Stacey
|
Locking threads that aren't abusiveWhy?
Who decides what's interesting and what's not? Why is it any skin of the mods' noses if a debate rambles for a bit? Sometimes a thread loses impetus for a while only for someone to come along and inject a new idea or there are actual developments in the subject being discussed.
It comes across as very heavy handed and arrogant for a mod to just decide to lock a thread that doesn't actually go against the guidelines. Is this a community or a club for people 'in charge'?
|
Rob R
|
Careful, you'll get locked 
What hacve I missed? Edit:I haven't been drinking, honest. Who/what has been locked?
|
JB
|
Hear hear.
Do we arrest people who aren't breaking the law on the basis that they might at some point in the future do so?
|
Rob R
|
Oh, I see now 
|
pookie
|
| JB wrote: | Hear hear.
Do we arrest people who aren't breaking the law on the basis that they might at some point in the future do so? |
Minority report, thought provoking film!
|
Treacodactyl
|
I think there's many people who aren't keen on the debates in the first place or would like some locked much sooner. So, locking after 22 odd pages seems a reasonable compromise to me.
|
Rob R
|
| Treacodactyl wrote: | | I think there's many people who aren't keen on the debates in the first place or would like some locked much sooner. So, locking after 22 odd pages seems a reasonable compromise to me. |
Mafia's hit 31, someone isn't doing their job.
Having read it, it did seem rather abrupt. 
|
vegplot
|
There are times when it take me ages to formulate an argument or make a point and it's frustrating to find a thread locked just because it's gone on for a long time. Mods presume that everything to be said has been said, this can be an incorrect assumption and stifles debate.
|
JB
|
| Treacodactyl wrote: | | I think there's many people who aren't keen on the debates in the first place or would like some locked much sooner. So, locking after 22 odd pages seems a reasonable compromise to me. |
I think the problem is that it seems rather arbitrary. No rules were broken, we don't have anything saying we'll lock threads that are off topic (there'd be almost nothing on here  ) and yet the thread is just killed.
|
Northern_Lad
|
| JB wrote: | | Do we arrest people who aren't breaking the law on the basis that they might at some point in the future do so? |
No, but people can be 'sectioned' for their own safety before they do anything that would really warrant such treatment.
I've not read all the thread, but it's my experience that after about 15 pages people are entrenched, and after 20 they start using munitions.
|
Stacey
|
| Treacodactyl wrote: | | I think there's many people who aren't keen on the debates in the first place or would like some locked much sooner. So, locking after 22 odd pages seems a reasonable compromise to me. |
Why? If it upsets you that much don't read it.
|
Fee
|
I was purposely avoiding it while I was busy, but intended going for a read when I had time, what if I had a burning opinion that nobody had put forth already, eh?
Or was it really getting out of hand? I'll have a read later hopefully
|
Fee
|
Bet it was that Stacey again, wasn't it 
|
Treacodactyl
|
| Stacey wrote: | | Treacodactyl wrote: | | I think there's many people who aren't keen on the debates in the first place or would like some locked much sooner. So, locking after 22 odd pages seems a reasonable compromise to me. |
Why? If it upsets you that much don't read it. |
Don't worry I didn't read it. However, some poor mods will have to to keep an eye on things so I'm happy with a reasonable balance.
|
Rob R
|
| Fee wrote: | | Or was it really getting out of hand? I'll have a read later hopefully |
Nope, not a single stoat had been mentioned.
Incidentally the introduction of the stoat to the forums seems to have improved things far more than locking ever did.
|
cab
|
| Treacodactyl wrote: | | Stacey wrote: | | Treacodactyl wrote: | | I think there's many people who aren't keen on the debates in the first place or would like some locked much sooner. So, locking after 22 odd pages seems a reasonable compromise to me. |
Why? If it upsets you that much don't read it. |
Don't worry I didn't read it. However, some poor mods will have to to keep an eye on things so I'm happy with a reasonable balance. |
I accept that such a balance is needed - the mods, remember, are volounteers, and they don't necessarily want to keep reading a topic.
