So what is the correct protocol for complaining about mod behaviour?
- Thread starter Dr Lou Natic
- Start date
- Status
Well considering that half of the people who post here are mods I dont see why not.
The two processes are completely different.
Moderating involves maintaining certain standards of debate and interaction on the forum. It never involves altering arguments made by other people, or deleting material merely because the moderator disagrees with its argument.
Participating in the debate, on the other hand, involves expressing an opinion and commenting on opinions expressed by others.
Any moderator who uses his or her moderation powers to censor a debate, other than for breaches of the site rules, is abusing his or her power. Complaints about any such abuses will be taken seriously by the administrators, provided that they are backed by appropriate evidence.
Honesty is such a lonely word ....
My colleagues are aware of the exact contents of those posts. I feel comfortable in saying that you do not get any sympathy when you try to lie to us. See, that's the thing you're overlooking right now.
Your "dismantling" consisted of three general elements:
S.A.M. actually attempted to address that drivel, and all you could do was continue insulting and condemning.
The third post deleted was both dishonest and off-topic. As I reminded you, Lou, you have means of recourse, and I suggest you use them instead of mucking up a topic.
Given that plenty of people can disagree with me and not have their posts deleted, you might wish to reconsider your assessment of the criteria.
One of the things I advised another member recently was that instead of these breathless, fuming tantrums,
So consider the following possibility, please:
Have I mischaracterized your opinion of your position here? Don't get me wrong, I'm believe I have grossly mischaracterized your conduct, but have I mischaracterized your opinion of your conduct?
My personal opinion, Lou, is that more people don't do this not because they expect no response from the administration or supermoderators, but because they haven't a leg to stand on. Generally speaking, complaints such as—
—are too simplistic, in addition to being ... (ahem) ... inaccurate. As I mentioned, other people who disagree with me have not seen their posts disappear. Additionally, I did post a note to tell you that if those posts were the best you could do, then stay the hell out of EM&J.
Even your "confessional" summary is inaccurate: "They happened to have some bad words in them so he saw an opportunity to just erase the moment in the discussion where he suddenly wasn't right anymore." It so happens I addressed in another topic an issue concerning profanity. I figure it would be easier to simply quote myself than retype the whole argument:
In your case, it wasn't even bad words. It was the fact that you were directly denigrating another member. As the above excerpt—which involves posts from the very topic you refer to (and also a splinter topic derived therefrom)—suggests, it's not about the bad words.
So take a note: If you expect your complaint to produce an affirmative result, the first thing you need to make sure of is that you are honest about it.
As long as you are honest and sincere, we are still able to figure out what you're talking about. But when you simply vomit up a string of dubious accusations in order rush breathlessly to obsessive condemnation, you simply remind us that this is more about your need to compensate for some internal sense of personal inadequacy that only you are aware of.
We aren't psychic, Lou. We aren't you. Whatever it is that lends these issues such sanctimonious weight, we are not privy to.
Do you understand?
Take a breath, calm down, and realize, please, that you have a far better chance of effecting the kind of change you would consider progressive with a healthy dose of good faith and a modicum of diplomacy.
Dr. Lou Natic said:
My colleagues are aware of the exact contents of those posts. I feel comfortable in saying that you do not get any sympathy when you try to lie to us. See, that's the thing you're overlooking right now.
Your "dismantling" consisted of three general elements:
• Unsubstantiated attribution of motive
• Insulting a specific member
• Condemning a group of members
• Insulting a specific member
• Condemning a group of members
S.A.M. actually attempted to address that drivel, and all you could do was continue insulting and condemning.
The third post deleted was both dishonest and off-topic. As I reminded you, Lou, you have means of recourse, and I suggest you use them instead of mucking up a topic.
Given that plenty of people can disagree with me and not have their posts deleted, you might wish to reconsider your assessment of the criteria.
One of the things I advised another member recently was that instead of these breathless, fuming tantrums,
Tiassa said:
So consider the following possibility, please:
To: Plazma Inferno!, James R, Stryder
Re: Unfair treatment by moderators
I feel I have been treated unfairly by Tiassa, who has shown favoritism to an inflammatory troll. I felt he was abusing people who were victimized by this troll, and posted a counter-argument against his conduct, which he was unable to answer. Because he could not reasonably justify himself, he deleted my posts in a grievous abuse of his authority as a moderator. Would you please review his actions in the following thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=77794
Thanks,
Dr. Lou Natic
Re: Unfair treatment by moderators
I feel I have been treated unfairly by Tiassa, who has shown favoritism to an inflammatory troll. I felt he was abusing people who were victimized by this troll, and posted a counter-argument against his conduct, which he was unable to answer. Because he could not reasonably justify himself, he deleted my posts in a grievous abuse of his authority as a moderator. Would you please review his actions in the following thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=77794
Thanks,
Dr. Lou Natic
Have I mischaracterized your opinion of your position here? Don't get me wrong, I'm believe I have grossly mischaracterized your conduct, but have I mischaracterized your opinion of your conduct?
