AtlantaMarty
No longer active
No. It happens privately and the results are posted publicly (if the user consents).
Oh.
Well, either way, I think the fewer rules and regulations, the better. I am a libertarian conservative, after all.
No. It happens privately and the results are posted publicly (if the user consents).
I want to leave a comment on this even though this is a while ago.It seems the only person complaining is you.
It is important to have an appreciation for Super Duper Moderators here volunteering their time to maintain order, but let's not forget that this is a website and not some aristocratic bureaucracy. IRL, most of us can speak openly about our politicians, teachers, and superiors. It just doesn't make sense that we somehow suddenly have to be hush hush when it comes to discussing the actions of moderators residing in this website. What makes them so special that necessitates such atypical reverence?
It sure sounded like people were almost always unreasonable with their complaints. according to your tone.I did not say that people who get infracted are snowflakes. If you are going to put words into my mouth, at least be more creative with it.
Then maybe you've grown used to that status quo then, especially when you are part of the big boy's club. That doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist though.I don't need to consider that scenario; I've been on CFC for 13 years
Oh, that's pretty unreasonable. Everyone makes mistakes and seldom do we have anyone who's above public critique. Can you name one IRL? Besides, it's is also extremely inconvenient to discuss rules and their improper enforcement if specific instances cannot be referenced to. Furthermore, the appeal process (from what I remember years back) was a completely closed door discussion with no input from anyone but moderators - That also is a messed up system.We're just not allowed to point to Moderator Y and say it's their fault. That's pretty reasonable.
What's reasonable is to have a public forum dedicated for dispute resolution. If you guys want to volunteer to be moderators, then you should also be responsible enough to stand up for your decisions. If they were justified, there will likely be no dispute and if there are, then some people will jump to your defense no doubt.
Then they did volunteer when they asked? That's considered volunteering, no?AFAIK no-one "want to volunteer" to be a moderator, the staff search candidates and ask them if they want to help the site.
Unfortunately, that's likely pretty close to the truth. After all, what real world entities are there whom it is forbidden to critique their actions?Okay. You've made your opinion about authority pretty transparent with the remarks about how the staff here have no spine and believe themselves almighty. There's no value in responding further. Take care.
There is a difference between wanting to do something and accepting to do something.Then they did volunteer when they asked? That's considered volunteering, no?
There is a difference between wanting to do something and accepting to do something.
You're basing your argumentation on the assumption that we want to be moderators but this assumption is wrong.
The idea here is to prevent cases in which some moderators decide to misbehave and use that rule to make things difficult. In any case, I do agree that participation of this forum is completely voluntary. I only decided to chime in on this topic because some moderators put up a lame excuse on why they want to enforce that gag order and tried to play it off as an issue that nobody ever cared about. Even though things are unlikely to change, it does feel a bit satisfying to set the records straight.Must be better here though than on Twitter, Fartbook and else where?
But as somebody said already, take it or leave it, this place here.
But on a side note i would like to say that if somebody have a problem with somebody´s moderation here they should at least be able to take it up with the person in question privately. If the person refuse to do it, some other moderator that will decide if some moderator then have misbehaved and should be questioned totally.
I´m no fan then of places where the moderators got just too much power and are right no matter what.
Well, there's only a difference between wanting and accepting if you were compelled by circumstances to accept against your wishes.There is a difference between wanting to do something and accepting to do something.
You're basing your argumentation on the assumption that we want to be moderators but this assumption is wrong.
To answer the original question, the reason discussion of moderator action is not open to discussion is that moderators are endowed with a scrap of authority without much evaluation of their merits. They sometimes make errors in judgment, some let their personal biases lead to unfair behavior, and that's the price of doing business in this forum, because nobody wants to convene a court of appeals. They just want to move on with their lives and hope the good moderation decisions outweigh the bad.
Thanks, I'm familiar with this forum where these matters are sort of shuffled off to the side. More than most places have, to be sure.
From your experience, how often are there forums where moderator actions are not allowed to be discussed in public?Pretty much just like any forum where mods are volunteers.