But here, I'm with Rob (and JB, and Stacey, and Vegplot); that really was rather abrupt and, in the context of the discussion, needless.
But remember, everyone, that striking a good balance isn't easy; mods can get a bit lock-happy on something like this, expecially if they've had a few run ins with members lately. The temptation may be to shut the stable door before the horse bolts. Whether thats appropriate or not is a matter of opinion; give the mods the benefit of the doubt, and perhaps they'll be more open to not locking such threads in future.
|
cab
|
| Rob R wrote: | | Fee wrote: | | Or was it really getting out of hand? I'll have a read later hopefully |
Nope, not a single stoat had been mentioned.
Incidentally the introduction of the stoat to the forums seems to have improved things far more than locking ever did. |
Naah, I hate the stoat. Want to avoid answering a question? Say stoat, for some reason its a respectable way of ducking a fair question. Personally, I can't see how thats any more polite than just not posting an answer.
|
Stacey
|
| cab wrote: | | Treacodactyl wrote: | | Stacey wrote: | | Treacodactyl wrote: | | I think there's many people who aren't keen on the debates in the first place or would like some locked much sooner. So, locking after 22 odd pages seems a reasonable compromise to me. |
Why? If it upsets you that much don't read it. |
Don't worry I didn't read it. However, some poor mods will have to to keep an eye on things so I'm happy with a reasonable balance. |
I accept that such a balance is needed - the mods, remember, are volounteers, and they don't necessarily want to keep reading a topic.
But here, I'm with Rob (and JB, and Stacey, and Vegplot); that really was rather abrupt and, in the context of the discussion, needless.
But remember, everyone, that striking a good balance isn't easy; mods can get a bit lock-happy on something like this, expecially if they've had a few run ins with members lately. The temptation may be to shut the stable door before the horse bolts. Whether thats appropriate or not is a matter of opinion; give the mods the benefit of the doubt, and perhaps they'll be more open to not locking such threads in future. |
I know modding isn't easy but surely people realise that when they take the role?
|
Stacey
|
| Fee wrote: | | Bet it was that Stacey again, wasn't it |
Unfortunately not. I'll have my badge taken off me soon 
|
Stacey
|
| cab wrote: | | Rob R wrote: | | Fee wrote: | | Or was it really getting out of hand? I'll have a read later hopefully |
Nope, not a single stoat had been mentioned.
Incidentally the introduction of the stoat to the forums seems to have improved things far more than locking ever did. |
Naah, I hate the stoat. Want to avoid answering a question? Say stoat, for some reason its a respectable way of ducking a fair question. Personally, I can't see how thats any more polite than just not posting an answer. |
I htink one has to have a certain sense of humour to understand 'the stoat'. That and an ability not to take oneself too seriously.
|
Stacey
|
| Treacodactyl wrote: | | Stacey wrote: | | Treacodactyl wrote: | | I think there's many people who aren't keen on the debates in the first place or would like some locked much sooner. So, locking after 22 odd pages seems a reasonable compromise to me. |
Why? If it upsets you that much don't read it. |
Don't worry I didn't read it. However, some poor mods will have to to keep an eye on things so I'm happy with a reasonable balance. |
So what are the guidelines for?
|
cab
|
| Stacey wrote: |
I know modding isn't easy but surely people realise that when they take the role? |
Indeed they should, but that doesn't mean that its fair to just give 'em grief over things where they've made a difficult judgement call. I think they were in error here, and I'm sure they've taken the feedback from you, me and others and they'll mull over doing it differently next time.
What do you say guys?
|
cab
|
| Stacey wrote: | | I htink one has to have a certain sense of humour to understand 'the stoat'. That and an ability not to take oneself too seriously. |
I understand it, I just think that the stoat is carp.
|
Stacey
|
| cab wrote: | | Stacey wrote: |
I know modding isn't easy but surely people realise that when they take the role? |
Indeed they should, but that doesn't mean that its fair to just give 'em grief over things where they've made a difficult judgement call. I think they were in error here, and I'm sure they've taken the feedback from you, me and others and they'll mull over doing it differently next time.
