Teenage Wildlife

IMPORTANT: Use your registry nickname as your username when logging in to Conversation Piece!


Free for All
   >> Site Douchebag
Thread views: 42696 Previous threadView all threadsNext thread*Threaded Mode

Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | (show all)
poopicraft
(wide eyed peeploid)
11/02/05 07:43 PM
Re: . new [re: ohramona]  

You may be right, oh. Being a male hetro and having "got" the reference would tend to indicate that I'm in touch with my feminine side (or haven't spent the last 20 years with a bag on my head).

But then, given twister's recent self-outing as a bisexualist......



Monkeyboy
(acolyte)
11/02/05 08:26 PM
Can you even read? new [re: EJSunday]  

No, you are still missing part two to my argument: it is impossible to keep your personality and opinions intact (which, of course, you are entitled to) and to appear objective or professional when it comes time to. You are not in a position to agree or disagree with this statement because you have no idea how you appear to us.

In reply to:

What I find most interesting is that it is people like you who like to stick their necks out here who complain about an assumed domination by a moderator.


What exactly is a "person like me," EJ? And my complaint isn't that I actually am being dominated by a moderator, it's that I think the moderator believes themselves to be in a dominant position. The fact that you are usually benevolent with your powers has nothing to do with how you casually dismiss the opinions of the underlings. This is especially easy for you to do when the underling in question is the guy who posts tubgirl links and has creepy obsessions with asian chicks. But in order to dismiss me on those grounds you would also have to ignore the fact that I am able to create way bigger waves here than I have so far in this debate and that if you don't start treating "people like me" like "people with something worthwhile to say" you will drown, EJ. Quickly. I prefer to stay modest but you and I both know that I shit bigger than you.

In reply to:

Seems a little like this is again the old story in which those who normally hit the hardest cry the loudest when they feel someone's disagreeing with them whom they cannot simply shout down.


Again with the condescending attitude. Well, this could also be the same old story in which those who refuse introspection or objectivity, those who feel that they are inherently "right" for one reason or another (ubermunchy! ), dismiss those who are trying to shout through their fog of utter ignorance and bullshit. Only time will tell.

I tend to think that I am speaking for many people on this moderator problem and that I am doing well enough at it that those people don't feel the need to chime in. Some people lack the ability or drive to do this, others, I'd imagine, don't want to risk what they see as a friendship - this is fine. I honestly don't know if that is the case and would appreciate a PM or two to let me know either way. Regardless, this is just the type of person I am. I see a wrong and I do the pitbull routine where I don't let go until it dies or gets out of my grip - whichever comes first. To those who find this trait annoying, you have my apologies but it isn't going to change.

What you are really failing to understand is that the entire course of this argument is, in fact, my very argument. The longer you refuse to take "people like me" seriously and treat our opinions with at least a small amount of respect, the longer you prove that I'm right when I say that you refuse to take "people like me" seriously and treat our opinions with at least a small amount of respect.


We deserve better.

Starlite
(stardust savant)
11/02/05 11:56 PM
I agree with MB new [re: Monkeyboy]  

It's weird, really. I didn't think you were a bad moderator before, EJ, but this thread and your responses to it have indeed swayed me to that side. You seem not to realize that moderatorship is a responsibility, and that it does obligate you to a variety of actions.

Specifically, I agree with Monkeyboy that moderators need to be held to a higher standard than regular posters. Moderators do have power, and posters need to feel comfortable with them and to respect them. When you get into hissy fits, EJ, I cannot respect you. When you sulk and avoid answering genuine criticisms and accuse others of being alter egos, I do not feel comfortable with you as a mod.

As posters, we need to be assured that moderators will remain objective, and will not use their power for personal gain, or under the sway of personal prejudice. The only way a moderator can assure us of that is if he/she is always objective and moderate (ha!) in his/her actions on the board. You are not. Ohramona used to be, and now she's not. It worries me a bit. I no longer believe you to be above editing/deleting someone's post if it personally displeases you.

This is not fair to mods, I know. It--as Monkeyboy said--requires that they give up their personality. But anything else is not fair to the rest of the posters.

