A Serious Question

[Dralix]

I completely agree with all the moderators who have said that private communication is preferred. The only point I was trying to make was that if the forum rules say post on Site Feedback, people (especially newbies who haven't visited a thread like this) will do just that.

All I suggest is updating the forum rules to say that your first course of action should be to PM the moderator directly.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

The recent examples have been little more than 'why was I banned?' or 'what did I do wrong?' type items. Those should be addressed by PM in my opinion, snce only the Mod who did the actual action would know why. Everything else is speculation and assumptions. Then you get people who jump on the discussion to mention prior actions and such.

They have not been very productive, thus have not served any beneficial purpose so far.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Originally posted by Dralix
All I suggest is updating the forum rules to say that your first course of action should be to PM the moderator directly.

I think that is exactly what TF is deciding on.

 

[Padma]

Originally posted by Dralix
All I suggest is updating the forum rules to say that your first course of action should be to PM the moderator directly.

I can agree with that.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

I too would prefer that as spelled out.

Too many times have "feedback" become personal attack time, which is probaly why I'm particularly hostile to it.
I have put in a lot of free time to help make CFC a place people want to go to, and then to see newbies cut and paste comments out of context, and the airing of old grudges, and attacks on views that DID NOT concern moderating, it has become too much.

If you have questions or comments, I'm always ready to hear them.

Post them here, and all you will get from me is negitivity.

 

[andrewgprv]

I'd just like to say sorry about my thread I figured that site feedback was the place I'd take any complaints. In the future it'll all be via PM or email.

 

[Perfection]

What we need is a clear defined procedure for reporting mods. good system is:
first step is a PM to the Mod(s) in question
second is PM'ing TF
Third is posting a thread in site feedback if and only if you have TF's approval.


This procedure should be followed for all instances where the actions of a Moderator are questioned.

(Sorry if this is a double, I'm getting funny messages)

Edit: Nope no double

Edit2: Now there is

 

[Thunderfall]

The forum rules page will be updated this weekend.

 

[kojimanard]

I think these threads about moderator actions serve a very useful purpose. In these threads, the mods often explain their thinking. A PM will only go to one person. By having these threads, others, not involved in the particular incident, can understand the reasons for a particular action and thereby get to know the mods and their approaches better. And, as a result, the members can modify their own actions.

 

[Perfection]

That is true, however many people just revert to whiny or innflammatory posting that not many people agree with, and that puts a strain on the Mods. My system allows for some disscussion but not for whiny or inflammatory posts

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by kojimanard
I think these threads about moderator actions serve a very useful purpose. In these threads, the mods often explain their thinking. A PM will only go to one person. By having these threads, others, not involved in the particular incident, can understand the reasons for a particular action and thereby get to know the mods and their approaches better. And, as a result, the members can modify their own actions.

I would agree, if the general attitude of all the people posting here was civil and polite. This is not the case. Public commentary threads on moderator actions only encourages the whiney troublemakers to come out of the woodwork. Quite frankly, I've had more than my fill of those types. If a problem seems widespread, or an issue is presented that everybody should see, the moderators will post an announcment about it. That's good enough.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Originally posted by Raijer
Kill off the discussion simply to protect those who would disregard the rules?

I don't think this is ment to kill off the discussion, but to stop the public discussion. What I have seen happeneing is that people are posting in Site Feedback, others are reading the posts and then carrying over that type of posting to their normal posts. Just becasue the thread was opened in Site Feeback doesn't allow people to post any differently from how they normally should post. But, for some reason, people tend to do that.

It is not an excuse to attack another poster, it is not a place where you can get a 'clean shot' in on someone. Since it is being treated that way, it does not serve the purpose that I think TF intended it for, so it's changing.

If people have persoanl issues with a poster, any poster, Mod or not, they should address them by PM. If the two people can't work it out individually and it continues to be an issue in the forums, then bringing TF into it by PM is the next option. Then, it should gte solved one way or another.

 

[Cartouche Bee]

Well you can't hold a PM discussion if you don't who your supposed to be PM'ing. I hope that issue is clearly addressed in the new rules, in case any others are left out in the lurch.

 

[Padma]

Well, CB, anytime you see a Moderator Action, check for the "Edited by" line at the bottom. It will tell you who made the change. Plus, many of us "sign" our moderator actions, e.g. --Padma.

Also, if you receive a warning (or a ban) you will normally also receive a PM/email from the mod who did it.

Finally, look at the top of the forum. There is a line tellilng you who the mods for that forum are.

So it should be possible to figure out who to PM.

 

[Cartouche Bee]

Padma, I'm pretty sure your right generally, and I doubt you would be a problem in this area. So, you suggest that the person PM all the moderators of that forum, for cases that fall out of the norm.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Padma
check for the "Edited by" line at the bottom.

Shows up even for me now (it had not prior to a few days ago). The only time it would not show not is if Thunderfall does the edit, or if it is does within a few minutes after the initial post.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Warnings are always given by an individual, so they should be a problem.

If someone was banned, wasn't warned first, no message was posted saying they were banned, or didn't get a PM saying they were banned, I would almost PM TF first to try and find out what happened. Except for one case that I know of, everyone who has gotten banned knew who did it or why they were banned.

 

[Cartouche Bee]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola


Shows up even for me now (it had not prior to a few days ago). The only time it would not show not is if Thunderfall does the edit, or if it is does within a few minutes after the initial post.

The post has to be there for the edited text to be there.

Let's just try and cover all the bases with the new rule, so it has the best chance to suceed and keep 'everyone' on a straight line, that is all I'm suggesting.

 

[Ribannah]

There are two slight problems with having to look at the signature or 'edited by' of the mod who did the banning.

If you don't know that you're banned, the first thing you think is: 'Hey, the site is having problems?' when you find you can't post.

Then, when you finally get the idea that something else may have happened, you still have to find the right post.

 

[Thunderfall]

As I said in my previous post, the rules will be updated this weekend.

Thread closed.