What do you say guys? |
I'm not giving anyone grief, cab.
|
Stacey
|
| cab wrote: | | Stacey wrote: | | I htink one has to have a certain sense of humour to understand 'the stoat'. That and an ability not to take oneself too seriously. |
I understand it, I just think that the stoat is carp. |
Then you don't understand it
|
Stacey
|
| JB wrote: | | Treacodactyl wrote: | | I think there's many people who aren't keen on the debates in the first place or would like some locked much sooner. So, locking after 22 odd pages seems a reasonable compromise to me. |
I think the problem is that it seems rather arbitrary. No rules were broken, we don't have anything saying we'll lock threads that are off topic (there'd be almost nothing on here ) and yet the thread is just killed. |
And actually I've just been reading more about the story and have found a piece of info that no-one has yet mentioned - so there was more to be said about that subject.
|
Rob R
|
The stoat is a way of stopping a debate taking a particularly downward spiralling line of nit-picking & pettiness and is a useful way to express frustration that one or more people don't 'get' your point, and probably never will.
|
Stacey
|
| Rob R wrote: | | The stoat is a way of stopping a debate taking a particularly downward spiralling line of nit-picking & pettiness and is a useful way to express frustration that one or more people don't 'get' your point, and probably never will. |
Do you think stoats are homphobic?
|
Rob R
|
No, they'll bite anyone.
|
Barefoot Andrew
|
Maybe carp could be the new stoats?
A.
|
mochyn
|
| cab wrote: | | ... I just think that the stoat is carp. |
You think the stoat is a fish? 
|
Rob R
|
| Barefoot Andrew wrote: | Maybe carp could be the new stoats?
A. |
I couldn't give a badgers.
|
Fee
|
|
Frewen
|
No Fee - superimpise the carp onto the stoat from the downsizer bag thread 
Then we can argue about the background colour for a few pages
cheeky mode off
|
Rob R
|
| Frewen wrote: |
cheeky mode off |
I thought that was default.
|
Stacey
|
| Frewen wrote: | No Fee - superimpise the carp onto the stoat from the downsizer bag thread
|
That's taking non-modal sexual preferences a bit far even for here isn't it? 
|
Brownbear
|
Fear the stoat.
|
Chez
|
I don't think that carp have quite the same 'cuddly looking creature hiding a million sharp teeth' attitude as stoats. Your carp, generally speaking, is pretty low on the Fishy Scale of Madness. Quite placid. Stoats - I reckon the majority of them have behavioural difficulties. Not the same at all. If you want to replace the stoat with a fish, it would have to be a kipper, wouldn't it? Or at the very least, a roll-mop.
|
hamster
|
| Chez wrote: | | ... Your carp, generally speaking, is pretty low on the Fishy Scale of Madness.... |
That has just made me giggle out loud!
|
vegplot
|
| Rob R wrote: | | Fee wrote: | | Or was it really getting out of hand? I'll have a read later hopefully |
Nope, not a single stoat had been mentioned.
Incidentally the introduction of the stoat to the forums seems to have improved things far more than locking ever did. |
I think you need to say
"Incidentally the introduction of the stoat to the forums seems to have improved things far more than locking ever did."
in a somewhat larger font as it's a perfectly apt thing to observe.
|
vegplot
|
| cab wrote: | | I accept that such a balance is needed - the mods, remember, are volounteers, and they don't necessarily want to keep reading a topic. |
Perhaps a 24 hour cooling off block rather than a permanent one?
|
dpack
|
just checked to see if i got an answer .oh well .i guess there must be no defendable reason for her position or have those who understand her been prevented from educating me
|
Rob R
|
No one appears to have declared as agreeing with her, it would be very interesting to hear how her particular moral code stacks up, but I guess we will never know, unless she joins the forum.
|
dpack
|
shall we invite her to a village debate ?
|
Rob R
|
She'd be most welcome.
