Zen and the art of moderation 2 2

[Not*Sure*]

I liked this:

 

 

2. The moderators, contrary to popular opinion, are not doing this because they love tedious thread trimming and reading moderator notifications by everyone from upstanding members of the community to lunatics. They are just trying to help the community.

 

Have a nice day, guys.

 

I hope it's not me..is it me..no it can't be me..but maybe it is me..wait he said lunatics..not paranoid people..so it's not me..but what if it is..

 

[arexcrooke]

Sky got this right. Go back and read it.

 

Dan

 

No, Dano, she didn't get any of it right. You don't know anything about me, so you aren't in any position to tell. You're just trying to get your shots in.

 

Doesn't that get old...?

 

The good outnumber you, they always will.

 

Dan

 

Seriously, Dano...doesn't the hatred get old?

 

What is it about hate that is so inspiring, that it fuels you to say these things?

 

You are like Cal without the histrionics. When someone disagrees with you they are either lying, impugning your reputation, are full of hate towards you , etc.

After a while when the common denominator in discussion/argument/debate is you, then part of the issue that you are struggling against is you.

You are just as involved in the types of behavior that you claim to abhor. Condescension and holier-than-thou attitudes being the most often seen.

Just a little example: You know I teach, many people here know I teach and it is a source of pride in my life.

Yet in one exchange we had (before you put me on ignore) you made a comment about my teaching and interaction with kids insinuating it must be horrible to have me as a teacher.

You make a very serious accusation yet you have no basis for the grounds you make that assumption on. You are, in short, guilty of the same behavior you accuse others.

 

Never once, in any discussion that I have seen you in have you ever shown any ability to see the other side of an argument. Never been able to see that there might be another point that is valid or worthy of consideration if it is not your own. The ability to say "you know I can see your side and while I disagree with it I can understand where you are coming from" seems to be impossible with you.

[Not*Sure*]

This might be a good time to add that if we had a TRUE ignore function it might solve a lot of issues. You'd think some brilliant programmer could come up with something like that.

 

97% of my problems would be solved if Cal had his own damn chat board..

[Not*Sure*]

Arex..I am hella glad I do not wear a kilt..snickers..

Edited April 16, 2013 by Not*Sure*

[arexcrooke]

[THE_BEYONDER]

Quit yer henny-clucking

 

[Not*Sure*]

Make me

[THE_BEYONDER]

Mods notified

[Unca Ben]

the majority of people here, were" sociopaths".

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

?

[fantastic_four]

If I didn't know any better(and I don't), I'd swear RMA=Ogami

 

They seem different, but I liked it when Ogami pronounced anyone who sees issues with RMA as "mentally deficient." I have no doubt RMA has changed in five years--everyone does, despite Ogami's most excellent pronunciation that many people haven't changed but he has--but he's still far too aggressive in making his points just as he was from the start, which causes a majority of people to feel attacked. His posts from the last two weeks have shown that to be the case. His dismantling of Architect was a fantastic example. It's important to understand I'm not disagreeing with much of what RMA specifically says, it's the way he says it. His tone and conversational motivation is most unfriendly. And when I type a sentence, I'm not reading a wall of text dismantling it. The entire purpose of that type of posting is anathema to the reason most people use forums--to connect with people, learn, and have some fun. I don't ignore anyone, but I have about five or six people on mental ignore who tend to post in attack mode...as soon as I see that in the first sentence or two, I skip to the next post. I don't think I've read one of his posts yet in the thread, although I did skip around and read several sentences of the one he made about Arch, just to see if it remained aggressive throughout.

 

The people who have met him at cons say he's not like this in person. I hope he's eventually able to tone down the aggressiveness.

[Unca Ben]

?

 

I know what that means now.

 

I am going to come over and scratch for food in your front yard.

[goldust40]

At one time, you wrote to me and said, that the majority of people here, were" sociopaths". I quoted you as saying "psychopaths" . I have the PM, thought I deleted it, but I did find it later, I just never wanted to go back and get back into what you said, because I didn't think it was worth it..

 

So, once again, I apologize for saying you called people here, psychopaths, you did not, you said "sociopaths. "

 

Anyone...skypinkblu, Dano, whomever...who has to make this issue about INDIVIDUALS is contributing to the toxic environment.

