Response to PMs and complaints
- Thread starter Whispered
- Start date
- Status
I have already received a lot of PMs and I'm trying to respond as quickly as possible. I sometimes view the messages on my phone and it is not easy to reply until I get on an actual computer. There have also been some cases where I've had to do some research before responding.
I am trying my best!
I am trying my best!
Last edited:
Oh I understand. Especially because I'm sure you have lots that are "congrats on mod yay" and you still have to read those! But this wasn't really about you either 
(translation: u r gud mod pls not to feel bad)
(translation: u r gud mod pls not to feel bad)
Just my two cents.
Considering it hasn't been privately resolved multiple times before and clearly other persons are having this issue, it justifies a public thread.
This thread is more a "who else is having this problem" to put names to the problem that I and others know is occurring, as well as try to get a response out of the staff member(s) in question.
This thread is more a "who else is having this problem" to put names to the problem that I and others know is occurring, as well as try to get a response out of the staff member(s) in question.
I understand that members may feel frustrated from time to time, but I would like to remind everyone of one of the forum rules:
When you post on the forums, you are agreeing to follow the forum rules. We ask that you take up any personal issues via PM and respect Moderators/Administrator's decisions.
When you post on the forums, you are agreeing to follow the forum rules. We ask that you take up any personal issues via PM and respect Moderators/Administrator's decisions.
I don't think respecting the decision is the issue here. We should be able to openly discuss forum rules and actions in a public setting. Certain things, like bans and warnings, do need to be kept in private but this is what this section of the forum is here for, correct? We provide you with suggestions and other people can comment as they wish, as well as the Staff.
In some instances, I think staff are too quick to end something and give a final decision. I mean no offense when I say any of this, but it seems like many times Moderators are more worried about the slight possibility of a little bit of flaming, than actually listening to what the members have to say and the good points they bring up. I have seen many threads where members bring up good points, and a large amount of people will agree with them, but then it gets shut down with "This is the final decision. Thread Closed" with no explanation of why the things the members say are invalid. I hardly believe that that's the right way to handle these situations, yet I'm sure the thread will be closed again and our grievances will not be addressed.
I completely agree, and I believe this is the point Whispered was also trying to make. If the threads weren't closed in the first place, then there wouldn't be a need to PM anyone, since many of us won't get a *timely* response anyway. Most of the time when we're dealing with more serious issues, we have to go straight to the admins, so I believe they're mainly who this thread is referring to. I personally haven't really interacted with any mods before via PM.
The point of a forum is to well... have open discussions, which really hasn't been happening lately. I understand that "final" decisions are made, but if a member has a point they're trying to make about said decision, they should be allowed to make it publicly, so long as they're not breaking any rules (and I usually don't see any being broken in instances like this).
The point of a forum is to well... have open discussions, which really hasn't been happening lately. I understand that "final" decisions are made, but if a member has a point they're trying to make about said decision, they should be allowed to make it publicly, so long as they're not breaking any rules (and I usually don't see any being broken in instances like this).
Furthermore, the (certain) staff seem to have a view of "final" decision that is quite different than what I feel it should be. A final decision should not be the be-all-end-all-never-change-ever-because-i-said-so decision. A final decision should be made, but if more information/community discussion/facts/opinions come to light, it should be revisited. I don't see that happening here, and the responses I've gotten from staff on the specific issue that prompted this thread haven't been from the one person who does have the authority to rethink the issue at hand.
I do wish that the staff would listen a bit more to the community - if the community wants a rule, implement it, if they don't want a rule, don't implement it. I understand there are some basic rules that must be in place (no inappropriate discussion), but the staff have included a "godking" clause in there that allows them to, in effect, be dictators and make up rules on the spot if they don't like what's going on. Staff are there to support the community, not dictate to the community what they can and cannot say in the public forum. And that's what this is, no? A public forum - where people can discuss (that's what a forum is for after all). It's not supposed to be like the "discussion" that goes on in a place like North Korea, where if you say something the dictator (i.e. staff) don't like, you get reprimanded.
I really think (now talking on a broader, more global scale) the rules need to be revisited, as well as the (assumed) internal policies of the staff team. Multiple members have offered to provide internal manuals from other sites as guidelines for reviewing the current internal policies, and I don't really see any evidence of this being accepted. One big thing is that the "godking" clause of the rules should be immediately deleted. It clearly puts too much power in the hands of (not all, but some) those who do not understand the importance and power they are wielding. As said by many people over history, "With great power comes great responsibility".