|
cab
|
| Rob R wrote: | | The stoat is a way of stopping a debate taking a particularly downward spiralling line of nit-picking & pettiness and is a useful way to express frustration that one or more people don't 'get' your point, and probably never will. |
Its also a pretty dull and tedious way of avoiding the question, of diverting attention away from an intellectually bankrupt idea. Its a form of bottling out, I'd prefer people to simply not post rather than to take the mick like that.
|
cab
|
| vegplot wrote: | | cab wrote: | | I accept that such a balance is needed - the mods, remember, are volounteers, and they don't necessarily want to keep reading a topic. |
Perhaps a 24 hour cooling off block rather than a permanent one? |
Maybe.
|
tahir
|
| cab wrote: | | vegplot wrote: | | cab wrote: | | I accept that such a balance is needed - the mods, remember, are volounteers, and they don't necessarily want to keep reading a topic. |
Perhaps a 24 hour cooling off block rather than a permanent one? |
Maybe. |
Possibly
|
Rob R
|
| cab wrote: | | Its also a pretty dull and tedious way of avoiding the question, of diverting attention away from an intellectually bankrupt idea. Its a form of bottling out, I'd prefer people to simply not post rather than to take the mick like that. |
If you choose to use it in such a way then it really makes no difference what 'label' you use for it, it still amounts to the same thing. As I recall though it first came into being in response to an intellectually bankrupt idea:
| Brownbear wrote: | | MarkS wrote: |
Tbh, I'm wondering if gnc is just *too* clever for us.
|
The mistake you are making is to attempt to counter unreason with reason. When someone tells you that the sky is the colour of wonder, the correct response is not to ask them for an explanation, but to offer them a stoat. |
|
dpack
|
ethics should be discussed
a virtual village needs exchange of ideas
i will try to be polite especially when i have strong feelings on a subject ,rudeness rather than reason should be discouraged at an individual level whatever the nature of it ,not by removing the thread in case some are rude or even boring
boring can take sudden turns that change folks lives
ds is about folk ,folk discuss things .
im not suggesting anything goes as to posts ,i do believe that this village can tolerate discussion of ethical issues as well as chook keeping or moos or wool or etc etc etc
sustainable and ethical should include all and 22 pages and a few days has not covered a lot of folk who visit less regularly
i still would like someone to try to explain her position and why it is so important
|
Jonnyboy
|
| dpack wrote: | | i still would like someone to try to explain her position and why it is so important |
TBh I think there is little profit in that
|
tahir
|
| dpack wrote: | ds is about folk ,folk discuss things .
im not suggesting anything goes as to posts ,i do believe that this village can tolerate discussion of ethical issues as well as chook keeping or moos or wool or etc etc etc |
Totally, but users should be aware of the huge effort we mods incur when things go pear shaped, we take these things very seriously and put in huge amounts of time in debating what steps need to be taken, how, by whom etc, this apart from PM conversations with potentially aggrieved members.
Without exception our mods are here for the right reason, without exception they're all very busy people. If people debate sensibly then this isn't an issue.
|
cab
|
| tahir wrote: | Totally, but users should be aware of the huge effort we mods incur when things go pear shaped, we take these things very seriously and put in huge amounts of time in dbaiting what steps need to be taken, how, by whom etc, this apart from PM conversations with potentially aggrieved members.
Without exception our mods are here for the right reason, without exception they're all very busy people. If people debate sensibly then this isn't an issue. |
Do you think that locking that thread at this time was the correct thing to do?
|
tahir
|
| cab wrote: | | Do you think that locking that thread at this time was the correct thing to do? |
I wasn't around, haven't got time to catch up on it now. You (of all people) will know exactly how much debate is going on around this issue in staff room right now.
