Can moderators of certain unamed sites be abusive

[kevincompton]

Disclamer ~ This is just a general observation and has no direct implication on this site. Though it does exclude this site and in fact may be the opinion of some that this site quintessentially represents these views, I do not implicate this site or any of the moderators therein. Additionally the name "duke" is a symbol and a name that may be applied to many moderators throughout the internet. It references to no specific person and should therefore not be taken by any moderator and/or user as a reference to them. Should any moderator be offended by the material within we do ask that we be messaged prior to any disciplinary action. This matter is very important to us and we would like it to be discussed in a free forum without unneccessary restriction.

It is my impression that there are moderators on sites that will not be named who discipline based on their personal distaste of what someone may say, not regarding their right to say it when its in lets say, an off-topic forum. Additionally if the said post were to be political it seems that moderators, if they take an opposing view, tend to persecute that person without any regard to their rights as stated in their own forum's policies. This moderator i will refer to with the hypothetical name, "Duke".

Now of course this is bound to happen. Anyone, particularly the hypothetical Duke has a tendecy to let power corrupt. So wheres the accountability. In truth its the users and the sponsors that take the real ownership of a site. And the sponsors are only here because we are. The moderators are here to serve our needs as users, not to rule with a mighty grip some fictional kingdom. As a result when this happens, what do you think hypothetically should be done to such a site and such a moderator?

 

[Tomoyo]

The admin decides.

 

[Azadre]

Disclamer ~ This is just a general observation and has no direct implication on this site. Though it does exclude this site and in fact may be the opinion of some that this site quintessentially represents these views, I do not implicate this site or any of the moderators therein. Additionally the name "duke" is a symbol and a name that may be applied to many moderators throughout the internet. It references to no specific person and should therefore not be taken by any moderator and/or user as a reference to them. Should any moderator be offended by the material within we do ask that we be messaged prior to any disciplinary action. This matter is very important to us and we would like it to be discussed in a free forum without unneccessary restriction.

It is my impression that there are moderators on sites that will not be named who discipline based on their personal distaste of what someone may say, not regarding their right to say it when its in lets say, an off-topic forum. Additionally if the said post were to be political it seems that moderators, if they take an opposing view, tend to persecute that person without any regard to their rights as stated in their own forum's policies. This moderator i will refer to with the hypothetical name, "Duke".

Now of course this is bound to happen. Anyone, particularly the hypothetical Duke has a tendecy to let power corrupt. So wheres the accountability. In truth its the users and the sponsors that take the real ownership of a site. And the sponsors are only here because we are. The moderators are here to serve our needs as users, not to rule with a mighty grip some fictional kingdom. As a result when this happens, what do you think hypothetically should be done to such a site and such a moderator?

I think this Duke should cast his mighty power onto whomever attempts to rise up.

 

[Scuffer]

I believe that if users aren't happy, they should put up or shut up. Or leave for that matter.

If you pay money to access a theoretical site, then that'd be different.

 

[BasketCase]

The definition of "corrupt" depends who you ask, doesn't it? One man's troll is another man's truth.

Running for cover before this one gets closed!

 

[Japher]

I like Duke!@1!!

Mods (or lack there of), for the most part, determine the feel of the site. If you don't like the mod than I would suggest that you shuffle off, or deal. I deal here, but that is why I rarely come around here. Most ppl that I know from posting post at several different sites. So, it's not like all is lost.

 

[Mark1031]

I do not find it difficult to have discussions or even arguments with Mods at any sites I visit. Let's see I only visit this site. Hmmm.

 

[Japher]

I do not find it difficult to have discussions or even arguments with Mods at any sites I visit. Let's see I only visit this site. Hmmm.

You wanna talk about the French?

 

[kevincompton]

I like Duke!@1!!

Mods (or lack there of), for the most part, determine the feel of the site. If you don't like the mod than I would suggest that you shuffle off, or deal. I deal here, but that is why I rarely come around here. Most ppl that I know from posting post at several different sites. So, it's not like all is lost.