My personal opinion, Lou, is that more people don't do this not because they expect no response from the administration or supermoderators, but because they haven't a leg to stand on. Generally speaking, complaints such as—
• so he quickly completely deleted my posts and then carried on with his garbage like I hadn't just made it clear that what he was implying was a crock of shit
• Tiassa is deleting posts which are contrary to his views
• Tiassa is deleting posts which are contrary to his views
—are too simplistic, in addition to being ... (ahem) ... inaccurate. As I mentioned, other people who disagree with me have not seen their posts disappear. Additionally, I did post a note to tell you that if those posts were the best you could do, then stay the hell out of EM&J.
Even your "confessional" summary is inaccurate: "They happened to have some bad words in them so he saw an opportunity to just erase the moment in the discussion where he suddenly wasn't right anymore." It so happens I addressed in another topic an issue concerning profanity. I figure it would be easier to simply quote myself than retype the whole argument:
Tiassa said:
In your case, it wasn't even bad words. It was the fact that you were directly denigrating another member. As the above excerpt—which involves posts from the very topic you refer to (and also a splinter topic derived therefrom)—suggests, it's not about the bad words.
So take a note: If you expect your complaint to produce an affirmative result, the first thing you need to make sure of is that you are honest about it.
As long as you are honest and sincere, we are still able to figure out what you're talking about. But when you simply vomit up a string of dubious accusations in order rush breathlessly to obsessive condemnation, you simply remind us that this is more about your need to compensate for some internal sense of personal inadequacy that only you are aware of.
We aren't psychic, Lou. We aren't you. Whatever it is that lends these issues such sanctimonious weight, we are not privy to.
Do you understand?
Take a breath, calm down, and realize, please, that you have a far better chance of effecting the kind of change you would consider progressive with a healthy dose of good faith and a modicum of diplomacy.
good suggestion
countezero
Registered Senior Member
I'm curious about what happens when a moderator is guilty of "directly denigrating another member"?
Depends on whether that member deserves it or not.
If so, these days we're supposed to be more civilized about it and just ban them or something. Circumstances and degrees vary.
And generally it doesn't get too bad. We used to get warning and infraction cards, but it hasn't really come up as much—that I know of—since we got rid of infractions. Then again, I'm not a supermod or admin, so if I think one of my colleagues crosses a line, I just cough politely and stare at them expectantly, with one eyebrow raised, until they get the hint. Or, I guess, the written equivalent thereof.
If so, these days we're supposed to be more civilized about it and just ban them or something. Circumstances and degrees vary.
And generally it doesn't get too bad. We used to get warning and infraction cards, but it hasn't really come up as much—that I know of—since we got rid of infractions. Then again, I'm not a supermod or admin, so if I think one of my colleagues crosses a line, I just cough politely and stare at them expectantly, with one eyebrow raised, until they get the hint. Or, I guess, the written equivalent thereof.
plazma openly admonishes
sam and vert did something similar
transparency and individualism
not some misguided sense of loyalty
countezero
Registered Senior Member
So when a moderator, in all their infinite wisdom, deems that a member "deserves" to be attacked, it's OK?
That's ridiculous, and it speaks directly to what I am saying about two sets of rules. If the moderators want two sets of rules, then they can't expect anyone to take them seriously.
I reiterate that moderators ought to be susceptible to the same rules as everyone else, especially when they're attacking members, and that members ought to be able to put tiresome moderators who demagogue or troll on ignore.
James?
Tiassa,
You keep accusing me of being dishonest and a liar as well. You have a problem! Just because someone doesn't agree with you or has a completely different take on things, you label them as a LIAR or being dishonest. You are complaining that members here are personally attacking or insulting other members that is why you are stepping in. Aren't you doing that exact thing!
Insulting members by labelling them as LIARS.
Last edited:
Yeah LOL......Tiassa actually sent me a PM and gave me examples of how I actually should have worded my question in the Divorce thread. :bugeye:
Since when is it a MODS job to tell us exactly what we should have asked or how we should have worded our OWN question or response. As for Dr Lou posts, why do the other members here have no right to read them? I see alot of other posts here by some regular members that are full of REALLY bad language or insults that are left on the board. Is it because he was just another member that was disagreeing with you that you wanted to silence.
Last edited:
I take it right to Plazma from now on. He is "usually" pretty good.
He actually just warned a Mod for a personal attack which I reported.
