We want Forum Feedback!

[olympe]

Since we may not single out mods in public (see Tikindidragon's post above), and since I wanted this matter of censorship to get into the focus of the regular forum members, it did not seem like a good idea to take this to PM. The matter of censorship really gets to me, and I think that there is only one way to fight that: By making it public. *shrug* (Apart from that, it's been more than one mod for me. I'd show you my warn history, some of the warns are just plain ridiculous, but it'd only serve to get it deleted and warn added because it's publicly criticizing a mod (or several). Been there, done that, got the T-warn.)

 

If everything would have gone the way it was supposed to be (according to the mods: Take it to PM, do not say anything in public), nobody but Cinn would ever have known about this issue. And censorship is one big issue that makes the forum a rather uncomfortable place at times.

 

Also, I was not talking about my signature alone, but many other things that strike me as wrong. Like the recent closing&cleaning of the Tiny Little Questions thread, the constant warning that seems to go on (not just me, mind you!), the attitude that warns have to be kept secret which come off as "don't publicly criticize the mods" - do I need to go on? I know that several posts that were not rude, inciting or flaming at all were removed to keep the TLQ thread "clean", because one of them was one of mine. And there were others as well. Calling that censorship is calling it by its proper name and has nothing to do with one member being unhappy with the site or the forum.

 

On another note, I find it highly interesting that a member is supposed to talk to the mod in question, but that the mods are not supposed to act reasonable in the first place.

[~!~]

Why do I get my signature removed if it quotes someone who claims to get censored? Censorship is happening on these boards, but I guess it shouldn't look like it. Nice going.

I would presume that was more for repeating content that was in a post the mods saw fit to delete. I don't exactly know what the content was... but I wouldn't assume it has to do with censoring. Requiring mod approval of posts is a common punishment on forums, so it's not really worth hiding it on the part of the staff, imho.

 

EDIT: Whoo, this topic is really moving... or maybe I just can't read.

 

EDIT again:

the attitude that warns have to be kept secret

I have noticed this attitude myself, and I disagree with it entirely. I believe it is a member's right to divulge to other members when they have been warned. They also have the right to keep that a secret to anybody who is not on a need-to-know basis (i.e., mods).

 

Also, just to throw this out there, the only times I've gotten warned were for things I knew darn well I'd get warns for but decided to say anyway, because I felt they were true and honest and I didn't want to phrase them more delicately.

Edited July 18, 2011 by ~!~

[Cinnamin Draconna]

But isn't a warn level of 30% a bit early for total censorship? Post review doesn't usually happen before the 50% mark.. or even 75%, depending on the forum.

[LadyLyzar]

In general you should not single out any member, and mods are members too. There is no reason whatsoever to publicly air out your or anyone else's dirty laundry. That sort of thing is better discussed privately.

 

You are always, always, ALWAYS welcome to contact the mod whom you have a dispute with. Believe it or not, mods are human beings too and we do sometimes make mistakes. It's very possible that there might have been a misunderstanding, either on the part of the member or moderator.

 

As a note, no one can see your warns but the mods and yourself. (This is to prevent double warning, among other things.) So, by announcing you got a warn, you're airing out your own dirty laundry. Most posts of this nature usually are complaint/drama posts, so such things will usually be dealt with.

 

I guess I don't see what the beef is with cleaning out TLQ... that happens all the time. It expressly says in the first post that it will be cleaned and often. That is to keep recent questions at the forefront and not buried under a sea of posts.

 

Also, TJ would not have selected us to be mods if he did not think we were reasonable people. I'm sorry you've had a bad experience, but remember to look at it from the moderator's point of view.

[~!~]

Also, TJ would not have selected us to be mods if he did not think we were reasonable people.

I'm sorry to say that I have a hard time believing that. Not with all mods, certainly, but there are at least a few who I wonder about sometimes... "What was TJ thinking?" I mean, lots of things come with being a mod, and being reasonable isn't always the important thing. Being responsible and having work ethic, being objective (probably why my application was rejected), and knowing your stuff are important too.

