Originally posted by Mephisto2No it wouldn't but if this were a Dutch language forum and I wanted to post you can rest assured that I would make very sure I choose the proper words and take into consideration the idiosyncracies of the language. If this truly was a language problem then I apologize but if you really have trouble wording something so simple either you should learn english better before you post and cause problems inadvertantly or refrain from posting in english.
hey, I am doing my very best you know. I could be extremely precise in dutch, but would that help you?
Feivel
Originally posted by FeivelWOW. You will be very popular accross the world of RHP with this attitude.
No it wouldn't but if this were a Dutch language forum and I wanted to post you can rest assured that I would make very sure I choose the proper words and take into consideration the idiosyncracies of the language. If this truly was a language problem then I apologize but if you really have trouble wording something so simple either you should learn english ...[text shortened]... r before you post and cause problems inadvertantly or refrain from posting in english.
Feivel
Originally posted by pradtfif 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.
Well, protesting poor moderation in the General forum does not, of itself, constitute "raising an army". So, although I agree that one ought not set out to lynch a moderator (I thought this would be entailed by my point above that we ought to criticize politely), I don't see the relevance to the point I was making.
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
I agree that one ought to try and handle things with the moderator before taking the debate to the forums. I disagree, however, that disagreements over the justifiability of some act of moderation ought go to Russ before they they go to the forums. The forums are here for us and substantially regulated by us. It is our standards that should be employed when determining sufficient grounds for the removal of a post, suspension of posting priveleges, etc. Why isn't it a better idea to publically discuss the grounds upon which moderators take themselves to have license to act, and try to reach consensus (or some approximation thereof) about what we think are actually sufficient grounds for moderators to act? That way forum regulationwill track our preferences.
under no circumstances, should a mod be publically criticized on the general forum.
Why, Prad? You seem to think that criticism is incompatible with respect. I respect the moderators, and I appreciate their work. Sometimes, however, they do a poor job. Sometimes, they remove posts without sufficient grounds. If a situation cannot be handled privately, then why not criticize a moderator publically? After all, if the people here at RHP agree with the criticisms, then that seems good (albeit prima facie) reason to think that the moderator was in error.
Originally posted by pradtfI'm sorry, did either Mephisto or I suggest that bashing mods or swearing were democratic rights? No, we didn't. Thus, it is a bit obscure why you would include such issues in your reply to my post (unless, of course, you simply equate criticizing mods with bashing mods. That would be dense, however, so I refuse to attribute that view to you). We were claiming that issues like the moderating of posts be decided in a democratic manner. I'm sure that neither of us think that decisions concerning moderation ought be completely democratic, after all, there are some things that can not be allowed for legal reasons regardless of what anybody on the site thinks. But outside of reasonable constraints like that, policy about forum regulation certainly should result from a democratic procedure. The forums are here for the benefit of the community (i.e., us), and hence ought to be regulated by principles that, ceteris paribus, we agree with.
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.
Originally posted by bbarr
The forums are here for us and substantially regulated by us. It is our standards that should be employed when determining sufficient grounds for the removal of a post, suspension of posting priveleges, etc.
that just isn't even close to being correct - besides, it is an impossibility. in this diverse community, there are diverse standards. therefore, we don't regulate the forums with these diverse standards - we are regulated by the moderators (and by russ through them). we chose to abide by the TOS and presumably by the mods as well.
if we did not do it this way, then everyone would be a mod - which in a way i suppose we are. we should be moderators of ourselves.
Why isn't it a better idea to publically discuss the grounds upon which moderators take themselves to have license to act, and try to reach consensus
because the mods aren't responsible to us - they are responsible to russ.
however, if the exercise is to reach consensus on some moderation parameters in an attempt to 'improve the site', then i personally see nothing wrong in doing it in the forum that russ has provided for this sort of thing.
You seem to think that criticism is incompatible with respect. I respect the moderators, and I appreciate their work.
i am sure you do, just as you are generally respectful of other posters. however, criticism of a particular moderator as to the job he is doing is not something that should be done publically. it doesn't contribute to those feelings of respect and appreciation.
for instance, you are a grad student. so say you are unhappy with the approach of your supervisor. you have a few choices. you can publically rail at him being respectfully critical or you can speak to the individual privately and try to achieve some sort of understanding. it is probably wiser to take the latter approach.
the mods are not obligated to explain their actions to you or me and i am actually glad to see they are not engaging in this debate because they feel they have to justify their actions to the RHP community. they only have to justify their actions to russ. the rest of the time, they should be allowed to enjoy the site just as we are entitled to.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by bbarrOriginally posted by bbarr
I'm sorry, did either Mephisto or I suggest that bashing mods or swearing were democratic rights? No, we didn't. Thus, it is a bit obscure why you would include such issues in your reply to my post (unless, of course, you simply equate cr ...[text shortened]... o be regulated by principles that, ceteris paribus, we agree with.
