Zen and the art of moderation 2 2

[RockMyAmadeus]

If you're going to respond again, RMA, turn the volume on the outrage down. It's not constructive.

 

 

You seem to have great difficulty in determining the difference between "outrage" and someone forthrightly disagreeing with your assessment of the situation.

 

You do, however, have a very easy time with threatening people. After all..."non constructive" conversation (with what is, and what is not, constructive of course being up to you) is a violation of policy, and a strikable offense.

 

I really wish you, and whomever it is that is contracted to do this work for the Certified Collectibles Group, would move on to some other company already and let someone else take your place. You really don't seem to be able to handle it when people take issue with the way you do your job.

 

I do hope that wasn't too "outrageous" for you.

 

(thumbs u

 

I respect your opinion, but as an unbiased observer...I completely disagree. I had the exact same reaction as Arch when reading your post; my view about your argumentative style is that you deliberately choose to use quite a bit of inflammatory language. Perhaps you do so for emphasis; I don't know. I think you, like most of us, has a real hard time being criticised. I mean, the eyeroll at the start of your post is just about as perfect an example of what he's talking about, short of a graemlin that's giving the finger.

 

I'm not saying this to argue with you, or to get into a prolonged parsing of your original post, but rather to give you a perspective from someone who hopefully you know doesn't have any antagonism towards you.

 

 

If you think this should have been done via pm, I apologise. It seems easier this way

 

It was, and is, for emphasis. One is allowed to be unhappy, and express that unhappiness, without someone else reading their unhappiness as inflammatory.

 

Emoticons are used to express emotions. We are not emotionless automatons. I did not "flip the bird" or use any emoticon which could be construed as provocative. It expresses how I think about the situation.

 

And the situation here, despite what Architecht may believe about me and my posting habits personally, is pretty bad, much of the time, in many ways...an opinion shared by very many.

 

But what you're discounting is that your demonstration of your unhappiness at the situation wasn't really necessary to make your point. You're right, it wasn't the worst example, but do you not see that rolling your eyes at someone else's post like that isn't really going to help? I understand your unhappiness, as it is something I share as well, albeit for different reasons.

 

You're married, right? Allow me an illustration from marriage: sometimes, and this is especially true for men, wives need to occasionally raise their voices, to make their husbands understand that the point they're trying to make is a serious one, and they would like it to be treated seriously. Is yelling going to help? Maybe. Maybe not.

 

Is it going to get someone's attention? That's the key. I may be wrong in using the eye rolling, and it may not be necessary...but I do it for a reason.

 

I suspect you are convinced that Arch doesn't like you and that he's speaking down to you from that perspective, so rather than reading his post objectively, you start from there and the whole process circles around and around.

 

At any rate, none of this is my business and I don't want you to think this is the pile on RMA thread. I do hope that you and he can reach an understanding

 

What Arch thinks about me, personally, has nothing to do with this issue, and what I think he thinks about me also has nothing to do with this issue.

 

The issue is an environment of toxicity that is far, far more dialed up than it ever needs to be, a result of the "hands off" approach that this moderation team tries to apply, with the resultant overcorrection when the problems blow up. That kind of moderation is what leads to...well...the situation we have here.

 

There are many, many things that could be done to correct this course, but this moderation team, for reasons of their own, chooses not only to not do any of those things (example: deleting posts that are obvious personal attacks, and have been reported as such, without making a fuss about it, regardless of the who or why. People will get the hint...), but they talk to the boards as if the boards are being moderated just fine, and if you're smart, you won't bring it up again.

 

As I said earlier, Arch isn't speaking down to me...he's speaking down to everyone.

[VintageComics]

Am I the only one seeing sane, reasonable, rational RMA?

 

Are the boards so mentally deficient that they can only bleat, "two legs bad, four legs good" regardless of the data that is right in front of their eyes?

 

All of the negatives posted about RMA in this thread (let's stick to this thread for the moment) have been negative "proofs" about an RMA that doesn't really exist anymore.

 

Is RMA perfect? Certainly not. But he is a far cry from the circus fun house mirror that many boardies would have other boardies believe he is.

 

And a far more rational man that deserves better than he's getting.

 

Thanks for having my back, OG.

 

But I'd like the focus..positive or negative...not to be on any individual. That's the problem. People around here can't discuss things without making every issue about the people discussing the issue, rather than the issue itself...and it is this problem that eats away at the board, which the moderation team won't address.

 

It's not the boobies, it's not the swear words, it's not the "PG-13" issues that are the problem.