The last set of issues cost me (at a time when I'm hugely busy) a whole morning of lost work. I do it because I agree with dpack that this village is a great place and one that should be able to discuss ethical issues sensibly, but that means participants need to bear in mind the effect this has on us as individuals.
|
dpack
|
umm yes
a deeper pool of mods ?
ds has grown a lot since i stumbled into town
recruit more mods ,job done
|
dpack
|
this is an important thread ,
|
tahir
|
| dpack wrote: | | recruit more mods ,job done |
It's not that simple, there are 22 of us, we like to achieve at least a clear majority, that means debate before a vote. The more participants the longer this takes....
|
cab
|
| tahir wrote: | | cab wrote: | | Do you think that locking that thread at this time was the correct thing to do? |
I wasn't around, haven't got time to catch up on it now. You (of all people) will know exactly how much debate is going on around this issue in staff room right now. |
And I'm glad to be out of it
Refreshing to see a set of people questioning that here though; like I said earlier in this discussion, its a difficult balance to strike, and perhaps the temptation may be to look a little more pre-emptively if there have been other issues lately. I agree with Stacey (and others who have expressed a view here) that this was a little too pre-emptive.
| Quote: | | The last set of issues cost me (at a time when I'm hugely busy) a whole morning of lost work. I do it because I agree with dpack that this village is a great place and one that should be able to discuss ethical issues sensibly, but that means participants need to bear in mind the effect this has on us as individuals. |
Agreed... Although perhaps the occasional thread like this may also have value in keeping the stresses in staff room in perspective.
|
tahir
|
| dpack wrote: | | this is an important thread , |
It is
|
tahir
|
| cab wrote: | | Refreshing to see a set of people questioning that here though |
It is
|
dpack
|
as an old punk i never thought i would use the words recruit more mods
nobody functions well if stressed ,if the workload is spread it will be done better so long as there is focussed ,not control ,umm planning and delegation
|
tahir
|
| dpack wrote: | | so long as there is focussed ,not control ,umm planning and delegation |
We're trying to do that, but this is neither a dictatorship nor a corporation, it's much more a collective. I think we function well in the circumstances
|
Rob R
|
What is site policy on locked topics?
Sometimes locked threads leave unasked/answered questions that resurface some time later, though most people are reluctant to post them immediately after a lock in. Does locking discourage contributors from subsequently approaching such topics again? I know I do.
|
tahir
|
| Rob R wrote: | | What is site policy on locked topics? |
Case by case
|
cab
|
| tahir wrote: | | Rob R wrote: | | What is site policy on locked topics? |
Case by case |
I think (in fact I know) that leaves many people who feel they have something new to add feeling rather reluctant to re-start a discussion when the previous topic was locked.
|
Jonnyboy
|
It's a bit like being a parent, whatever you do will be wrong.
It may be that the topic in question would have come to a satisfactory conclusion, and would have resulted in less angst over future discussions going sour. Equally it may have exploded and resulted in a member being banned from here, and the next set of debates being locked down to a far greater degree.
Now that neither is likely to happen it is easy in hindsight to criticise the decision, but we act in context. Hopefully future debates this won't be required as it is certainly not a preferred course of action.
|
tahir
|
| cab wrote: | | tahir wrote: | | Rob R wrote: | | What is site policy on locked topics? |
Case by case |
I think (in fact I know) that leaves many people who feel they have something new to add feeling rather reluctant to re-start a discussion when the previous topic was locked. |
But it is generally applied only where offence has been caused or is in imminent danger of being caused. We are and will always remain an inclusive community.
|
vegplot
|
I find locking rather parental.
|
tahir
|
| vegplot wrote: | | I find locking rather parental. |
I'm happy for us to be seen in that light if that stops offence being caused to others, and I think Jon's view rather backs this up
|
Jonnyboy
|
| Rob R wrote: | What is site policy on locked topics?
Sometimes locked threads leave unasked/answered questions that resurface some time later, though most people are reluctant to post them immediately after a lock in. Does locking discourage contributors from subsequently approaching such topics again? I know I do. |
The principle of someone having something new to add is great, the reality is often the same protagonists slugging it out over the same points like a scene from groundhog day. Which neither makes the site look good or encourage less vocal members to make what may be an interesting contribution.
