About moderation
- Thread starter Agent327
- Start date
Start a conversation (equivalent to sending a Private Message) to a supermod or admin.
At the top of the page, there is a list of menu options: Home, Forums, Download, ... and on the end is Members. Click on it and then on the screen that pops up, there is a tab titled "Staff Members". Click and a list of all the staff members will pop up. Supermods and Admins' names are in a red color, site moderators are in blue.
Ryika
Lazy Wannabe Artista
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 9,393
Please don't give up. You have the strength, you can do it. Don't give in and fight the good fight.
You have 10 years and 15,000 posts under your belt. You have earned the right to make your concerns known. Unless you do, the staff will never know.
The issue is not whether 'the staff will never know', the issue is whether the staff can or will do anything about it. It's one reason why I've never formally objected to any infraction. (And you can check the archives on that.)
Ryika
Lazy Wannabe Artista
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 9,393
I wouldn't think about it that way. Even if nothing happens as a result, at least the rest of the moderators have seen what the individual moderator in question has done. If it's something you think the average person will object to you should totally report it.
I don't think it's a matter of someone being slighted (and I know this has happened, and is likely to happen again), but of staff members acting as if they are infallible, and if you point out they are not or even correct them you might be confronted by petty vindictiveness of the most personal sort. I don't think that's the issue here or that it will be corrected by even the removal of a single staff member. That is not my objective, and I'm sorry if that has been hinted at by choosing the thread title. The point is, this is something to be expected if staff is 'refreshed' by cooptation. Since, as staff is prone to point out, CFC is not a democracy, it's not even my task as a common member. It's a task for staff members to recognize and realize. I'm sure there are indeed such staff members. The question is, are they willing and capable to effectuate a change? After all, this is a private site (even more so after the recent site move). In some sense, of course, it's a question of: who guards the guardians? In this case more of what guards the guardians. So, I will not pursue this further, as it's not up to me. I can only mention it, and this is what I have done.
Time for an anekdote.
My grandfather lived in a small village. He also was a policeman. It being a small village, he was the only policeman. It being a small village (and this being quite some time ago), not much of crime was going on. However, my grandfather was the law. And if he caught anyone breaking the law, he would do his duty. Even if it meant giving one of his own children a fine. Now, my dad told me this, as he thought it was funny. Because obviously, if he fined one of his own, he'd have to pay for it himself. It's easy to imagine a different kind of policeman. one who will not fine his own. But of the two policeman, there's only one who earns my respect. Because of the two policeman, only one isn't corrupt.
I know more anekdotes like this. And the funny thing is, they are all true.
My grandfather lived in a small village. He also was a policeman. It being a small village, he was the only policeman. It being a small village (and this being quite some time ago), not much of crime was going on. However, my grandfather was the law. And if he caught anyone breaking the law, he would do his duty. Even if it meant giving one of his own children a fine. Now, my dad told me this, as he thought it was funny. Because obviously, if he fined one of his own, he'd have to pay for it himself. It's easy to imagine a different kind of policeman. one who will not fine his own. But of the two policeman, there's only one who earns my respect. Because of the two policeman, only one isn't corrupt.
I know more anekdotes like this. And the funny thing is, they are all true.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Messages
- 30,079
The administrators, and then ultimately thunderfall.
Syno
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 24,885
Making the conscious decision to be silent removes any serious consideration over future complaints over how things are done on CFC.
You also make it sound like the CFC administration is the next Hussein government. I like to think of ainwood, leif, et al as benevolent dictators.
(Seriously though, literally nothing can be done about your concerns unless you voice them. Vague "there's a problem but I won't say what it is" remarks do nothing for anyone.)
You also make it sound like the CFC administration is the next Hussein government. I like to think of ainwood, leif, et al as benevolent dictators.
(Seriously though, literally nothing can be done about your concerns unless you voice them. Vague "there's a problem but I won't say what it is" remarks do nothing for anyone.)
None of whom are infallible. It's been my view for many years that people who launch serious appeals or have other sorts of major difficulties here should have the benefit of an unbiased advocate. Otherwise, it's like an accused person forced to represent him/herself in front of a judge and jury (all made up of supermods and admins) without benefit of counsel.
Since the accused member does not know all the backroom decisions or opinions, and is probably quite emotional at the time (and at risk of expressing anger that would be seen as disrespectful rather than possibly justified, if the infraction, etc. were for something that either did not actually occur or is misunderstood), the fair thing to do would be for the accused member to have the option of someone to act as an advocate.
Making the conscious decision to be silent removes any serious consideration over future complaints over how things are done on CFC.
You also make it sound like the CFC administration is the next Hussein government. I like to think of ainwood, leif, et al as benevolent dictators.
(Seriously though, literally nothing can be done about your concerns unless you voice them. Vague "there's a problem but I won't say what it is" remarks do nothing for anyone.)
I'm not exactly being silent, am i? What I, at this point, am reluctant to do is make personal accusations. That's not my issue. (And I'm sure Hussein e.a. like to think of themselves as benevolent dictators as well. But I'm not sure why the comparison.)
Secondly, my complaint isn't vague. I'm not sure what you gave that idea. Not naming persons doesn't make a complaint vague. And I already stated that the eventual removal of one or more persons from staff will likely not change anything.
Lastly, unless some action is undertaken by staff, I'm perfectly willing to make this personal - even though it isn't. It's about staff culture.
I am perfectly aware of that. Which is why I changed the rhetorical question to what guards the guardians. It's the what that's my concern.
Syno
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 24,885
Through this thread, we've established:
A) You have a complaint.
B) You've decided to not voice your complaint.
C) Your reasoning for not voicing your complaint is that the staff won't do anything.
D) You have not voiced your complaint, so you cannot know what the staff will do.
E) The staff will do nothing because you've given them nothing to do except just that: nothing.
