional the terms of service need to make that explicitly clear. Also, perhaps the ban itself should be announced and the reason stated so that everyone understands why.
I remember reading Cribs' first post about pradf in the thread mentioned and my recollection is that Cribs has accurately stated what it said. I frankly don't see that it deserves banning or that it's even a personal attack; it seems more like a soft needling, a joke. If that's all there was then I would have to agree with Royalchicken that Crib's banning was unjust because I've seen (and probably said) far worse than that!
Originally posted by skeeterMichelle, I agree that the thread should be reinstated, but perhaps we'd best be a bit careful of what we say until the full story is given us. As it stands, we don't know who alerted the mods.
Yes, reistate the thread and everyone will see that Cribs has hardly infractured the TOS, rather a skin thinned cry baby has taken exception, as is his habit and blubbed to the Mods. Lets cut to the chase on this, we all know who the proble ...[text shortened]... s his style. See who gets 'banned then'? Hmmmm.
skeeter
Regards,
Mark
Based on his post, I'd say Cribs did make a personal attack on Prad initially, but that the mods should have exercised a bit more imagination thatn they did about Cribs' intent.
Originally posted by royalchickeni am happy to blindly defend the mods.
Do you understand why posts which blindly defend mods because they are volunteers, and which try to suppress the issue of what is moderable, are for one rarely on topic and for another rarely of any use?
if i am unhappy with what they have done, i will contact them privately and ask very nicely what is going on. if they do not want to give me an answer i will either accept it, or contact russ. if russ doesn't want to give me an answer, then i will either accept it or leave the forums or the site.
if i feel that a discussion should take place, i would probably do it in the help section as exy suggested.
what is moderable doesn't need to be suppressed, unless the mods wish to suppress it, in which case you can go to russ.
in friendship,
prad