That said, if someone had something genuinely new to add to the debate I can't see people objecting out of hand.
|
dpack
|
i could remove some letters from that and it would still make sense
adults can behave politely
|
Rob R
|
I don't mean the policy on which ones get locked, I mean what is expected of people in response to a locked topic? [ie timings before points can be raised again. I think that when they stay locked people shy away from mentioning it ever again (or they may resurface in future threads which aren't on topic, but I know that it is down in the site guidelines, but then so is swearing, but that's largely ignored).]
|
Silas
|
I think in this sort of situation, where nothing abusive or personal has yet been posted, but it looks very much like it might, a 24 hour lock out for cooling down and reflection may be a good idea.
|
cab
|
| tahir wrote: |
But it is generally applied only where offence has been caused or is in imminent danger of being caused. We are and will always remain an inclusive community. |
If offense had been caused then its not likely that this discussion would have arisen here.
And lockind a thread because offense might be about to be caused... That hasn't been common in moderation here, and I'm uneasy that such may become the case unless doing so is questioned (so I think that Stacey raising the point has done the place a favour). If the aim is to retain an inclusive community spirit, I fear that locking a thread for fear that its about to become offensive may not be entirely compatible with that; do you think it sends out a good message?
|
vegplot
|
| tahir wrote: | | vegplot wrote: | | I find locking rather parental. |
I'm happy for us to be seen in that light if that stops offence being caused to others, and I think Jon's view rather backs this up |
Surely that can be dealt with by locking selective users out rather than the whole thread and preventing others from continuing to make valid contributions.
|
Jonnyboy
|
| Rob R wrote: | | but I know that it is down in the site guidelines, but then so is swearing, but that's largely ignored).] |
Sorry if you feel swearing is ignored. We normally act quite quickly in that when we see it.
|
sean
|
| vegplot wrote: | | tahir wrote: | | vegplot wrote: | | I find locking rather parental. |
I'm happy for us to be seen in that light if that stops offence being caused to others, and I think Jon's view rather backs this up |
Surely that can be dealt with by locking selective users out rather than the whole thread and preventing others from continuing to make valid contributions. |
Only by actually suspending them from the site completely. Or a mod sitting there and deleting their posts as they type them.
|
tahir
|
| cab wrote: | | I fear that locking a thread for fear that its about to become offensive may not be entirely compatible with that; do you think it sends out a good message? |
No, and this (as we all know) is a vanishingly rare occurrence here. Are there other forums where the modding team would be having this discussion with members? I think we're about as open and honest as we can be.
|
vegplot
|
| sean wrote: | | vegplot wrote: | | tahir wrote: | | vegplot wrote: | | I find locking rather parental. |
I'm happy for us to be seen in that light if that stops offence being caused to others, and I think Jon's view rather backs this up |
Surely that can be dealt with by locking selective users out rather than the whole thread and preventing others from continuing to make valid contributions. |
Only by actually suspending them from the site completely. Or a mod sitting there and deleting their posts as they type them. |
On the basis thread suspension is not possible then wouldn't a temporary forum suspension be preferable than locking a thread?
|
tahir
|
| sean wrote: | | Only by actually suspending them from the site completely. Or a mod sitting there and deleting their posts as they type them. |
Neither of which actually sounds a good choice does it?
|
Rob R
|
| Jonnyboy wrote: | | Rob R wrote: | | but I know that it is down in the site guidelines, but then so is swearing, but that's largely ignored).] |
Sorry if you feel swearing is ignored. We normally act quite quickly in that when we see it. |
It had lapsed, recently, but you've had a clean up since I last checked a few days ago
Edit: no I was wrong, it's all still there & the search just wasn't picking it up 
|
cab
|
| tahir wrote: |
No, and this (as we all know) is a vanishingly rare occurrence here. Are there other forums where the modding team would be having this discussion with members? I think we're about as open and honest as we can be. |
I don't think that such discussion of modding policy with members is at all a rare thing, if I'm honest.
Had the modding team had any specific complaints about offense being caused in or by that thread?
|
Stacey
|
| tahir wrote: | | dpack wrote: | ds is about folk ,folk discuss things .
im not suggesting anything goes as to posts ,i do believe that this village can tolerate discussion of ethical issues as well as chook keeping or moos or wool or etc etc etc |
Totally, but users should be aware of the huge effort we mods incur when things go pear shaped, we take these things very seriously and put in huge amounts of time in debating what steps need to be taken, how, by whom etc, this apart from PM conversations with potentially aggrieved members.
