View Full Version : Don't feed the animals...
Greg J
12-18-2005, 06:20 PM
Mods should not openly question other mods in other forums. If there is a disagreement on a decision a mod has made (like locking a thread or editing a post) it should be made here. I think most of us should agree on this.
bobbyi
12-18-2005, 11:15 PM
I agree with this.
Jim Kuhn
12-18-2005, 11:17 PM
I think the first step should be via a pm to the other mod. If there is still a disagreement it should be posted in this mod forum. Mod's should never call out other mod's in the public forums. I think Mat and Mike would agree with this approach.
Thank you,
Jim Kuhn
Catfish4u
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif
AngryCola
12-18-2005, 11:43 PM
This is something I've always agreed with. I must admit that I have done this in one case, but that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. Still, I do feel it is important to make the distinction between 'calling out' mods for actual decisions (or policies) and disagreeing about regular topics.
I'm honestly not sure about this being made some sort of rule, though. Mods should be able to act at least somewhat respectful to one another without any rule telling us to do so.
Mat Sklansky
12-19-2005, 12:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Mods should not openly question other mods in other forums. If there is a disagreement on a decision a mod has made (like locking a thread or editing a post) it should be made here. I think most of us should agree on this.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have said this before. Let's make it a rule if that's what it takes. I assume there is a recent example? Please link me.
FeliciaLee
12-19-2005, 01:03 PM
I think we're all agreed on this, but I'll add my agreement to the list, anyway.
And yes, I think this should be a "rule," not just implied.
GrunchCan
12-19-2005, 01:12 PM
Just to clarify, you're talking about disagreements regarding the buisness of moderation, right? You're not talking about poker strategy disagreements? I certianly hope not, since I think strategy threads in which mods disagree could become excellent threads, simply becasue the green names generate traffic.
I agree that disagreements regarding moderation should be kept behind closed doors, and that should be an expressed rule.
MrWookie47
12-19-2005, 01:42 PM
Yeah, you got the right idea, Grunch, and I'm in the same camp. I fight with Greg all the time about poker in the forums, but anything mod related is PM, AIM, or here.
Greg J
12-19-2005, 03:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Just to clarify, you're talking about disagreements regarding the buisness of moderation, right?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. Strategic dissagreements are fair game of course.
I never understood this. Why can't we disagree in public? What are the downsides? Do you really think there will be civil unrest or some bs if someone locks a thread and I say it was stupid?
Lloyd
12-19-2005, 05:34 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think there will be civil unrest or some bs if someone locks a thread and I say it was stupid?
[/ QUOTE ]
Most definitely.
GrunchCan
12-19-2005, 06:29 PM
[ QUOTE ]
... if someone locks a thread and I say it was stupid?
[/ QUOTE ]
At the very least, there's no advantage to saying it was stupid in a public forum. More likely, posters would lose respect for one of you, and that's never a good thing.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... if someone locks a thread and I say it was stupid?
[/ QUOTE ]
At the very least, there's no advantage to saying it was stupid in a public forum. More likely, posters would lose respect for one of you, and that's never a good thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. If I saw that happen as a non-mod I wouldn't lose respect for either mod. I'll go along with the rule because I don't really get any benefit out of refusing and it seems to make most of you happy, but I don't understand why you guys think it's so important.
Lloyd
12-19-2005, 07:41 PM
Very simply, as soon as a thread is moderated and another Mod chimes in that he thinks the decision was stupid, the original poster will start attacking the Mod who edited/locked/deleted the thread citing that even the other moderators agree with him (yes, moderators as in plural because that's how it will be projected until other moderators disagree and then we're all over the place).
Mat Sklansky
12-19-2005, 07:48 PM
Moderation on this site from the beginning has been criticised. People wanted more and less and different. Now that there are 40+ user mods, I don't want detractors of the site to be able to link to threads in an effort to illustrate how [censored] up they think moderation is.
That's the downside for me and the company. Even if you think this is not an actual potential problem, unless you can provide some real benefits to moderators attacking one another's ability to moderate in the other forums, the rule stays in effect.
[ QUOTE ]
Even if you think this is not an actual potential problem, unless you can provide some real benefits to moderators attacking one another's ability to moderate in the other forums, the rule stays in effect.
[/ QUOTE ]
From my post:
"I'll go along with the rule because I don't really get any benefit out of refusing."
[ QUOTE ]
Very simply, as soon as a thread is moderated and another Mod chimes in that he thinks the decision was stupid, the original poster will start attacking the Mod who edited/locked/deleted the thread citing that even the other moderators agree with him (yes, moderators as in plural because that's how it will be projected until other moderators disagree and then we're all over the place).
[/ QUOTE ]
Right, I just don't see why that's a big deal.
[censored]
12-20-2005, 01:12 AM
I don't think Mods should post something like "I think this was stupid and X mod sucks"
But I do think it should be OK when there is a thread discussing a mod action or issue for Mods to disagree if that's how they feel. I think this is beneficial to the forum as they are able to see and understand the moderating process and it helps the mods because they are able to get feedback from the non mod members. It's a important dynamic in my opinion.
as for those who will use the above to attack the entire moderating structure. responding to the PM's with go [censored] yourself has worked well for me. j/k....sort of
AngryCola
12-20-2005, 01:23 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I have said this before. Let's make it a rule if that's what it takes.
[/ QUOTE ]
I read this to mean that it is now a rule. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
*EDIT*
Mat:
[ QUOTE ]
Even if you think this is not an actual potential problem, unless you can provide some real benefits to moderators attacking one another's ability to moderate in the other forums, the rule stays in effect.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oops. I had forgotten about the last part of this post. Clearly it is now a rule.
Greg J
12-20-2005, 01:44 PM
Sometimes people (mods) make borderline decisions that are really difficult and close. When the rabble speak out against such a decision, well that is to be expected to some extent. But when a mod speaks out against another mod in his/her forum, that can undermine credibility.
I will say I do understand yr position. We are, after all posters as well. Why should we not be able to express our opinions as posters? It's actually a vaild point. My counterargument is that we do unfortunately have to give up some (but not all, or even most) of our "personal liberties" as posters when we turn green. We are, to some extent, "the man," and should behave as such.
To be clear I was not refering to you Evan. (I'm pretty sure you 1) know this and 2) it doesn't matter to what you feel is a matter of principle, but I thought I would point it out anyhow.)
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.