bdcheung

Moderators should not be allowed to sanction a member for an offense directed at or targeting the moderator (e.g. ModeratorJoe should not be able to warn/ban/whatever UserX because Joe feels UserX was harassing ModeratorJoe). We are all human, and sometimes take things too personally. A policy such as this, that would require a moderator to get a "second opinion" of sorts, would prevent retaliatory sanctions.

Maybe this is an existing policy, but it stems from an "incident" that I had with a moderator earlier.

Sammilove

I guess I'm indirectly asking why a moderator would have had occassion to give you sanctions , because from what I've seen of your posts, you don't seem to be giving anyone too hard a time.

In general, if you don't post photos of nekkid people, and don't start a flamewar, you aren't likely to have to worry about moderators getting miffed about something you say about them.

bdcheung

You won't see the thread because the moderator in question removed it, instead of locking it.

Sammilove

Oh, that makes it hard to figure out. Perhaps some one just didn't like your sense of humor?

KrisPistofferson

This is part of a three-prong strategy, so far as I can tell:

1. Completely erase any evidence.

2. Make the poster out as paranoid.

3. Talk about how tortuous it is to be a mod.

----------------

Seriously, the thread is about to fill up with blue stars making bdcheung out to be a paranoid conspiracy theorist who doesn't appreciate all the selfless work the mods do. It never fails.


Or some idiot will start posting about pastries.

botto 

Sounds familiar.

Sammilove

It sounds as if I should just keep semi-lurking in the background then.

miamijim

Calling out a moderator only leads to further disruptions in the forum. If it were up to me sanctions would be heavy and severe for saying anything that undermines a moderator.....but, its not that way.

I can only think of one reason to call out a moderator on the floor. One. If you dont like something a moderator has done PM them first, PM a different moderator second.

The second moderator will communicate with the first.

bdcheung

I'm not calling anyone out - in fact, I wouldn't dare because I have no evidence of said action. My original post, as of now, exists purely in the hypothetical.

But the point remains - moderators should not have the option of retaliatory sanctioning.

miamijim

I disagree. Think of it as parenting. If your kid mouths off to you, you, as parent, have the right and ability to send your kid to time out, take away his playstation 3, Wii, or make him do extra chores.

Trust me when I tell you moderating is like parenting......

KrisPistofferson

And there you have it, folks. ^^^

bdcheung

Ignoring the implications of your post... good parents know that no decision is made unilaterally.

miamijim

True, but its still the parents making the decisions.

If a child mouths of to mom, mom discusses the penalty with dad.

If a forum member mouths off to a mod the mod discusses the penalty with another mod.


BF members should fell fortunate, on another IB forum I'm a member of there's a zero tolerance policy for disrespecting mods. In fact, there's a zero tolerance policy for opening a mod related thread.

On that forum all mod related questions go directly to a mod....they are prohibited on 'the floor'. On that forum this thread would have been locked before it started.

bdcheung

I find it disrespectful that you would suppose to know or dictate how the members should feel. Furthermore, we aren't members of - nor are we discussing - "another IB forum". If my desire for more moderator transparency/accountability and better communication between mods and members is singular; if nobody else feels like this is an issue, and if everyone else disagrees with me, then I'll shut my mouth. But I want to hear the thoughts of others before I hold my tongue...errr...fingers.

KrisPistofferson

Eat your spinach, bdcheung.

miamijim

I was a member of this forum for 5 years before I became a mod so I certainly see things through others eyes. I'm sure haven't noticed but this thread is still open and no one has been been 'warned' or 'moderated' in regards to it.

Your voice is being heard......there's to sides to every arguement, your hearing the 'other side'

No, your desire isnt singular but I dont understand the desire for transparency and accountabilty

If a child is allowed to put his hand in a cookie jar when he's not supposed to without punishment he may end up robbing banks when hes older. Its one of those 'gateway' things.

Mouthing off or being disrespectfull to other members is against forum policy (its in the user agreement you agreed to when you became a member or log in) so what makes you think it should be ok to mouth off or be disrespectfull to a mod?

Its all about maintaining a pleasant experience for the members. Nothing more, nothing less.

KrisPistofferson

As far as I can tell bdcheung is asking honest questions, not being disrespectful or name calling, and you can't handle it so you keep using the parent/child analogy, so I tend to wonder if you're simply trolling for a negative reaction so you can come down hard on him. Also, no one who's on top of the totem pole ever "understand the desire for transparency and accountability," but it exists nonetheless so people don't abuse their power. Will bdcheung become a bank robber if you don't put him in his place?

bdcheung

I'll start from the end and move upward.