Without exception our mods are here for the right reason, without exception they're all very busy people. If people debate sensibly then this isn't an issue. |
Have you read the thread that prompted my post? No-one was debating any way other than sensibly.
|
Jonnyboy
|
| Silas wrote: | | I think in this sort of situation, where nothing abusive or personal has yet been posted, but it looks very much like it might, a 24 hour lock out for cooling down and reflection may be a good idea. |
Where we have given pre-emptive warnings in a thread in the past they have been largely ignored, which means that the inevitable usually happens.
Personally I think it's up to the members to reflect on how they debate here, and how they can do that better, maybe without trying to win at all costs, agreeing to disagree & retaining respect for others views which are contrary to their own. Rather than criticising moderators for actions they take as a result of a failure to adhere to the above.
|
Stacey
|
| Jonnyboy wrote: | It's a bit like being a parent, whatever you do will be wrong.
It may be that the topic in question would have come to a satisfactory conclusion, and would have resulted in less angst over future discussions going sour. Equally it may have exploded and resulted in a member being banned from here, and the next set of debates being locked down to a far greater degree.
Now that neither is likely to happen it is easy in hindsight to criticise the decision, but we act in context. Hopefully future debates this won't be required as it is certainly not a preferred course of action. |
That's just like vegplot's analogy of arresting people in case they are going to commit a crime in the future
There was no hint that the thread was getting personal and if it had then that could and should have been dealt with on an individual basis. This new way of modding makes me very uncomfortable indeed.
|
tahir
|
| Stacey wrote: | | Have you read the thread that prompted my post? No-one was debating any way other than sensibly. |
No, I haven't, and I don't have the time to.
|
Stacey
|
| tahir wrote: | | Stacey wrote: | | Have you read the thread that prompted my post? No-one was debating any way other than sensibly. |
No, I haven't, and I don't have the time to. |
So, my luvver, with all due respect how do you feel qualified to comment?
|
Rob R
|
| Stacey wrote: |
So, my luvver |
|
tahir
|
| cab wrote: | | I don't think that such discussion of modding policy with members is at all a rare thing, if I'm honest. |
Of sites I've been involved with this is the only one that I've actuallly seen engage in a constructive dialogue with it's membership over modding issues.
| Quote: | | Had the modding team had any specific complaints about offense being caused in or by that thread? |
No idea
|
Stacey
|
| Jonnyboy wrote: | | Silas wrote: | | I think in this sort of situation, where nothing abusive or personal has yet been posted, but it looks very much like it might, a 24 hour lock out for cooling down and reflection may be a good idea. |
Where we have given pre-emptive warnings in a thread in the past they have been largely ignored, which means that the inevitable usually happens.
Personally I think it's up to the members to reflect on how they debate here, and how they can do that better, maybe without trying to win at all costs, agreeing to disagree & retaining respect for others views which are contrary to their own. Rather than criticising moderators for actions they take as a result of a failure to adhere to the above. |
I'm really disappointed tbh. I had a lot of respect for you as a mod but now it feels like you know you've made a mistake and won't admit it. Mods get criticised, it's part of the role. It's nothing personal. This community is the way it is becasue of the people who take time to post - whether that's as mods or as joe public. You get too heavy handed with the modding and you'll be left with a stale and jaded forum where people are afraid to disagree with each other.
|
tahir
|
| Stacey wrote: | | So, my luvver, with all due respect how do you feel qualified to comment? |
I'm qualified to comment only on the generalities of this topic, I've already stated that I've no idea about the specifics of the current situation.
|
Stacey
|
| cab wrote: | | tahir wrote: |
No, and this (as we all know) is a vanishingly rare occurrence here. Are there other forums where the modding team would be having this discussion with members? I think we're about as open and honest as we can be. |
I don't think that such discussion of modding policy with members is at all a rare thing, if I'm honest.