I've been a mod on other groups before. I make a very good mod, I like to think--I can pretty easily separate personal from professional, and I'm able to decide whether I think a poster is doing something acceptable or unacceptable regardless of what feelings I have towards that poster, or the material being posted. I can find something personally offensive, and yet not think that it ought to be supressed or deleted.

I quit being a mod, and I wouldn't want to be a mod again because it was exhausting. Because, even though I originally also thought I'd be able to maintain my personality and still be a fair moderator, I quickly saw that it wasn't so. In order to feel that I was not privileging anyone, and to have everybody feel comfortable with me, I had to whitewash my posts, not participate in as many arguments, not insult any other posters, etc. It's not a choice, it's what one has to do.

As such, I think it may be best if the following model were adopted:

a) We had a set of clear rules regarding moderation.
b) there were new usernames created for moderators.
c) moderators could be cycled through the usernames occasionally. (Ie, Adam could know all the moderator usernames' passwords, and when a moderator stopped being active, he could change the password and pass on the account to someone else.)




ohramonaModerator
(acolyte)
11/03/05 01:53 AM
Re: I agree with MB new [re: Starlite]  

In reply to:

The only way a moderator can assure us of that is if he/she is always objective and moderate (ha!) in his/her actions on the board. You are not. Ohramona used to be, and now she's not. It worries me a bit.


In reply to:

I had to whitewash my posts, not participate in as many arguments, not insult any other posters, etc. It's not a choice, it's what one has to do.


I don't choose to hang out where I can't say what I want, and if that includes crticisms of posters, so be it. Although I think I've remained nearly as innocuous as I was when I started modding.

In reply to:

professional


.............



If I could think of a good sig, I'd post.

Starlite
(stardust savant)
11/03/05 03:50 AM
Re: I agree with MB new [re: ohramona]  

In reply to:

Although I think I've remained nearly as innocuous as I was when I started modding.


Yep--and mayhap more so than before you started modding. I do remember thinking, when the mods were nominated, "aww, but that'll make some of my favorite posters have to leash themselves in!"

Which is a "damned if you do/damned if you don't" kinda thing, since when people don't leash themselves in, a la EJ, that bothers me too.

Ergo my suggestion.

But I do think that acting in a non-biased manner is part of the job of being a mod. If it is a choice, it's as much of one as, well, er, moderating the boards. That is to say, one goes with the other.




Dara
(acolyte)
11/03/05 08:35 AM
Re: I agree with MB new [re: Starlite]  

In reply to:

I agree with Monkeyboy that moderators need to be held to a higher standard than regular posters. Moderators do have power, and posters need to feel comfortable with them and to respect them



I agree with this. I believe this was a big reason why the current moderators were chosen: all were people who did not get into nasty personal arguments.

It also explains why Adam is pretty much the God of moderation.

In reply to:

I no longer believe you to be above editing/deleting someone's post if it personally displeases you.



In fairness to EJSunday, as far as I'm aware he has managed to restrain himself from doing this, in the face of considerable provocation. A lesser man would have cracked and given into the temptation to abuse his position in an attempt to silence his critics.

In reply to:

I wouldn't want to be a mod again because it was exhausting



It's a tough job, and you need to be a certain type of person to do it well. I've always turned down the opportunity to become one, because I think it would suck much of the fun out of the board for me, and I have the innate Irish dislike of being seen as an authority figure.

I think the current mods have all done a very good job. I've disagreed with some of their decisions, but since I'm about as libertarian as it gets on freedom of speech issues and I'm never comfortable banning people, I'd probably disagree with any moderator's decisions. More importantly though, they've retained my respect as moderators because they have appeared by and large impartial and consistent.

That said, I think you can be a moderator for too long, and it can become a burden. Also, the longer you stay in office, the more like a totalitarian dictator you start to appear, regardless of how you behave. A regular turnover in the moderator positions would ensure that newer people in particular don't see the mods as a crusty old institution.