 

It's the toxicity that motivates a person to make threats against someone else, regardless of the reason, the toxicity that jumps all over noobs for the most innocuous questions, the toxicity that inspires people to provoke people they don't like with snide commentary, the toxicity that allows peopll to openly hate one another instead of trying to resolve differences, or, at worst, not interacting with them at all.

 

That's the problem, that's what the mods, and the mods alone, can control, and that's what is being ignored.

 

There is much truth in this. Much. Too much, in fact.

 

Every single person individually has an opportunity to take something negative and turn it around.

[THE_BEYONDER]

As I said earlier, Arch isn't speaking down to me...he's speaking down to everyone.

 

[slym2none]

OK, OK... I will ignore CAL from now on. I should know better anyway.

 

 

 

 

-slym

[RockMyAmadeus]

As I said earlier, Arch isn't speaking down to me...he's speaking down to everyone.

 

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

As I said earlier, Arch isn't speaking down to me...he's speaking down to everyone.

 

 

 

?

[RockMyAmadeus]

As I said earlier, Arch isn't speaking down to me...he's speaking down to everyone.

 

 

 

?

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

As I said earlier, Arch isn't speaking down to me...he's speaking down to everyone.

 

 

 

?

 

 

?

[Logan510]

 

I'm offended...and hurt...and offended.

 

 

My Monday is looking up.

 

 

Glad I could help

[ImageMask]

If you're going to respond again, RMA, turn the volume on the outrage down. It's not constructive.

 

 

You seem to have great difficulty in determining the difference between "outrage" and someone forthrightly disagreeing with your assessment of the situation.

 

You do, however, have a very easy time with threatening people. After all..."non constructive" conversation (with what is, and what is not, constructive of course being up to you) is a violation of policy, and a strikable offense.

 

I really wish you, and whomever it is that is contracted to do this work for the Certified Collectibles Group, would move on to some other company already and let someone else take your place. You really don't seem to be able to handle it when people take issue with the way you do your job.

 

I do hope that wasn't too "outrageous" for you.

 

(thumbs u

 

I respect your opinion, but as an unbiased observer...I completely disagree. I had the exact same reaction as Arch when reading your post; my view about your argumentative style is that you deliberately choose to use quite a bit of inflammatory language. Perhaps you do so for emphasis; I don't know. I think you, like most of us, has a real hard time being criticised. I mean, the eyeroll at the start of your post is just about as perfect an example of what he's talking about, short of a graemlin that's giving the finger.

 

I'm not saying this to argue with you, or to get into a prolonged parsing of your original post, but rather to give you a perspective from someone who hopefully you know doesn't have any antagonism towards you.

 

 

If you think this should have been done via pm, I apologise. It seems easier this way

 

It was, and is, for emphasis. One is allowed to be unhappy, and express that unhappiness, without someone else reading their unhappiness as inflammatory.

 

Emoticons are used to express emotions. We are not emotionless automatons. I did not "flip the bird" or use any emoticon which could be construed as provocative. It expresses how I think about the situation.

 

And the situation here, despite what Architecht may believe about me and my posting habits personally, is pretty bad, much of the time, in many ways...an opinion shared by very many.

 

But what you're discounting is that your demonstration of your unhappiness at the situation wasn't really necessary to make your point. You're right, it wasn't the worst example, but do you not see that rolling your eyes at someone else's post like that isn't really going to help? I understand your unhappiness, as it is something I share as well, albeit for different reasons.

 

You're married, right? Allow me an illustration from marriage: sometimes, and this is especially true for men, wives need to occasionally raise their voices, to make their husbands understand that the point they're trying to make is a serious one, and they would like it to be treated seriously. Is yelling going to help? Maybe. Maybe not.

 

Is it going to get someone's attention? That's the key. I may be wrong in using the eye rolling, and it may not be necessary...but I do it for a reason.

 

I suspect you are convinced that Arch doesn't like you and that he's speaking down to you from that perspective, so rather than reading his post objectively, you start from there and the whole process circles around and around.

 

At any rate, none of this is my business and I don't want you to think this is the pile on RMA thread. I do hope that you and he can reach an understanding

 

What Arch thinks about me, personally, has nothing to do with this issue, and what I think he thinks about me also has nothing to do with this issue.

 

The issue is an environment of toxicity that is far, far more dialed up than it ever needs to be, a result of the "hands off" approach that this moderation team tries to apply, with the resultant overcorrection when the problems blow up. That kind of moderation is what leads to...well...the situation we have here.

 

There are many, many things that could be done to correct this course, but this moderation team, for reasons of their own, chooses not only to not do any of those things (example: deleting posts that are obvious personal attacks, and have been reported as such, without making a fuss about it, regardless of the who or why. People will get the hint...), but they talk to the boards as if the boards are being moderated just fine, and if you're smart, you won't bring it up again.