[RheaZen]

In general you should not single out any member, and mods are members too.

Sometimes I feel that mods forget this themselves.

 

So, by announcing you got a warn, you're airing out your own dirty laundry.

But it's the user's laudry, so they ought to be able to do whatever they want with it.

[Dr. Paine]

I'm sorry to say that I have a hard time believing that. Not with all mods, certainly, but there are at least a few who I wonder about sometimes... "What was TJ thinking?" I mean, lots of things come with being a mod, and being reasonable isn't always the important thing. Being responsible and having work ethic, being objective (probably why my application was rejected), and knowing your stuff are important too.

There's only one mod I've ever felt that way about... for the most part, I think TJ does a pretty good job of picking people who are good for the job. There were two in particular I was very happy to see get the promotion, and they've done a fantastic job ever since.

 

I don't think I've seen too many cases of a mod singling someone out without good reason, but maybe I just don't pay enough attention. But I agree with the second bit of Rhea's post- unless you're just getting flat out spammy/ranting, a person should be able to mention if they've been warned/are on probation or whatever. It's not like there's a lot of times when that'll come up as a conversation piece, probably only if someone needs to explain why their posts are taking so long.

[Thuban]

Olympe: You have valid concerns, but your points are being buried in the accusations you are flinging. Would you like examples of what happens when mods are reported? Sure, I'll use myself as an example.

 

There was a time i was being reported over and over again for being rude, too heavy handed. For being to strict with enforcing the rules. And looking back, I still dont believe i was out of line, however, I sure got chewed out, in pm on the chat. Not just by one mod, a couple of them.In addition to them i was dealing with the friends of the users who had a problem with me also letting me know that so and so user was offended. When I enforced the rules I became the enemy its as simple as that.

 

 

We do tell each other when we go out of line, just today i have been told at least three times to back off on some of the points I was trying to make. Just because you dont see it, doesnt mean we aren't modding each other in the background. We do disagree on some things, and argue, just like you guys do, we are just more private about it. We have to follow the same rules as you guys, we are expected to mod each other. If the forum mods come into chat and are causing problems, we are expected to treat them like we would any other member. I expect them to treat me like any user here on the forum. If i dont like something i will pull another mod into it to play middleman. We dont really seem to have a chain of command but what i assume is:

1. get warning from mod you dont agree with, drag another mod of the same section in.

2. if the second mod is doing no good, grab a global mod, fill them in on the problem and what the two mods who have talked to said about your situation.

3. if you are worried its going to be mods against users, then grab a chat mod. I think most chat mods are pretty neutral when it comes to the forum stuff, but we can offer solutions that might help.

3 if by now the problem isnt resolved go to tj. Theres plenty of ways to contact him if you are persistant. dont rely on just the email link at the bottom of the cave, pm him, or hit his profile page for other options. I've already listed tons of options for getting his attention on another post.

 

It bothers me to be lumped in the "mods" group when the generalisations start. I have nothing to do with the censoring, the warns or anything that happens here on the forum, However I am still a mod therefore I am part of the group being blamed. It is perfectly ok to be upset with specific mods but calling them out in a public setting is NOT. I've been called out so many times for the minor things people dont agree with, it hurts. EVERY TIME.

 

What people seem to forget is that there are people behind the names, behind the posts. Everyone makes mistakes, but when it comes to pointing them out, its almost always better to do it in private rather than blowing it up in the public setting. I do disagree with the way some things are handled around here, but I would never lead a crusade against the mods for those things. Instead i would try to find a way to say what im disappointed with, in a way that wouldnt set off tempers. This situation has blown up so much that no matter what is said, or how, someone is going to be offended. There are ways of complaining about things that dont involve making personal attacks.