In my hypothetical, UserX did not make any disrespectful posts. However, resultant of the thread's disappearance it is impossible for UserX to defend himself or appeal the decision of ModeratorJoe (not to mention that the Forum Guidelines state, clearly, that "Any decision taken by the administrators and moderators is final and must be respected"). This presents two problems: retaliatory sanctioning by ModeratorJoe without any opportunity of appeal for, or any evidence upon which to base the defense of, UserX. Secondly, that the forum guidelines dictate the finality of moderator decisions, and the demand for respect not only implied but expressed in that rule, present enormous burdens to users and leave them defenseless against any moderator who may be acting irrationally or unfairly. (Personal sidebar: telling users they must respect the decision is redundant if the decisions are worthy of respect. But as I have been contending, sometimes those decisions warrant not respect but review)

Finally, a recent criminological study found that 98% of bank robbers fed on breastmilk as a child. The study therefore concluded that breastmilk is a "gateway" substance for a life of crime.

miamijim

I can handle it and I'm doing what I can do to put things into a moderators perspective.

He hasnt done anything wrong so I have no reason to come down on him....better yet, I have no desire to come down on him. I have nothing against a mature, well mannered, polite debate.

True about abuse of power but there must be a certain amount of unexplained power....I use the parent/child analogy because it best fits.




Users agreed to the forums policys. /case With very few exceptions a moderator shouldnt have to explain his or her actions. If a mods does something that he or she feels is in the best interest of the forum then so be it.

There are occasions when uncalled for retaliation by a mod against a member could occur. In those situations, I'll agree with your 2 points. How can a member who was 'targeted' defend himself if the thread was deleted versus locked? They cant and it would look suspicious to me as well. All I can say in that instance is to report your concerns to a different mod and move on.

Mods have alot of options in regards to actions against threads. I have, accidently, performed the wrong action so its possible another mod may have done the same thing.

I'm off to work....dont want you guys to think I'm bailing out.


If members abided by forum policy there'd be no need for moderation.


Jim

bdcheung

I strongly disagree with your analogy. Forum moderators are not the parents and members are not children. The relationships between the two pairs are infinitely different. Moderators do not love members with the unconditional affection of a parent. Moderators do not share genetic or hormonal ties with members. Moderators are the enforcers of rules, and members are those who agree to abide by them. You are hall monitors, police officers, prison guards, but not parents.

There's a lot of room for subjective interpretation in that sentence, both with regards to whether a member is abiding by policies and what level of moderation is appropriate.

Which is the problem with rules and those who enforce them: interpretation. But a lot of these inherent problems resolve themselves through process of appeal, which is not available to BF members. Which, to bring this all around to my original post, is the problem. Lack of transparency. Lack of accountability. And now, I can add lack of outlet for appeal (according to the Forum Guidelines).

miamijim

You know exactly where I'm coming from on the parent/child analogy......and to edit a quote of yuors.. 'parents are the enforcers of the rules, and children are are those who agree to abide by them.

Very simply, if member isnt sure if his or her actions is appropriate he or she should ask a moderator first. If a member is sitting at keyboard comtemplating an action that action shouldnt be taken. Plain and simple.

Trust me, there's accountabilty on the moderators. Accountabilty is handled behing closed doors and its during those accountability 'sessions' that interpretation of the rules is clarified. If you think us moderators get run free I've got news for you.....we're moderated just as members are.

You said, "members are those who agree to abide by them" The rules state mods have the last, only and final word.

Let me ask you a question. What exactly is it that you'd like to do or say on this forum that your not allowed to now?

Sixty Fiver

You should send "Joe" a PM and ask why certain actions were taken or start a dialogue with one of the admins if you need some clarification on why a post was moved.

You should know that in most cases, actions taken by moderators are not done unilaterally and there is often much discussion done before a course of action is decided upon.

Sixty Fiver

Targetting any member is a breach of the forum guidelines... just because one is a moderator does not mean that members can hurl abuse at them without consequence.

In a case such as this the moderator would have another moderator review the post so that neutrality can be observed but that does not preclude that moderator from taken further action.

You seem to be confusing "retalitory" action to that of the moderators performing the duties to which they have been charged.

If you have any further questions, send me a PM.

bdcheung

I honestly don't, but accept our difference of interpretation. The analogy really isn't the key issue here so I'm letting that particular disagreement disappear.


I don't disagree. But in my hypothetical, UserX never questioned his actions because, per his assessment of the situation, no wrongdoing was occurring.



I understand the need for private discussions in which the actions of moderators are questioned. A fallacy of leadership is admonishing those entrusted to enforce rules in front of those charged with following them. I'm not asking for full disclosure on every detail; however, I do ask that revelations such as this - that someone "watches the watchers" - are important and should be disclosed to the membership.

I'd like the freedom to question the moderators and get answers where appropriate. Can I do that now? Sure, but the threat of sanction exists which isn't really "freedom", it's "permission".

Have access to a clearly stated progression of sanctions (e.g. "Threads get locked when they cross this threshold. Threads get deleted when they cross that threshold").

bdcheung

Nobody is refuting that.



An indication of such dialogue in a thread of questionable relevance would go a long way towards allaying the curiosities of members.



No need - we're having a very productive conversation here that multiple participate in.