I'm sorry, did either Mephisto or I suggest that bashing mods or swearing were democratic rights? No, we didn't.
never said you did.
That would be dense, however, so I refuse to attribute that view to you
no no please do. i am honored to be a man of substance.
criticizing mods (publically) = bashing mods (imho, of course)
I'm sure that neither of us think that decisions concerning moderation ought be completely democratic
i'm sure we are in agreement on this.
The forums are here for the benefit of the community (i.e., us), and hence ought to be regulated by principles that, ceteris paribus, we agree with.
and that is precisely the system that we have in place, because if we are in disagreement with the principles, we are free to leave.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtf"and that is precisely the system that we have in place, because if we are in disagreement with the principles, we are free to leave. "
[b]
Can you imagine a country where the leaders would say this to their (tax paying) people?
Originally posted by Mephisto2mephisto2,
Can you imagine a country where the leaders would say this to their (tax paying) people?
what exactly is the problem you are having with this? RHP decisions are not made democratically unless russ wants some of them to be. there isn't anything particularly dictatorial or unfair about this.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfthat just isn't even close to being correct
Why, Prad?
- besides, it is an impossibility. in this diverse community, there are diverse standards. therefore, we don't regulate the forums with these diverse standards - we are regulated by the moderators (and by russ through them). we chose to abide by the TOS and presumably by the mods as well.
You infer from the fact that we, as individuals, have different standards that we cannot agree on some set of standards by which to regulate the forums. I see no reason to think this inference of yours is correct. Indeed we are subject to the regulation of moderators. The problem is that we haven't agreed upon grounds sufficient to license the intervention of the moderators.
if we did not do it this way, then everyone would be a mod - which in a way i suppose we are. we should be moderators of ourselves.
Hardly. I'm talking about us as a community determining the conditions under which we would allow a moderator to take action, not about granting everbody the power of moderators.
because the mods aren't responsible to us - they are responsible to russ.
Yes, this is how it is in fact. I'm talking about how it ought to be. It ought to be the case that the moderators abide by our decisions concerning what constitutes sufficient ground for moderator intervention. This way, the moderators have clearly defined responsibilities, we have moderators whose behavior reflects our interests, and Russ gets left alone long enough to abolish the current clan point system (thank God).
however, if the exercise is to reach consensus on some moderation parameters in an attempt to 'improve the site', then i personally see nothing wrong in doing it in the forum that russ has provided for this sort of thing.
Fine, but if a moderator fails to abide by our current implicit parameters (i.e., one person offended by a post which isn't a personal attack is not sufficient grounds for post removal), and if PMing that moderator doesn't work, then I personally see nothing wrong with bringing the situation to the attention of the public, in the General forum, so as to determine what the community thinks is fair. Of course, such a discussion should be polite.
i am sure you do, just as you are generally respectful of other posters. however, criticism of a particular moderator as to the job he is doing is not something that should be done publically. it doesn't contribute to those feelings of respect and appreciation.
I'm sorry, I don't see why it is necessary to constantly contribute to feelings of respect and appreciation. If a moderator does a poor job, I'm not going to be appreciative. If a moderator consistently does a poor job, I'm not going to feel much respect for him or her qua moderator. There is a difference between criticizing someone's performance and attacking that person. The former is justified if polite, even when done publically. It is not my responsibility, nor am I inclined, to protect, at any cost, the egos of moderators.
for instance, you are a grad student. so say you are unhappy with the approach of your supervisor. you have a few choices. you can publically rail at him being respectfully critical or you can speak to the individual privately and try to achieve some sort of understanding. it is probably wiser to take the latter approach.
True, but irrelevant. I already claimed that one should initially try to resolve the dispute directly with the moderator.
the mods are not obligated to explain there actions to you or me
Perhaps that's not a good thing, Prad. Of course you don't want to force moderators to explain every decision they make. But moderators do have an obligation to us to be fair and act only when the circumstances warrant it. In other words, the decisions of moderators ought to be explainable to us. Their explanations ought to derive their force from agreements the community reaches as to sufficient grounds for moderator intervention.
and i am actually glad to see they are not engaging in this debate because they feel they have to justify their actions to the RHP community. they only have to justify their actions to russ. they rest of the time, they should be allowed to enjoy the site just as we are entitled to.