 

Why did skypinkblu post this? Because she is guilty of exactly what she's accusing me of: holding a grudge. She has no problem with shading the truth, or outright lying, because she wants everyone else to believe her version of me.

 

 

So making an issue about individuals contributes to the "toxic environment" but smearing most of the boards with such an epithet is perfectly acceptable and not holding a grudge?

 

 

[fantastic_four]

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.

 

It's how the Internet tends to work... anonymity brings out the worst in some people. It hasn't always been like that around here, and I've seen other forums where it isn't like that. You can see the worst of that attitude in video game forums, probably because many of the posters are teenagers.

 

RMA isn't wrong that moderation can fix it, but I've not personally seen a forum from a small company like CGC that did any better job. Well-moderated forums have two things in common that I've seen--they're not tied to companies, and moderation status is given to active users. Only active participants in a forum can moderate that forum as tightly as he's reaming Arch for not doing. It's tough for a small non-Internet company to identify unbiased and objective moderators within the community. I've seen Internet companies find good moderators for their forums--I like the Cracked.com forums and they've done a good job of it--but for companies like CGC, the web site is a peripheral entity and the boards are something they've mostly outsourced.

 

There are some active community members who are objective enough to moderate they could probably get to help a bit. It's not likely they'll do that, but it's worth considering. I'm not sure I would if I were making that decision, but I'd think about it.

[THE_BEYONDER]

?

[Unca Ben]

?

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

At one time, you wrote to me and said, that the majority of people here, were" sociopaths". I quoted you as saying "psychopaths" . I have the PM, thought I deleted it, but I did find it later, I just never wanted to go back and get back into what you said, because I didn't think it was worth it..

 

So, once again, I apologize for saying you called people here, psychopaths, you did not, you said "sociopaths. "

 

Anyone...skypinkblu, Dano, whomever...who has to make this issue about INDIVIDUALS is contributing to the toxic environment.

 

Why did skypinkblu post this? Because she is guilty of exactly what she's accusing me of: holding a grudge. She has no problem with shading the truth, or outright lying, because she wants everyone else to believe her version of me.

 

 

So making an issue about individuals contributes to the "toxic environment" but smearing most of the boards with such an epithet is perfectly acceptable and not holding a grudge?

 

 

Now you're getting it. (thumbs u

[comicdonna]

At one time, you wrote to me and said, that the majority of people here, were" sociopaths". I quoted you as saying "psychopaths" . I have the PM, thought I deleted it, but I did find it later, I just never wanted to go back and get back into what you said, because I didn't think it was worth it..

 

So, once again, I apologize for saying you called people here, psychopaths, you did not, you said "sociopaths. "

 

Anyone...skypinkblu, Dano, whomever...who has to make this issue about INDIVIDUALS is contributing to the toxic environment.

 

Why did skypinkblu post this? Because she is guilty of exactly what she's accusing me of: holding a grudge. She has no problem with shading the truth, or outright lying, because she wants everyone else to believe her version of me.

Sharon doesn't hold a grudge, shade the truth or lie. You have been corrected, and I would appreciate it If you wouldn't say this about my friend again.

 

 

 

[lizards2]

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.

 

It's how the Internet tends to work... anonymity brings out the worst in some people. It hasn't always been like that around here, and I've seen other forums where it isn't like that. You can see the worst of that attitude in video game forums, probably because many of the posters are teenagers.

 

RMA isn't wrong that moderation can fix it, but I've not personally seen a forum from a small company like CGC that did any better job. Well-moderated forums have two things in common that I've seen--they're not tied to companies, and moderation status is given to active users. Only active participants in a forum can moderate that forum as tightly as he's reaming Arch for not doing. It's tough for a small non-Internet company to identify unbiased and objective moderators within the community. I've seen Internet companies find good moderators for their forums--I like the Cracked.com forums and they've done a good job of it--but for companies like CGC, the web site is a peripheral entity and the boards are something they've mostly outsourced.

 

There are some active community members who are objective enough to moderate they could probably get to help a bit. It's not likely they'll do that, but it's worth considering. I'm not sure I would if I were making that decision, but I'd think about it.

 

I recall a thread being locked by a 'regular' boardie user name once, and thinking his mod power must transcend his multiple user IDs. I wish I could recall who it was, but I did see it. :think:

[lizards2]

the majority of people here, were" sociopaths".

 

At least I'm in the majority of something....,