I think both EJ and Ohramona are no longer the posters they were when they were chosen for their roles. Not that they've become nastier or anything. In EJ's case, he seems less happy go lucky, which might have happened anyway, or might be down to the pressure of being called a Nazi at regular intervals and being forced to explain his actions. In Ohra's case, I really miss her from the boards, particularly the Ohra with whom I had discourses on the attractions of atheism (turns out we're not all dangerous psychos with no principles). Perhaps she'd have lost interest and drifted away anyway: most old timers feel the boards are not what they were. But perhaps being an authority figure is something of a straitjacket, and an Ohra relieved of her burden would be able to have more fun on the boards. And from a purely selfish point of view, I'd like EJSunday to have more time to explain the more important things in life to me, like how in God's name Werder Bremen managed to pick themselves up again after blowing a 3 goal lead and go on and win against Udinese.

In the past, I've been wary of changing mods due to a lack of good candidates willing to do the job, but it seems a good young crop of people willing to do the job has come through, so I think it's time for change.

My concrete suggestions are essentially the same as Starlite's:
(1) Fixed terms (perhaps one year) for moderators, subject to availability of good alternatives
(2) Stated guidelines for moderation. These can never be complete, but that's no reason to have nothing. There are certain things we can definitely rule out (kiddie porn, death threats, anything illegal). Mods will always have to have some executive discretion, but I think the existence of formal guidelines would stop a lot of arguments before they get started.
(3) Special accounts for moderators. Only Adam need know who they are. This would allow posters who are moderators to clearly delineate between their actions as mods and their normal posting.

Slan libh,

Dara

"Ireland is a great country to go to if you think you're drinking too much. Because it turns out you're not even close"

ohramonaModerator
(acolyte)
11/03/05 08:46 AM
Re: I agree with MB new [re: Starlite]  

In the first post there, you say:

In reply to:

The only way a moderator can assure us of that is if he/she is always objective and moderate (ha!) in his/her actions on the board. You are not. Ohramona used to be, and now she's not.


In the next, regarding me describing myself as innocuous, you say:

In reply to:

Yep--and mayhap more so than before you started modding. I do remember thinking, when the mods were nominated, "aww, but that'll make some of my favorite posters have to leash themselves in!"


So what is your complaint? I'm lacking in objectivity and moderation? I've "leashed" myself in too far? All of the above? I'm not sure how these two descriptions can both be accurate. Tell me. And if you could supply an example or two of where I've not been objective and/or moderate, I'd appreciate it.

That would be ohro Dara, ohro.



If I could think of a good sig, I'd post.

Strawman
(acolyte)
11/03/05 08:49 AM
Re: I agree with MB new [re: Dara]  

I believe your post bears much to the significance as to why you were nominated TW Kingski -- Although I disagree that there should ever be more than one moderator, and that moderator should be Adam, up until the time he decides he no longer wants the position.

Too many cooks and all that.

Dara
(acolyte)
11/03/05 09:42 AM
Re: I agree with MB new [re: Strawman]  

In reply to:

Although I disagree that there should ever be more than one



I agree with you in principle, but in practice I think Adam feels it's too much for one person. Nobody can be here 24 hours a day every day, hence the need for helpers in different time zones.

However, overall I'd say we have very little need for much moderation at all right now, and even the little we do get is controversial.

Slan leat,

Dara

"Ireland is a great country to go to if you think you're drinking too much. Because it turns out you're not even close"

RabbitFighter
(acolyte)
11/03/05 09:49 AM
Re: I agree with MB new [re: Dara]  

As someone who doesn't give a rat's ass about moderation (unless it comes down to potentially juicy bannings I must say that's just the most level headed thing anyone could say in a silly thread that went overboard a while ago. And no, EJ doesn't necessarily deserve all this crap. He can tell each and everyone of you to fuck yourself as long as this kind of healthy antagonism doesn't interfere with his "job" (which should be non existent to be honest).

Still Dara, there's one thing that bothers me:

In reply to:

death threats


Why are you trying to suck entertainment out of these boards!

I'm spellbound, but a woman divides
And the hills are alive with celibate cries



Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | (show all)
Previous threadView all threadsNext thread*Threaded Mode
Jump to

Teenage Wildlife Davie Bowie | Email Us! Forums powered by WWWThreads v5.1.5perl

Teenage Wildlife Home Page Bowie's music Info on Bowie Other Media Have your say! Search the Site Help me!


Toolbar (Interact)

Etete Systems