[olympe]

I wouldn't have an issue about cleaning TLQ, but it was only "cleaned" of posts regarding the issue of the current breeding rates, while older posts (conerning other topics) were left intact. Plus the fact that the thread was closed in order to be "cleaned" was a big pointer in that direction, too.

 

Regarding the "discuss things privately", somehow I have doubts that it will lead anywhere. Who is to say that anything will happen (apart from the person getting more warn)? Personally, I see mods in a position of (almost absolute) power. Why would they listen to a complaint about their own modding? Why should they? They already decided that something had to be deleted/warned/whatever, so why on earth should they change their minds if spoken to privately? And why does that go only one way, instead of both ways? Why do mods have to use the warn hammer at once, instead of PMing members they have issues with first?

 

(Also, it's not only one bad experience - and I'm not talking about this one at all, I knew what I was getting into this time. Incidentally, all of my bad experiences are with the modding team of this forum, and I've been active and still am on several other forums without any problems with moderators or admin. Ever.)

 

Instead i would try to find a way to say what im disappointed with, in a way that wouldnt set off tempers.

That's very hard to do if tempers have been rising for some time, and get suppressed at least twice (with warn and censoring). If the mods in question do their best to inflame tempers with an "oh, shut up or dread the consequences" attitude, nothing is going to be resolved, and the next time someone has the nerve to brace the issue, it won't be more delicately phrased.

Edited July 18, 2011 by olympe

[JOTB]

Personally I like knowing what other people in general are getting warned for so then I can expect it instead of having warns totally come out of nowhere. I was recently warned for incorrect use of the letter "f" - in a way I've seen done numerous times around the forum, leaving no indication to anyone that it wasn't allowed.

 

Also, if mods are the officials of this forum, they shouldn't have anything to fear from being mentioned personally in regards to a certain warn if they think it's fair. I mean, if you don't want other users knowing about it maybe it wasn't the right call? Official mod business is (or should be) different from a person's dirty laundry. Hiding it just makes it seems like there's something nasty going on and makes people more suspicious.

Edited July 18, 2011 by JOTB

[Princess Artemis]

Here's my little bit of forum feedback: At least in my experience, I think the mods are doing pretty well. They aren't going to get everything right, but they appear to get most things right most of the time, at least, from where I'm standing, they do.

 

I am admittedly not looking too deeply at any on incident, this is just my overall impression.

[Rally Vincent]

Olympe, a good mod will try to listen to valid concerns brought up in a private conversation. You will not know unless you tried if the respective mod will be open to constructive criticism. If you went that way and the problem isn't resolved, then you have reason to either go to a global mod, to Tj or ask users for advice in public. But it won't help to start the discussion in public.

 

You can do that as a last resort, and it will still draw attention to what you see as a problem, but starting discussion in public poisons the water, so to speak, from the beginning. Mods will think thrice to wedge to public demand, as this may set an unwanted example. You are cutting yourself off one possibilty to achieve a solution both sides can live with.

 

And again, Nine has made a good posting about mods contacting the members about stuff before handing out warnings.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Rally Vincent

[Imbecamiel]

Just to toss in my two cents about the big picture - I would have to say that I agree with Princess Artemis' general sentiment regarding the mods.

 

I've been around for... oh, about two and a half years now. I've never been a hugely active poster, but I've accumulated a decent number of posts over time, and been involved in various sections of the forums. I wind up needing to contact mods over various things fairly frequently, and I think over that time I've had personal interactions with about half the mods, maybe more.

 

I certainly wouldn't say that I've agreed with every single decision I've seen them make, or the way they've handled every situation, but by and large their responses have struck me as balanced and reasonable. I know that every time I've contacted one privately - via PM or e-mail - I've found them willing to listen, whether I was asking for help, information, or an explanation of some modly decision/statement made in a thread. Some have styles or personalities I find easier to relate to, but in my personal dealings I've found each of them very helpful, fair, and kind.