I was actually surprised! If an insult is that severe that it would get a regular member banned for a day, or warned. It shouldn't matter if they are a MOD or not, They SHOULD get the same punishment as a reg member.
Certain Mods however do favour certain members and no matter what they do it will always be overlooked. If questioned about it, you will never get a response.
Last edited:
countezero
Registered Senior Member
Well, Tiassa's response to my question speaks volumes about the mindset of some here: That is, if a mod "thinks" someone should be attacked or labeled, that's OK. I find that position to be absolutely disgusting, and the opportunity for abuse should be obvious to all.
Members should be able to report moderators who demagogue and attack people and have those posts pulled in exactly the same fashion that the opposite occurs.
Members should be able to put moderators who openly troll on ignore, with the provisio that if said moderator needs to perform their duty, the ignore can be overuled.
Anything else is elitism, cronyism or worse.
But don't worry, nothing will change. As you suggested, there are several sacred cows around here, and the lowly plebs haven't the right to question their holiness...
Members should be able to report moderators who demagogue and attack people and have those posts pulled in exactly the same fashion that the opposite occurs.
Members should be able to put moderators who openly troll on ignore, with the provisio that if said moderator needs to perform their duty, the ignore can be overuled.
Anything else is elitism, cronyism or worse.
But don't worry, nothing will change. As you suggested, there are several sacred cows around here, and the lowly plebs haven't the right to question their holiness...
Seriously...MODS - is this what you want?
If you don't like what your own conduct equals, change your conduct.
As moderators, one thing we tire of is trying to figure out what people mean when they won't give us examples of what they're complaining about. And then once we get an idea of where the conflict is, it often happens that we look into it and find that the circumstances are not accurately represented by the complaint.
If you get upset and wail about a circumstance and we find it inaccurately represented, that doesn't make you a liar. However, when you ignore the response you get in order to continue crying about the same inaccuracy, your honesty comes into question.
Like when you complained, "After being dragged through the mud by a couple of mods for pages!!! told what we should say or shouldn't ask." The situation was never so simple, and you know it. Furthermore, you were complaining despite having received responses, and chose to not acknowledge those responses. Tell us why you disagree, please; tell us that you disagree. But don't just ignore what we've told you and keep repeating the original inaccuracy.
The majority of what I do as a moderator involves tracking down people's complaints and finding that the summary is extremely partisan and inaccurately represented. Given the consistency of some of our members' inaccuracies, this becomes problematic.
We do understand that, when people are upset, they're going to be a bit biased. But simply insisting on the inaccuracy while refusing to even acknowledge the counterpoint, speak nothing of actually advising why you disagree with it, seems a bit dishonest. What would you call it?
If you are insulted by what your own conduct equals, change your conduct.
Would you like to quote that message, or should I? Why don't we both? Would you like to go first, then? This is, after all, your complaint.
Shorty_37 said:
As moderators, one thing we tire of is trying to figure out what people mean when they won't give us examples of what they're complaining about. And then once we get an idea of where the conflict is, it often happens that we look into it and find that the circumstances are not accurately represented by the complaint.
If you get upset and wail about a circumstance and we find it inaccurately represented, that doesn't make you a liar. However, when you ignore the response you get in order to continue crying about the same inaccuracy, your honesty comes into question.
Like when you complained, "After being dragged through the mud by a couple of mods for pages!!! told what we should say or shouldn't ask." The situation was never so simple, and you know it. Furthermore, you were complaining despite having received responses, and chose to not acknowledge those responses. Tell us why you disagree, please; tell us that you disagree. But don't just ignore what we've told you and keep repeating the original inaccuracy.
The majority of what I do as a moderator involves tracking down people's complaints and finding that the summary is extremely partisan and inaccurately represented. Given the consistency of some of our members' inaccuracies, this becomes problematic.
We do understand that, when people are upset, they're going to be a bit biased. But simply insisting on the inaccuracy while refusing to even acknowledge the counterpoint, speak nothing of actually advising why you disagree with it, seems a bit dishonest. What would you call it?
If you are insulted by what your own conduct equals, change your conduct.
Would you like to quote that message, or should I? Why don't we both? Would you like to go first, then? This is, after all, your complaint.
Tiassa, I am not going into the whole thing again. It is quite ironic and funny that you tried to make an example of some of us members. You insulted us called us out, told us that we made assumptions, jumped to conclusions about a certain member. That member said I never assume or make judgements about ppl like you guys (pretty much nose in the air bullshit) Now has done that exact thing in another thread. Making an assumption based on no facts about another member here. Are you going to say something about that?
Or are you just gonna let it slide because you don't really favour that member as much.
Or are you just gonna let it slide because you don't really favour that member as much.
- Status