The great power of the godking clause in the rules (that staff interpret to mean they can close threads they don't like for no reason, among other things) should not be present unless there are internal policies regarding the use of it. For an example (internal) policy: Staff have discretion in the interpretation and implementation of a rule. This means that although the rules are guidelines for the staff to manage the site, they are not the be-all-end-all of the forums. For example, a staff member has the discretion to choose when to give a warning, versus an infraction, versus a ban, versus just simply deleting the offending material from the website. However, one thing that must always be taken into account is the reason for the action the staff member is considering taking. If an action is being taken that does not have an obvious reason for it (i.e. spam, obviously inappropriate), the staff member should make every attempt possible to communicate their reasoning for taking the action. Keep in mind that "because I said so" or "because I want to" is never an appropriate reason - you, as a staff member, have a reason for performing the action, and if it is truly a valid action should be able to clearly articulate your reasoning basing it in some rule that is in the current rules - even if it does not clearly break one specific rule. An example of this would be to close a thread that a staff member feels has no value anymore, such that it can be archived or not be a target for arguments in the future.
I realized something while writing that (admittedly) long example rule. One sentence stuck out to me: as a staff member, [one] ha a reason for performing the action, and if it is truly a valid action should be able to clearly articulate [their] reasoning. I don't see a lot of this going on, and I see way too much "because I'm the admin/mod/staff" or "because I said so" or "closing this thread because I already answered this" - when clearly the thread would not be continuing if the concerns had been addressed.
I'd love to hear any staff member's comment on whether such a rule is either already implemented internally, or whether they would agree it would be a good policy to have (without releasing any private information of course).
Thanks,
Whispered
----------
I don't know if flaming is the issue - so much as the staff do not want to be criticized, told they are wrong, or disagreed with. The staff are here to serve the community - which means that if the community disagrees with them, then they are the ones who should change (within reason of course). As a member they should have opinions, as a staff member they should listen to the opinions of the community, not use their opinions in their staffing. It's as if a polling worker was allowed to use their political ideology to determine who gets to vote. As a voter, they have their opinion. As a poll worker, they put that aside and serve the community.
Agree with the bolded btw, and I'd love to see a staff respond (for themselves, not for the team as a whole of course) on that statement.
I do wish that the staff would listen a bit more to the community - if the community wants a rule, implement it, if they don't want a rule, don't implement it. I understand there are some basic rules that must be in place (no inappropriate discussion), but the staff have included a "godking" clause in there that allows them to, in effect, be dictators and make up rules on the spot if they don't like what's going on. Staff are there to support the community, not dictate to the community what they can and cannot say in the public forum. And that's what this is, no? A public forum - where people can discuss (that's what a forum is for after all). It's not supposed to be like the "discussion" that goes on in a place like North Korea, where if you say something the dictator (i.e. staff) don't like, you get reprimanded.
I really think (now talking on a broader, more global scale) the rules need to be revisited, as well as the (assumed) internal policies of the staff team. Multiple members have offered to provide internal manuals from other sites as guidelines for reviewing the current internal policies, and I don't really see any evidence of this being accepted. One big thing is that the "godking" clause of the rules should be immediately deleted. It clearly puts too much power in the hands of (not all, but some) those who do not understand the importance and power they are wielding. As said by many people over history, "With great power comes great responsibility".
The great power of the godking clause in the rules (that staff interpret to mean they can close threads they don't like for no reason, among other things) should not be present unless there are internal policies regarding the use of it. For an example (internal) policy: Staff have discretion in the interpretation and implementation of a rule. This means that although the rules are guidelines for the staff to manage the site, they are not the be-all-end-all of the forums. For example, a staff member has the discretion to choose when to give a warning, versus an infraction, versus a ban, versus just simply deleting the offending material from the website. However, one thing that must always be taken into account is the reason for the action the staff member is considering taking. If an action is being taken that does not have an obvious reason for it (i.e. spam, obviously inappropriate), the staff member should make every attempt possible to communicate their reasoning for taking the action. Keep in mind that "because I said so" or "because I want to" is never an appropriate reason - you, as a staff member, have a reason for performing the action, and if it is truly a valid action should be able to clearly articulate your reasoning basing it in some rule that is in the current rules - even if it does not clearly break one specific rule. An example of this would be to close a thread that a staff member feels has no value anymore, such that it can be archived or not be a target for arguments in the future.
I realized something while writing that (admittedly) long example rule. One sentence stuck out to me: as a staff member, [one] ha a reason for performing the action, and if it is truly a valid action should be able to clearly articulate [their] reasoning. I don't see a lot of this going on, and I see way too much "because I'm the admin/mod/staff" or "because I said so" or "closing this thread because I already answered this" - when clearly the thread would not be continuing if the concerns had been addressed.
I'd love to hear any staff member's comment on whether such a rule is either already implemented internally, or whether they would agree it would be a good policy to have (without releasing any private information of course).
Thanks,
Whispered
----------
I don't know if flaming is the issue - so much as the staff do not want to be criticized, told they are wrong, or disagreed with. The staff are here to serve the community - which means that if the community disagrees with them, then they are the ones who should change (within reason of course). As a member they should have opinions, as a staff member they should listen to the opinions of the community, not use their opinions in their staffing. It's as if a polling worker was allowed to use their political ideology to determine who gets to vote. As a voter, they have their opinion. As a poll worker, they put that aside and serve the community.
Agree with the bolded btw, and I'd love to see a staff respond (for themselves, not for the team as a whole of course) on that statement.
- Status