I think you all are missing my point. I'm not speaking about the wellfare of one user but the wellfare of a website and all the users due to 1 or more abusive mods. As I stated the real purpose of the site is the community of users. Of course what will occur if it gets bad enough is that the users will leave, but it would need to get pretty bad if the forum is popular. What then is missing is the optimum efficiency of a forum.

Now the issue here seems pretty clear is that all that would be needed is a place for the voice of the users. User evaluation of said mods on given sites.

Additionally I highly resent those of you who can't figure out how to discuss hypothetically. If your going to make direct reference to this site then bite your tongue and find another thread to post in. Who is the Duke, btw? Its just a hypothetical name, perhaps you don't know what that means?

 

[Mark1031]

You wanna talk about the French?

Not really but I'm sure I could find a way to bash the French that would be acceptable to unnamed sites. It's all a question of language and tone, it's not that hard.

 

[Japher]

Duke of Marlbrough is a mod on this site... bad choice for a hypothetical.

 

[kevincompton]

I don't even think we can directly say on this site if we have a problem with the mods without the thread being banned. So until liberation, please do not make reference to this site, even if you think the mods on here are dirty tyrrants you still can't say anything negative about them. It would be wrong.

 

[Scuffer]

I think you all are missing my point. I'm not speaking about the wellfare of one user but the wellfare of a website and all the users due to 1 or more abusive mods. As I stated the real purpose of the site is the community of users. Of course what will occur if it gets bad enough is that the users will leave, but it would need to get pretty bad if the forum is popular. What then is missing is the optimum efficiency of a forum.

If you are genuinely making a point about the web in general, then you should do it without using the name of a mod here. As it stands, it looks to everyone like you are having a specific attack, no matter how many 'hypotheticals' you put in it.

 

[Tassadar]

If you dont like beeing patronise and/or beeing treated like lilttle child, go on some gamer forum.

It is like boxing, it is good to release pressure of the mind over the moronic world.

But if you want a more philosophical discusion, then you have no choice to accept a well moderated forum, because educated/elitism poeple generaly somehow avoid a ''battle arena''.

Strangly, some gaming forum, even with very low profile moderator, have rule against religious/political discusion. Those thread are close right away.

 

[Syterion]

Obviously you are mad at Duke of Marlborough for some sort of moderating he did. But the mods here are much better than average, trust me. The first time I got banned(for "impersonating" a mod by using the mod tag) I talked to Thunderfall and he took it away, since it was my first offense. Nice disclaimer, though.

As for power corrupting, I don't think the power of moderating a forum really goes to their heads...

 

[kevincompton]

what mod are you reffereing to? There is no mod on here name "DUKE", though some mods names in the world may sound similar, this hypothetical mods name represents no one specifically. If you have a problem (clearly you do) with understanding what hypothetical means then substitute wherever you read "duke" with "Gary".

Got it? Now stay on point please. Thanks a bunch.

 

[col]

Hypothetically, the way to deal with any issue with an individual is via private PM between the two of you. If that fails to resolve the situation, then a Pm to the owner / admin of the site would be a reasonable next step laying out the problems and what had been done to resolve it.

Hypothetically, posting public threads makes the situation worse, irriates all the mods and normally brings down a bolt of lightning from Asgard.

 

[Bugfatty300]

The mods on MSN chat rooms are the worst. (ie they kick you out for disagreeing with them on anything.) Which is BS since I was a paying subcriber to MSN's chat rooms and forums.

 

[kevincompton]

"Duke of Marlborough"? Is that what you guys are so hung up on? Well dear me...what is there to..d...ahhh! I know...we'll forget about him because its a hypothetical discussion anyways! Or we can leave Kevin's thread because we can't understand good discussion! thats it! One of those....great idea.

 

[Yuri2356]

I don't even think we can directly say on this site if we have a problem with the mods without the thread being banned. So until liberation, please do not make reference to this site, even if you think the mods on here are dirty tyrrants you still can't say anything negative about them. It would be wrong.

I believe that if you were to take your complaints/comments to Site Feedback, and take great care to phrase them in a polite, civilized, inoffesive way, (Like what you did with your disclaimer) that they would be heard and taken into considderation.