|
Me neither. I've seen it on other sites - DS isn't unique in its users feeling they're entitled to a say
|
Treacodactyl
|
| Jonnyboy wrote: | | Personally I think it's up to the members to reflect on how they debate here, and how they can do that better, maybe without trying to win at all costs, agreeing to disagree & retaining respect for others views which are contrary to their own. Rather than criticising moderators for actions they take as a result of a failure to adhere to the above. |
Agree with that.
|
tahir
|
| Treacodactyl wrote: | | Jonnyboy wrote: | | Personally I think it's up to the members to reflect on how they debate here, and how they can do that better, maybe without trying to win at all costs, agreeing to disagree & retaining respect for others views which are contrary to their own. Rather than criticising moderators for actions they take as a result of a failure to adhere to the above. |
Agree with that. |
Me too (and no, I don't think that means users can't disagree with each other)
|
judith
|
| Stacey wrote: | | You get too heavy handed with the modding and you'll be left with a stale and jaded forum where people are afraid to disagree with each other. |
And the opposite is true - you allow a free-for-all and end up with a stale and jaded forum in which those who don't have a robust debating style are afraid to join in.
That's what happens while half a dozen people are having a punch-up on one thread - all energy is devoted to that, and the real purpose of the whole site is forgotten.
|
tahir
|
| judith wrote: | And the opposite is true - you allow a free-for-all and end up with a stale and jaded forum in which those who don't have a robust debating style are afraid to join in.
That's what happens while half a dozen people are having a punch-up on one thread - all energy is devoted to that, and the real purpose of the whole site is forgotten. |
Really really well put.
|
cab
|
| tahir wrote: |
Of sites I've been involved with this is the only one that I've actuallly seen engage in a constructive dialogue with it's membership over modding issues. |
Then, on reflection, your choice of websites to be involved with (and indeed shape) has reached a pinacle with Downsizer, but I think that the other sites you've used sound below par in this respect. Many other sites I know have a far more active 'suggestions' and 'feedback' areas, where suggestions for improvements and concerns as to how the site is run are aired. I don't particularly know whether Downsizer needs that, but I don't believe that this site is exceptional in its response to feedback from members.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Had the modding team had any specific complaints about offense being caused in or by that thread? |
No idea |
In the context of the discussion it would be informative to know; it would not be unreasonable for such a thread to be locked and reviewed in response to a complaint, and (of course) that must be done in private (and it may well be appropriate even to keep the fact that a complaint has been made private, depending on the nature of the complaint). I just asked because it would certainly make sense of the thread being locked.
|
Rob R
|
| tahir wrote: | | (and no, I don't think that means users can't disagree with each other) |
I disagree. Damn
|
Jonnyboy
|
| Stacey wrote: |
I'm really disappointed tbh. I had a lot of respect for you as a mod but now it feels like you know you've made a mistake and won't admit it. Mods get criticised, it's part of the role. It's nothing personal. This community is the way it is becasue of the people who take time to post - whether that's as mods or as joe public. You get too heavy handed with the modding and you'll be left with a stale and jaded forum where people are afraid to disagree with each other. |
Don't worry, my ego actually is too big to bruise.
I think we're a long,long way from being afraid to disagree with each other, this thread is evidence of that. On a lot of sites discussion of mod actions isn't allowed - at all.
I expect that outcome of this is that next time people will be given a longer rope, and hopefully will be mindful of that and not create an atmosphere where mods even need to contemplate anything pre emptive
|
Stacey
|
| judith wrote: | | Stacey wrote: | | You get too heavy handed with the modding and you'll be left with a stale and jaded forum where people are afraid to disagree with each other. |
And the opposite is true - you allow a free-for-all and end up with a stale and jaded forum in which those who don't have a robust debating style are afraid to join in.
That's what happens while half a dozen people are having a punch-up on one thread - all energy is devoted to that, and the real purpose of the whole site is forgotten. |
But no-one was having a punch up
THAT'S my point!
No guidelines were broken as far as anyone can see.
|