 

As I said earlier, Arch isn't speaking down to me...he's speaking down to everyone.

 

 

Its a comic book forum. Do you really think a mod is on anyone? Noobs get the dumped on them. Are the ole timers speaking down to them?

 

Ohh, and I have had my wrist slapped.

[Sal]

If you're going to respond again, RMA, turn the volume on the outrage down. It's not constructive.

 

 

You seem to have great difficulty in determining the difference between "outrage" and someone forthrightly disagreeing with your assessment of the situation.

 

You do, however, have a very easy time with threatening people. After all..."non constructive" conversation (with what is, and what is not, constructive of course being up to you) is a violation of policy, and a strikable offense.

 

I really wish you, and whomever it is that is contracted to do this work for the Certified Collectibles Group, would move on to some other company already and let someone else take your place. You really don't seem to be able to handle it when people take issue with the way you do your job.

 

I do hope that wasn't too "outrageous" for you.

 

(thumbs u

 

I respect your opinion, but as an unbiased observer...I completely disagree. I had the exact same reaction as Arch when reading your post; my view about your argumentative style is that you deliberately choose to use quite a bit of inflammatory language. Perhaps you do so for emphasis; I don't know. I think you, like most of us, has a real hard time being criticised. I mean, the eyeroll at the start of your post is just about as perfect an example of what he's talking about, short of a graemlin that's giving the finger.

 

I'm not saying this to argue with you, or to get into a prolonged parsing of your original post, but rather to give you a perspective from someone who hopefully you know doesn't have any antagonism towards you.

 

 

If you think this should have been done via pm, I apologise. It seems easier this way

 

It was, and is, for emphasis. One is allowed to be unhappy, and express that unhappiness, without someone else reading their unhappiness as inflammatory.

 

Emoticons are used to express emotions. We are not emotionless automatons. I did not "flip the bird" or use any emoticon which could be construed as provocative. It expresses how I think about the situation.

 

And the situation here, despite what Architecht may believe about me and my posting habits personally, is pretty bad, much of the time, in many ways...an opinion shared by very many.

 

But what you're discounting is that your demonstration of your unhappiness at the situation wasn't really necessary to make your point. You're right, it wasn't the worst example, but do you not see that rolling your eyes at someone else's post like that isn't really going to help? I understand your unhappiness, as it is something I share as well, albeit for different reasons.

 

You're married, right? Allow me an illustration from marriage: sometimes, and this is especially true for men, wives need to occasionally raise their voices, to make their husbands understand that the point they're trying to make is a serious one, and they would like it to be treated seriously. Is yelling going to help? Maybe. Maybe not.

 

Is it going to get someone's attention? That's the key. I may be wrong in using the eye rolling, and it may not be necessary...but I do it for a reason.

 

I suspect you are convinced that Arch doesn't like you and that he's speaking down to you from that perspective, so rather than reading his post objectively, you start from there and the whole process circles around and around.

 

At any rate, none of this is my business and I don't want you to think this is the pile on RMA thread. I do hope that you and he can reach an understanding

 

What Arch thinks about me, personally, has nothing to do with this issue, and what I think he thinks about me also has nothing to do with this issue.

 

The issue is an environment of toxicity that is far, far more dialed up than it ever needs to be, a result of the "hands off" approach that this moderation team tries to apply, with the resultant overcorrection when the problems blow up. That kind of moderation is what leads to...well...the situation we have here.

 

There are many, many things that could be done to correct this course, but this moderation team, for reasons of their own, chooses not only to not do any of those things (example: deleting posts that are obvious personal attacks, and have been reported as such, without making a fuss about it, regardless of the who or why. People will get the hint...), but they talk to the boards as if the boards are being moderated just fine, and if you're smart, you won't bring it up again.

 

As I said earlier, Arch isn't speaking down to me...he's speaking down to everyone.

 

I don't disagree with anything you're saying regarding the Forum. I also wasn't talking about that, though. I was talking about the post I quoted, in which - well, you can read it, it's nested here. Having to do with how I viewed your - imho - misinterpretation of Arch's tone and your response to same.

 

 

I admit I've not seen any response to any poster complaints by the mods excepting Arch's, here. I assume his post was made in response to something, rather than just a decision to come down from the Mount

[lizards2]

 

Its a comic book forum. Do you really think a mod is on anyone? Noobs get the dumped on them. Are the ole timers speaking down to them?

 

Ohh, and I have had my wrist slapped.

Absolutely. Some of us rub the mods and the button humpers the wrong way. They follow us around and deliver the smack down for the same stuff everyone else is doing worse.