 

So - not a comment on either side of the current issues being debated, but I just wanted to put that out there. Overall, I do think we've got a really great and capable team of mods.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Imbecamiel

[Nine]

Also, TJ would not have selected us to be mods if he did not think we were reasonable people.  I'm sorry you've had a bad experience, but remember to look at it from the moderator's point of view.

I don't believe anyone here is attempting to claim any mod is unfit for the job, but simply that there are things you, us, and everyone could stand to improve upon. It would be self important to assume there is nothing anyone could do to better this forum, and the 'bluntness' in a few of these posts is most likely unadulterated honesty. There is no use asking for feedback if honest feedback is too afraid to be given, which is why people are posting their concerns =) 'Cause we care.

 

What people seem to forget is that there are people behind the names, behind the posts.

I think a lot of users feel the exact same way when it comes to this forum. When warnings are given out for seemingly insignificant or misunderstood reasons, such as an attempt at humor, it's easy to feel that no respect or consideration was given to the person. I think I've posted enough though, so I won't blabber on and on until the end of time and/or Half life ep. 3 finally comes out. (oh snap)

[Thuban]

Personally I like knowing what other people in general are getting warned for so then I can expect it instead of having warns totally come out of nowhere. I was recently warned for incorrect use of the letter "f" - in a way I've seen done numerous times around the forum, leaving no indication to anyone that it wasn't allowed.

 

Also, if mods are the officials of this forum, they shouldn't have anything to fear from being mentioned personally in regards to a certain warn if they think it's fair. I mean, if you don't want other users knowing about it maybe it wasn't the right call? Official mod business is (or should be) different from a person's dirty laundry. Hiding it just makes it seems like there's something nasty going on and makes people more suspicious.

The forums I originally came from did public verbal warnings (example: If a subject came up that was causing drama or causing spam on the thread, the comment that started it would be erased if needed, and there would be a comment edited right into their comment that said "Verbal Warning, this post is considered spam. Further posting on this thread will result in official warns". they would also edit the last comment to say something like Any comments after this point regarding this subject will be warned. And they did warn.. a lot. They were perfectly fair about it, but whenever i try to suggest that, people say they dont want it, it would be embarrassing.

 

I still think its a good idea for the mods to verbally warn inappropriate posts by commenting on the post directly for the minor things. Something along the lines of "any spam/off topicness/whatever beyond this comment will be warned for" or whatever the verbal warning might be a good heads up, without being offensive, personal or anything else. It lets others know that they shouldnt continue the same action.. or at least, to go about it differently.

 

In regards to the being mentioned publically thing: Personally I would prefer that a user who has a problem with something i did to come to me in private. I'm always happen to listen to the full story and if i have to I'll apologise and reverse whatever i did, when possible. If the person isnt satisfied after talking to me directly, then by all means, quote me and get someone else to look into it.

[00n0b0dy]

The forums I originally came from did public verbal warnings (example: If a subject came up that was causing drama or causing spam on the thread, the comment that started it would be erased if needed, and there would be a comment edited right into their comment that said "Verbal Warning, this post is considered spam. Further posting on this thread will result in official warns". they would also edit the last comment to say something like Any comments after this point regarding this subject will be warned. And they did warn.. a lot. They were perfectly fair about it, but whenever i try to suggest that, people say they dont want it, it would be embarrassing.

 

I still think its a good idea for the mods to verbally warn inappropriate posts by commenting on the post directly for the minor things. Something along the lines of "any spam/off topicness/whatever beyond this comment will be warned for" or whatever the verbal warning might be a good heads up, without being offensive, personal or anything else. It lets others know that they shouldnt continue the same action.. or at least, to go about it differently.

I agree that this would be nice. I like to know when you guys start thinking we're getting out of hand, even if it's just a post saying "Be careful not to let this become a drama topic" or "Please refrain from continuing the tangent about xyz." And you guys do do this sometimes, and I like it I'm always careful to word things more diplomatically when there's a post like that in order to make sure we can still make a point and not cause problems. When we're worked up about something it's easy for us to forget what we're doing (sorry you have to see that <3), and just telling us when we're toeing the line as a group helps everyone remember to tone it down a little.

