| |
Laxity
Registered: Aug 2005
Posts: 459 |
Evaluating the moderation of CSDb
I think it's time to evaluate how the moderation of CSDb is going. Good/bad?.. Anyone?
Something just struct my eye. I just saw the "moderation rules" thread (started by Oswald) being closed for no obvious reason (Ok, Steppe said - "close thread?" or something). I disagree in such an approach to moderation. The moderator should not close a thread unless it's going really bad, and warnings have been issued; furthermore I think moderators who personally participate in a discussion should be rendered powerless over moderating that particular discussion. Furthermore, when closing a thread, I think a reason for doing so should be given..
Oh, and this is not supposed to be another "bitching" topic. I'd like to call and everybody interested to state their thoughts. Good AND bad. Not just bad, please!.. |
|
... 150 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11390 |
no not really, i just care more about the database :) |
| |
Danzig
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 440 |
i can't post my true emotions 'bout the moderation otherwise this entry will "get moderated"... |
| |
The Dark Prince
Account closed
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 10 |
Quoting CreaMDAs far as talks about moderation and rules are concerned. I still think forum isn't the place for that.
This is a worrying thing to see. Forums are kind of designed for group discussions over issues affecting an entire site. More to the point it gives you a discussion you can then refer to when someone else asks the same thing.
Also, since you're the first to defend the transparency of the moderation process, you should be the first to defend, (yes, defend) the transparency of discussion of the moderating process.
Complaining, suggesting or even just discussion moderation with the mods via PM is a very one sided and very unfairly weighted in favour of the mods. Suggesting this is a fair replacement for open discussion in a forum (the very word evolves from open discussion in greek times) saddens me.
Take the following example:
Forum member "O" suggests something. Forum Mod "G" does like forum member "O" (and the simple fact is, people don't like each other, to argue otherwise is just stupid), and politely tells him to go and stuff his head up a dead bears arse. And it ends there. "O" gets pissed off (and rightly so), and a lot of other members might have missed out on hearing an idea that interests them. Not to mention the increased workload when someone else mentions it (although they will almost certainly get more attention).
That is just a stupid and shit way of handling things and is very us-and-them with the mods placed firmly in the seat of the gods. What if what member "O" had said was something a lot of other people would agree with but hadn't thought of? What if moderator "G" was the only one active at the time when "O" sent the message and didn't feel that "O"s idea was important enough to relay to the other mods.
I'm much of an observer only here, I have little to contribute to other threads so I don't. But this is important, stop dismissing the moderation as "It's working and don't fucking question it bitches.", because the moment you do that, it clearly isn't.
Oh, and also please learn the meaning behind the phrase 'security through obscurity' before arguing that the internals of the database should not be openly discussed. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11390 |
Quote:
What if what member "O" had said was something a lot of other people would agree with but hadn't thought of? What if moderator "G" was the only one active at the time when "O" sent the message and didn't feel that "O"s idea was important enough to relay to the other mods.
post into the "message to moderators" thread, it can (and will) be read by all moderators. |
| |
Burglar
Registered: Dec 2004
Posts: 1105 |
Quote: Quote:
What if what member "O" had said was something a lot of other people would agree with but hadn't thought of? What if moderator "G" was the only one active at the time when "O" sent the message and didn't feel that "O"s idea was important enough to relay to the other mods.
post into the "message to moderators" thread, it can (and will) be read by all moderators.
the dark prince is right, even in *this* thread posts got deleted left and right.
the mods clearly are not understanding that they are so doing the wrong thing. over and over again. |
| |
Trazan
Account closed
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 620 |
True, posts were removed from this thread:
2 made by moderators, regarding the Autoban of Groepaz for altering all too much data in short time - securitytrigger.
One was made by Oswald, asking why we removed the thread ABOUT why Groepaz was removed. Problem solved, discussion closed for that thread.
|
| |
Burglar
Registered: Dec 2004
Posts: 1105 |
Quote: True, posts were removed from this thread:
2 made by moderators, regarding the Autoban of Groepaz for altering all too much data in short time - securitytrigger.
One was made by Oswald, asking why we removed the thread ABOUT why Groepaz was removed. Problem solved, discussion closed for that thread.
so when a discussion is closed, all relevant posts get deleted.
you're still not making any sense.
anyway, I'm getting pretty tired of discussing this, feels like I'm talking to a wall.
this is a *forum*, a place for *discussion*, not some page where some self appointed moderators can delete posts at will. |
| |
Scout
Registered: Dec 2002
Posts: 1570 |
What Burglar said.