[Sal]

If there are any moderators acting upon personal feelings, they should be removed from their posts.

 

I doubt that happens, though. Every moderator I've ever encountered in a community forum like this takes that role pretty seriously, but that might be confirmation bias on my part

[lizards2]

If there are any moderators acting upon personal feelings, they should be removed from their posts.

 

I doubt that happens, though. Every moderator I've ever encountered in a community forum like this takes that role pretty seriously, but that might be confirmation bias on my part

Whatever - it doesn't matter when they don't read the thread, the context, etc. and just respond to the button-humping. All you need is a parade of followers humping the mod button.

[mikenyc]

Am I the only one seeing sane, reasonable, rational RMA?

 

Are the boards so mentally deficient that they can only bleat, "two legs bad, four legs good" regardless of the data that is right in front of their eyes?

 

All of the negatives posted about RMA in this thread (let's stick to this thread for the moment) have been negative "proofs" about an RMA that doesn't really exist anymore.

 

Is RMA perfect? Certainly not. But he is a far cry from the circus fun house mirror that many boardies would have other boardies believe he is.

 

And a far more rational man that deserves better than he's getting.

 

Thanks for having my back, OG.

 

But I'd like the focus..positive or negative...not to be on any individual. That's the problem. People around here can't discuss things without making every issue about the people discussing the issue, rather than the issue itself...and it is this problem that eats away at the board, which the moderation team won't address.

 

It's not the boobies, it's not the swear words, it's not the "PG-13" issues that are the problem.

 

It's the toxicity that motivates a person to make threats against someone else, regardless of the reason, the toxicity that jumps all over noobs for the most innocuous questions, the toxicity that inspires people to provoke people they don't like with snide commentary, the toxicity that allows people to openly hate one another instead of trying to resolve differences, or, at worst, not interacting with them at all.

 

That's the problem, that's what the mods, and the mods alone, can control, and that's what is being ignored.

 

But thanks for having my back.

 

You'll most likely ignore what I'm saying, but putting our past differences aside, I agree with your point.

 

The problem, for me at least, and I may be wrong, but when you discuss macro issues pertaining to the boards you seem to exclude yourself from the behaviors you criticize. We are all guilty of being obnoxious, rude, snarky, elitist, cliquish, boarish and displaying any other of the typical collector behaviors. At times, some members take it too far and threats or perceived threats are made and the moderators feel that a strike is in order.

 

Thirdgreenham, Cimm, Chuck Gower, and a whole lot of others don't participate in the ball busting aspects of the boards. Those who do, can't arbitrarily decide when members take things too far, or the level of banter has reached toxic levels.

 

The moderators job is to allow the boards to exist, in a somewhat coherent manner, and facilitate the popularity and suppport for CGC. They are not perfect, nor should any member expect them to be. We are all adults who make a conscious effort to be a part of this community. They stop egregious profanity, sex, threats, etc.

 

Take this as an attack, ignore it, whatever. All I'm saying is that all of us, yourself included, can change to a degree that moderation is unnecessary, and these boards would be boring as mess!

[RockMyAmadeus]

[ImageMask]

 

Its a comic book forum. Do you really think a mod is on anyone? Noobs get the dumped on them. Are the ole timers speaking down to them?

 

Ohh, and I have had my wrist slapped.

Absolutely. Some of us rub the mods and the button humpers the wrong way. They follow us around and deliver the smack down for the same stuff everyone else is doing worse.

 

And that is why the mod job sucks. Remaining impartial without looking like you single a boardie out. Yes, some get away with doing the same stuff. I think when you continue, have a history, of doing the same stuff you flag yourself. So its not the same stuff.

 

-mod007

[lizards2]

 

Its a comic book forum. Do you really think a mod is on anyone? Noobs get the dumped on them. Are the ole timers speaking down to them?

 

Ohh, and I have had my wrist slapped.

Absolutely. Some of us rub the mods and the button humpers the wrong way. They follow us around and deliver the smack down for the same stuff everyone else is doing worse.

 

And that is why the mod job sucks. Remaining impartial without looking like you single a boardie out. Yes, some get away with doing the same stuff. I think when you continue, have a history, of doing the same stuff you flag yourself. So its not the same stuff.

 

-mod007

[slym2none]

People always trying to get all up on my , signing their posts like me, styling their hair like me, trying to get strikes like me.....

 

 

 

 

-cgcmod8

[oakman29]

People always trying to get all up on my , signing their posts like me, styling their hair like me, trying to get strikes like me.....

 

 

 

 

-cgcmod8

We want to be you!

 

 

 

-slym