Jokerswild Is Already Back Posting...

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

I quickly realized that threads about moderation cause far more problems than they solve.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you were way ahead of me on that one for sure, Dynasty.

I had thought that a fair and lenient/tolerant approach would likely result in appreciation by most of the posters and that that would enable me to perform my duties more effectively.

Well, I was sure wrong on that, it seems. While most did express support of my moderation, the vocal minority who just don't happen to like me (for my political views, apparently) took advantage of my lenience to launch attack after attack upon me and to make my duties as difficult as possible in other ways as well.

I just now deleted a relatively new thread about moderation, and I'm seriously thinking of going back and deleting ALL of the former threads dealing with moderation, just so they can't be resurrected.

[Mike Haven]

[ QUOTE ]
just now deleted a relatively new thread about moderation, and I'm seriously thinking of going back and deleting ALL of the former threads dealing with moderation, just so they can't be resurrected.


[/ QUOTE ]

i cannot believe censorship such as that can do any good whatsoever - for any party involved

imo mods should ensure that the various forums' threads are "on topic"; that they don't include libellous comments; that they aren't full of swearwords; that personal insults aren't allowed; and that they aren't spam or adverts

the threads that are "borderline" (in our individual opinions) either dissolve naturally into nothing, or become "hot" - which latter result indicates that they are of interest for one reason or another to the readers of the particular forum

if readers are not "notifying mod", then i believe that we should always be most hesitant in stepping in and deciding what should or should not be read

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

just now deleted a relatively new thread about moderation, and I'm seriously thinking of going back and deleting ALL of the former threads dealing with moderation, just so they can't be resurrected.


[/ QUOTE ]



i cannot believe censorship such as that can do any good whatsoever - for any party involved

imo mods should ensure that the various forums' threads are "on topic"; that they don't include libellous comments; that they aren't full of swearwords; that personal insults aren't allowed; and that they aren't spam or adverts

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I thought too, but the last few weeks have been chock-full of threads and posts by a small hard-core group of "anti-MMMMMM'ers" and "anti-moderation" posters. I dealt with it rationally and leniently and ebteredd into many discussionms about it, and the better long-term posters sucxh as Andy Focx took my side. However the small hard-core "anti" group never relented in their attacks and it is a big time-consuming burden to this day.

[ QUOTE ]
the threads that are "borderline" (in our individual opinions) either dissolve naturally into nothing, or become "hot" - which latter result indicates that they are of interest for one reason or another to the readers of the particular forum

if readers are not "notifying mod", then i believe that we should always be most hesitant in stepping in and deciding what should or should not be read

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, and that's the way I was dealing with everything. But, what would you do if for weeks a group (of mostly new posters) continued to attack you and attack moderation and generally clogged up the forums with this tripe, beyond an initially reasonable period for discussion? That's what has happened and it's not an acceptable thing to have continue.

For one thing, I just really don't have the time to defend my moderation every time I turn around. On your forum I expect the attacks upon you are less, but on the Politics Forum I have been called everything from a Grand Dragon of the KKK to someone who advocates violence against Americans to you-name-it--and all by posters who vehemently disagree with my political views. The name-calling isn't the biggest issue though; it's the constant renewal of attacks on my moderation (which up to this time has been very lenient). I don't have time to defend it repeatedly, and I can't imagine it's good for the forum, and I don't see any solution other than what Dynasty suggested.

The people attacking are not swayed by reason or by observing reasonable moderating. They just want me out of there because they hate my views and they are apparently bound and determined to make my duties as a moderator as difficult as possible. A couple do have legitimate concerns about moderation as a concept in itself, but the rest of it is basically veiled attacks against my moderation for partisan reasons and to make things difficult. Their actions and words far drown out the much greater majority who think I have done a good job, and continuing to respond to them is costing me too much time. If I were getting paid for this it might be different but I really can't just devote unlimited time to defending my stances and actions as moderator.

So, I really don't know what else to do other than take Dynasty's suggestion...

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm seriously thinking of going back and deleting ALL of the former threads dealing with moderation, just so they can't be resurrected.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're worried about old moderation threads being brought back to life, there's no need to remove them entirely. In most cases, a lock will work just fine.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anonymous moderation was tried in OOT. It failed badly.

I see no reason why mods should have to hide behind a different name. Again, if you're not willing to take the necessary actions, you shouldn't be a mod.

[Mike Haven]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're worried about old moderation threads being brought back to life, there's no need to remove them entirely. In most cases, a lock will work just fine.

AngryCola


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with AngryCola on this.

A lock, as against a deletion, also allows others to see the type of posts a certain poster makes. If these are constantly unreasonable, then readers will take no heed of them, in any case. If they have all been deleted, no one will have the opportunity to check back - as many readers like to do.

No one likes to be criticised for no valid reason, and I understand your feelings; but you should remember that you are respected by the majority and that the majority think of these troublemakers more as trolls than valued posters.

Less reaction by you, as hard as it may be at the moment, will definitely lead to less comment about you. That is without doubt the First Law of a troll.

[Mat Sklansky]

yes. old threads should be locked, if necessary, not deleted. I think that all the threads about moderation in the past were actually quite useful.

I also think that the general moderation issues have been cleared up and that real issues can be worked out via pm.

During the time that there were lots of threads about moderation, I was receiving pms regularly. It's not happening anymore. Which means you guys are all doing a terrific job. Thank you.

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anonymous moderation was tried in OOT. It failed badly.

[/ QUOTE ]

What were the problems?


[ QUOTE ]
I see no reason why mods should have to hide behind a different name. Again, if you're not willing to take the necessary actions, you shouldn't be a mod.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not about what I am willing to do; it is a matter of public perception. A moderator shouldn't have to ask another moderator to take action against someone who is attacking him. The anonymous moderator can be used to avoid the appearance of impropriety that could result from the moderator taking action himself. The action then comes from the group of moderators instead of from an individual. It really should be irrelevant to the user which moderator took the action against him, since if he is in violation, it could just as well have come from any moderator.

When I moderated on bj21.com, all moderation was anonymous, and there were no problems that I was aware of. I'm not saying that it should be commonly used, but it should definitely be an available option.

[Lloyd]

Don't you think that if someone has a problem with a moderator and get banned by an "anonymous" moderator it will just be assumed it was the original mod?

[BruceZ]

Moderators are to move or delete inappropriate posts, and posts about forum moderation are not appropriate for the politics forum. Perhaps we should make a forum just for people to beef about moderation, and no such posts will be allowed anywhere else.