 

I can definitely see where some people are afraid of being publicly called out for bad behavior, but even just a general post in the topic saying that things are getting out of hand and warns will come if we keep it up is appreciated. For some people it won't make a difference, but for others it will make it so a dozen different members don't need to be warned for the same group escallation.

 

I also feel like it might help if there was always a post like this before topics are closed to let people cool down, just to see if we're capable of it without cutting us off. Because sometimes we really do need to be shut down for a little while, but I think that a lot of times if somebody just pointed out we were getting out of control to some eyes, we would be able to keep talking about sensitive issues without a problem.

[NixAyum]

A hard no because why? Because you have questions about it? Or, what, you just automatically assume that I won't be able to answer them?

 

Groups would be controlled by members. At any time, you could choose to start a group, then you could advertise it in your sig or something. There wouldn't be a limit on the number of groups. I don't see why there's a problem with quadrupling the size of the forum, if each group is in charge of moderating itself. (And then, if the group members feel they're doing a bad job, report them to the real moderators.) I would suppose that you could join a group spontaneously, but could then be kicked out if you were causing problems in that group. Perhaps groups could be given the option of whitelisting, but I wouldn't think a lot of groups would do that.

 

If formal groups would require lots of extra coding on the part of the forums, I wouldn't expect private forums for each group. Although, I know InvisionFree (which this forum isn't, but is similar to) can create password-protected subforums. Doing it that way would make it so that people could be part of multiple groups. (Although, if I understand our current member groups properly, members can be in multiple groups, because there are some people who are mods and artists.)

 

Private forums would be a site-sanctioned equivalent to going off-site. To people who complain about elitism: the artist forum? Yes, it's necessary, but from what I've heard, it's evolved from a place where artists can work on stuff without fear of harassment to a place where the artists can chat together about artisty stuff, or even about unrelated things with only other members of their group. And frankly, I'm jealous. I'd like to be able to chat with other people who are like me without having to worry about all those people on the forum who disagree with me coming in and arguing constantly with me and my friends. Sure, I could go off-site, make a completely new forum and only let in people who have been approved...

 

Oh, wait. That already happened. It was called Vent 2.0. (They've since left their old forum, no doubt because they were outed or felt they were being spied upon, so don't bother looking for them.)

 

EDIT: Also, there are already self-created membergroups. Well, there's lineage projects. Those haven't been causing any problems of late, to my knowledge. I wouldn't expect what I'm proposing here to be any more popular than those are, i.e., with the majority of the forums ignoring them completely.

No because of the answers to those questions, and see the two posts between ours.

 

Way no to members moderating their own private subforums and personal dread at the prospect of the forum multiplying many times in size just so some people can sit in their private corner and talk amongst themselves. 99.99999% of the time it WILL lead to elitism and people whining about not being able to see what other people are doing (you feel the same way about the artist section, and have been pretty vocal about it if given the chance).

 

What would need to go on in these private sections anyway? (Something I asked in my original reply but you haven't answered yet or am I a derp?) The forum is supposed to be open to everyone, for the most part. Especially SD stuff.

 

Nope, not in two groups. Lyz is the only one I can think of in two, and her group as mod supersedes her title as artist, and she has both the artist palette and mod badge because those apparently aren't necessarily connected to user group (or it is and I just can't see it).

 

Never heard of Vent 2.0, though something like that did happen with the gpx+ people a while ago.

 

Yes, because those unofficial membergroups don't have private sections or the ability to get under the mod's radar, as you're suggesting.

