Moderational Inconsistency

Originally posted by royalchicken
I explicitly asked for pradtf's side.

well this morning, i would like to know why i have to have a side?
what does my side (as though that has to do with any of this) have to do with this so-called attempt to supposedly improve moderation.

in friendship,
prad

Originally posted by Mephisto2
Sorry for the wording, but this is BS, and you know it. The 'privately' owned site wouldn't exist without customers.

customers don't vote - unless the propriators ask for a survey.
they are free to go elsewhere.

in friendship,
prad

Originally posted by pradtf

partly because of the way they end up getting discussed.

Well, discussion here often turn heated, why is this a reason not to engage in such discussion? At most, this indicates that when discussing particular acts of moderators, we ought criticize politely. I agree with that, as far as it goes.

partly because if they are discussed, they should be done in the help area.

Not necessarily. If the discussion revolves around the justifiability of the criteria moderators employ, then that is equally suitable for the General forum. In fact, since such a discussion would serve to educate people about types of posts the moderators deem "offensive enough", it would serve to benefit the forums generally. This seems more appropriate to the General forum than the Help/Site Ideas forum.

partly because mods shouldn't be the subject of this sort of scrutiny.

If the moderators make stupid mistakes, and are unwilling or unable to recognize and remedy these mistakes, then they certainly should be subject to this type of scrutiny. The moderators are here for the benefit of the forums, and that means they are here for our benefit. While this necessitates that we treat them with courtesy, it doesn't necessitate our keeping criticism private. Sometimes moderators do a crappy job, this is a fact. I remember the first time I had a post removed. I had claimed that between the writing of the Old Testament and the New Testament, God had apparently chilled out (e.g., no more fire and brimstone, pillars of salt, child-eating bears, etc.). Someone didn't like this claim, so a moderator removed my post. As it turns out, the moderator was himself a Christian, and could sympathize with the complaint of the offended party. Now, there are issues here that deserve public discussion: Is it the case that one offended party suffices for justifying the removal of a post? Is it the case that some moderators allow their personal and idiosyncratic views undue influence in their decisions qua moderators? On your view, apparently, I ought not bring up these issues in the general forum. This, to me, seems bizarre.

Originally posted by royalchicken
I explicitly asked for pradtf's side.

Not true at all.Ater 2 pages of post this was posted by you

Michelle, 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.

Now feel free to show anywhere in this thread you asked Pradtf for his side in regards to the banning.

Feivel

Originally posted by Mephisto2
Sorry for the wording, but this is BS, and you know it. The 'privately' owned site wouldn't exist without customers.

This site would exist. Or are you insinuating that your absence would somehow harm RHP? Russ owns the site and therefore it is HIS site to do with as he sees fit. If you don't like it, you have the freedom to leave.

Feivel

Originally posted by Feivel
This site would exist. Or are you insinuating that your absence would somehow harm RHP? Russ owns the site and therefore it is HIS site to do with as he sees fit. If you don't like it, you have the freedom to leave.

Feivel

I wouldn't dare to think of myself as being important enough for that.
Only, I keep thinking that I am not alone in this.

Originally posted by Mephisto2
I wouldn't dare to think of myself as being important enough for that.
Only, I keep thinking that I am not alone in this.

Your not alone but numbers do not change the fact that RHP is privately owned.

Feivel

Originally posted by Feivel
Your not alone but numbers do not change the fact that RHP is privately owned.

Feivel

numbers mean everything to a 'privately owned' company.

Originally posted by Feivel
Your not alone but numbers do not change the fact that RHP is privately owned.

Feivel

I don't think that Mephisto is claiming that Russ et. al. don't have the right to impose their will, whatever that may be, upon RHP. Mephisto is claiming that it would be unfortunate if RHP became less democratic. For those of us who have been here for years, participating in the evolution of the site, donating money even before it was required, etc., RHP is seen as a community where the people (and their opinions) matter. To the extent that RHP becomes less democratic, we feel as though we're losing something special.

Originally posted by bbarr
As it turns out, the moderator was himself a Christian, and could sympathize with the complaint of the offended party. Now, there are issues here that deserve public discussion: Is it the case that one offended party suffices for justifying the removal of a post? Is it the case that some moderators allow their personal and idiosyncratic views undue influenc ...[text shortened]... ently, I ought not bring up these issues in the general forum. This, to me, seems bizarre.

we have partial agreement on the other 2 issues, so let's deal with your 3rd point.

if you felt that your post was unjustifiably removed then you certainly are within your rights to protest. however, you don't have to try to 'raise an army' in the general forum and launch it against the mod in question.

here's what you can do instead:

1) don't say that the mod did a crappy job - this really contributes little and is just a personal opinion and it detracts from the real issue that the process needs to be looked at
2) talk to the mod if it is possible
3) talk to russ if 2) proves unsatisfactory
4) suggest that there be an open discussion on this issue - but get russ' blessing first if you are really serious about making a change

under no circumstances, should a mod be publically criticized on the general forum. rather the issue should go to russ, since the mod is innocent till proven guilty and we really don't want moderating lynchings here.

if we wish to discuss moderation in general, i presume it can be fine to do it in the general forum, but if the wish is to improve the site, then the help forum seems to be far more suitable.

in friendship,
prad

Originally posted by Mephisto2
numbers mean everything to a 'privately owned' company.

You are wrong. Now you tell us that if you owned a company you would break your principles or do something you don't want to for your customers? Do you really think we are all that stipid to belive that?

Feivel

Originally posted by bbarr
For those of us who have been here for years, participating in the evolution of the site, donating money even before it was required, etc., RHP is seen as a community where the people (and their opinions) matter. To the extent that RHP becomes less democratic, we feel as though we're losing something special.

i think that it is great that people have donated money and have helped to 'develop' this site.
if you feel that should give us a bit of a say in the direction the site is headed - that's great too.
but no one has removed that potential, since we can always make suggestions - that's what the help forum was set up for.

RHP doesn't become less democratic and certainly not less special because we aren't allowed to bash mods or because we aren't allowed to post swear words or we aren't allowed to have criticisms of RHP run rampant on the general forum. These really aren't things that should be voted for - the policy is pretty well set by the site owner.

in friendship,
prad

Originally posted by bbarr
I don't think that Mephisto is claiming that Russ et. al. don't have the right to impose their will, whatever that may be, upon RHP. Mephisto is claiming that it would be unfortunate if RHP became less democratic. For those of us who have been here for years, participating in the evolution of the site, donating money even before it was required, etc., RHP ...[text shortened]... the extent that RHP becomes less democratic, we feel as though we're losing something special.

That's not what he is saying. Maybe it is what he means but those aint the words coming from him.

Feivel

Originally posted by Feivel
That's not what he is saying. Maybe it is what he means but those aint the words coming from him.

Feivel

It was exactly what I meant, but so much better worded.

Originally posted by Mephisto2
It was exactly what I meant, but so much better worded.

Well maybe you ought to choose your words more carefully.

Feivel