If they want to enjoy the site like the rest of us, they should give up their positions as moderators. If they are actively moderating posts, then they should have to answer to Russ, of course, but they also should also have to answer to us, in the manner I specified above.
That's pretty much all I've got to say about this issue. Nice talking to you, Prad. Keep well.
Bennett
Originally posted by pradtfyes, that is what you said before.
mephisto2,
what exactly is the problem you are having with this? RHP decisions are not made democratically unless russ wants some of them to be. there isn't anything particularly dictatorial or unfair about this.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfno no please do. i am honored to be a man of substance.
criticizing mods (publically) = bashing mods (imho, of course)
Hmmm. Of which substance are you composed, because that equation strikes me as bull...? Come now, there is an obvious difference between public criticism and bashing. Apply the terms, hypothetically, to other forms of political discourse. If I, in a public forum, criticize the foreign policy of GW Bush, am I thereby bashing Bush? Of course not, because bashing someone involves, minimally, unjustly criticizing them. Hence, your equation above entails that all public criticism of moderators is unjust. Hence, your equation entails that if a moderator removes a post purely for fun, or because they didn't personally like the poster, that it would still be unjust for us to publically criticize that moderator. But this is false, and any claim that entails a falsehood is itself false, hence your equation above is false, if we take 'bashing' to mean what it normally means.
and that is precisely the system that we have in place, because if we are in disagreement with the principles, we are free to leave.
Very good, you must be reading Orwell.
"We rule by consensus, because we shoot those that disagree"
🙄
Originally posted by bbarr
Why, Prad?
because we don't regulate anything - only the mods and russ do.
not about granting everbody the power of moderators.
sorry i didn't express this properly. we are all moderators of our own selves - that's what the meaning was.
It ought to be the case that the moderators abide by our decisions concerning what constitutes sufficient ground for moderator intervention.
no i do not think that is a good idea and i doubt if it is manageable anyway.
i am happy to abide by russ' TOS and its application by his mods.
I personally see nothing wrong with bringing the situation to the attention of the public, in the General forum, so as to determine what the community thinks is fair.
i don't think it should be done because it is like putting the mod on trial.
besides, it really doesn't matter what the community thinks because of the diversity in thought (as we see here) and the fact that the decision is russ' anyway.
The former is justified if polite, even when done publically. It is not my responsibility, nor am I inclined, to protect, at any cost, the egos of moderators.
i do not find it ever justifiable to publically criticize a mods decision even politely - evaluations of this nature should be done by russ and in private. I feel it is my responsibility to protect the working environment and dignity of the mods, just as they protect the working environment and dignity of all of us.
Perhaps that's not a good thing
i think it is a good thing for the same reason we have laws in society instead of public consensus to determine punishment for crimes.
If they want to enjoy the site like the rest of us, they should give up their positions as moderators.
what a curious thing to say. should russ hire paid moderators then?
these guys do a great job, bennett. it can't be too much to ask that we don't add to their burden through public examinations, especially when there are other avenues available.
If they are actively moderating posts, then they should have to answer to Russ, of course, but they also should also have to answer to us, in the manner I specified above.
no. they are soley responsible to russ, not to us. if there is a complaint, it should proceed through appropriate channels.
That's pretty much all I've got to say about this issue. Nice talking to you, Prad. Keep well.
you too bennett! i enjoyed the discussion as well - as i always have with you.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by bbarrit isn't false - it is just my opinion.
Hence, your equation entails that if a moderator removes a post purely for fun, or because they didn't personally like the poster, that it would still be unjust for us to publically criticize that moderator. But this is false, and any claim that entails a falsehood is itself false, hence your equation above is false, if we take 'bashing' to mean what it no ...[text shortened]... must be reading Orwell.
"We rule by consensus, because we shoot those that disagree"
🙄
i consider bashing to be criticizing in public. that may not be how the dictionary defines it, but that is precisely what i mean by mod bashing. if that wasn't clear before, i have made it so.
as far as orwell, perhaps a little shooting is in order. i'm not terribly fond of witch hunts particularly of the kind against mods i have seen in the past and i will do what i can to stop these.
in friendship,
prad