[Obscure_Trash]

Regarding the "discuss things privately", somehow I have doubts that it will lead anywhere. Who is to say that anything will happen (apart from the person getting more warn)? Personally, I see mods in a position of (almost absolute) power. Why would they listen to a complaint about their own modding? Why should they? They already decided that something had to be deleted/warned/whatever, so why on earth should they change their minds if spoken to privately? And why does that go only one way, instead of both ways? Why do mods have to use the warn hammer at once, instead of PMing members they have issues with first?

 

How can you know how something will happen if you've never tried it? I have removed several warns after discussing it with the user or other mods (the user being more often).

 

Warns aren't the end of the world. There are no consequences with the first couple of warns. They are there to make you go "hey, maybe I should step back from this" or "oh, I didn't know, now I do" - to remind you of a rule you may not have realized or forgotten. This system works because now you're not getting PM's from all the mods of that section plus globals who happened upon it and found it breaking the rules. It helps us keep track of "oh, they were already warned for this once; they should know better" by peeking into a warn log, rather than maybe having to waste time going to ask the other mods and asking them if they did anything or maybe having to go through a huge log of actions for who was PM'd for what or whatnot.

There may be consequences associated with certain warns, but they aren't meant as harsh punishments. They're meant as learning tools.

 

I guess we all have things to work on still. Mods letting a bit more slide and users trusting that they can come to mods with their problems and actually going to mods.

 

Btw - if you think a mod steps out of line - report it to another mod. PM or e-mail them and let them know your concerns. This has been done in the past, and yes, we have been spoken to about complaints. Even if done privately, things are done.

 

EDIT: My only thing against groups is how the forum would support/handle it. I'm still confused on how that would work. TJ has turned down subforums before for having too many in a certain section already. o3o

 

For users who can go/are allowed on IRC, many people already have chats there with their friends. That's basically a group. :3

Edited July 18, 2011 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Lythiaren]

Can't people make their own channels in IRC too?

[Amur_Rama]

Yeah, we can. But I don't think it's allowed to plug other channels in DC IRC. So you'd have to go around PMing people with the chat name so they could get to it.

[Thuban]

Yeah, we can. But I don't think it's allowed to plug other channels in DC IRC. So you'd have to go around PMing people with the chat name so they could get to it.

You can advertise your channels here on the forum in your sigs.. its only in #dc that its really a problem. I can think of several users who do that, so i dont see why there would be a problem.

[00n0b0dy]

I also don't see that as being any more inconvenient than password protected subsections, since you'd have to PM anyone you wanted to join your section anyway to give them the password.

[TikindiDragon]

You are always, always, ALWAYS welcome to contact the mod whom you have a dispute with. Believe it or not, mods are human beings too and we do sometimes make mistakes. It's very possible that there might have been a misunderstanding, either on the part of the member or moderator.

*bangs head on wall*

 

Which part of this dowsn't work have you guys been missing? Taking a serious disagreement to the person you ahve a problem with gets you precisely no where. If this were my work place I would not take a serious problem I had with a particular manager to the manager in question - I would talk to a different one. If this happened in a club I belonged to I would not take the issue to the person I had it with - I would take it to the committee.

 

Believe it or not the fact that you guys are human means that taking a dispute to the person you are upset with will only cause an argument and/or bad feeling on the part of the user.

 

We need to be able to take problems with specific mods ti different mods.

 

And, really guys, you asked for feedback. Editing out my post because you don't like my saying that one specific mod is actualy the problem here kinda implies that there are some things you just don't want to hear.

 

So I won't mention a name. You all know damned well who it is now: there is one specific mod in GD that is causing the majority of the unhappiness among users in GD. Sorting that one mod out might be an idea.

[skinst]

If it's the particular mod I'm thinking of as well Tiki, then I agree completely. :| They should have NEVER been put in a position of power.

[Dr. Paine]

If it's the particular mod I'm thinking of as well Tiki, then I agree completely. :| They should have NEVER been put in a position of power.

I already gave my piece on them

 

On the slightly more positive side, with all DC's mods, I am glad to see that there only seems to be one that people have a problem with. That's not too bad for a forum this size.