In my opinion posts and comments should ONLY be deleted when the content is (grossly) offensive.
Sure, some people use big/harsh words to express themselves but keep in mind we're talking about one big collection of ego's (aka the scene).
Mods should see through that.
When a thread becomes off-topic in some certain way, it is the task of the moderator to get the thread on-topic again.
This is NOT done by deleting posts.
The current moderation-policy (if you can call it that way) spoils the whole laid-back atmosphere and my drive to participate.
Also, will this post be deleted because somebody already said the same in this thread?
|
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3057 |
Quote: Quoting CreaMDAs far as talks about moderation and rules are concerned. I still think forum isn't the place for that.
This is a worrying thing to see. Forums are kind of designed for group discussions over issues affecting an entire site. More to the point it gives you a discussion you can then refer to when someone else asks the same thing.
Also, since you're the first to defend the transparency of the moderation process, you should be the first to defend, (yes, defend) the transparency of discussion of the moderating process.
Complaining, suggesting or even just discussion moderation with the mods via PM is a very one sided and very unfairly weighted in favour of the mods. Suggesting this is a fair replacement for open discussion in a forum (the very word evolves from open discussion in greek times) saddens me.
Take the following example:
Forum member "O" suggests something. Forum Mod "G" does like forum member "O" (and the simple fact is, people don't like each other, to argue otherwise is just stupid), and politely tells him to go and stuff his head up a dead bears arse. And it ends there. "O" gets pissed off (and rightly so), and a lot of other members might have missed out on hearing an idea that interests them. Not to mention the increased workload when someone else mentions it (although they will almost certainly get more attention).
That is just a stupid and shit way of handling things and is very us-and-them with the mods placed firmly in the seat of the gods. What if what member "O" had said was something a lot of other people would agree with but hadn't thought of? What if moderator "G" was the only one active at the time when "O" sent the message and didn't feel that "O"s idea was important enough to relay to the other mods.
I'm much of an observer only here, I have little to contribute to other threads so I don't. But this is important, stop dismissing the moderation as "It's working and don't fucking question it bitches.", because the moment you do that, it clearly isn't.
Oh, and also please learn the meaning behind the phrase 'security through obscurity' before arguing that the internals of the database should not be openly discussed.
"message to moderators" goes to all moderators. Moderators watch over moderators. Moderators come from different backgrounds to prevent moderation biased towards particular scene (legal vs illegal) Perff watches over moderators.
Your example is based on wrong premise.
|
| |
Laxity
Registered: Aug 2005
Posts: 459 |
Quote: Quoting CreaMDAs far as talks about moderation and rules are concerned. I still think forum isn't the place for that.
This is a worrying thing to see. Forums are kind of designed for group discussions over issues affecting an entire site. More to the point it gives you a discussion you can then refer to when someone else asks the same thing.
Also, since you're the first to defend the transparency of the moderation process, you should be the first to defend, (yes, defend) the transparency of discussion of the moderating process.
Complaining, suggesting or even just discussion moderation with the mods via PM is a very one sided and very unfairly weighted in favour of the mods. Suggesting this is a fair replacement for open discussion in a forum (the very word evolves from open discussion in greek times) saddens me.
Take the following example:
Forum member "O" suggests something. Forum Mod "G" does like forum member "O" (and the simple fact is, people don't like each other, to argue otherwise is just stupid), and politely tells him to go and stuff his head up a dead bears arse. And it ends there. "O" gets pissed off (and rightly so), and a lot of other members might have missed out on hearing an idea that interests them. Not to mention the increased workload when someone else mentions it (although they will almost certainly get more attention).
That is just a stupid and shit way of handling things and is very us-and-them with the mods placed firmly in the seat of the gods. What if what member "O" had said was something a lot of other people would agree with but hadn't thought of? What if moderator "G" was the only one active at the time when "O" sent the message and didn't feel that "O"s idea was important enough to relay to the other mods.
I'm much of an observer only here, I have little to contribute to other threads so I don't. But this is important, stop dismissing the moderation as "It's working and don't fucking question it bitches.", because the moment you do that, it clearly isn't.
Oh, and also please learn the meaning behind the phrase 'security through obscurity' before arguing that the internals of the database should not be openly discussed.
I couldn't agree more!.. Well put. |
| Previous - 1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ... | 16 - Next |
