NEED YOUR FEEDBACK. about SITE RULES

[lurknomore]

I can see Remus's point about keeping decisions private- I wouldn't want it publicly known/debated on here if I were to screw up or do anything that warranted any kind of disciplinary action. I think that if this were taken to the extreme, it could result in virtual anarchy- the mods would end up having to present any and all evidence that led to each decision, and I don't like the idea that we would basically be saying that we don't trust the moderators. However, if an individual has a disagreement with a decision made in regards to him/her, then that person should be able to discuss/address it in a reasonable manner with the mods (non-public).

Having multiple mods and making sure that more than one is involved in most if not all decisions made should ensure that the decision is a fair one, however perhaps what should be made publicly debatable on the site is not the decisions themselves, but the process of selecting and approving the moderators. When you have the current moderators choosing the new moderators, it could lead to a moderator "clique" where they all think/act the same way- I don't believe this is the current case here at SPW, but the potential is still there for something like this. Having member input into the selection of new mods could help to ensure that they will be trusted and respected enough to make the tough decisions. Just my two cents- sorry about the long post ::

 

[Remus]

When you have the current moderators choosing the new moderators, it could lead to a moderator "clique" where they all think/act the same way- I don't believe this is the current case here at SPW,

very true as I disagree with zero on this thread

but the potential is still there for something like this. Having member input into the selection of new mods could help to ensure that they will be trusted and respected enough to make the tough decisions. Just my two cents- sorry about the long post ::

Yes and it is often on our minds when selecting mods

 

[Remus]

For questioning. Like people need to be civil, respectful of responses, etc.

I wish I was shown that respect sometimes, you should see inside my PM box at some of the PMs lol

even got death threats once

 

[RedRibbons]

I just think people should be able to ask without being reprimanded.. and if they want to ask in public they can.. And they should be responded to in public, because if they are wondering.. so is someone else, possibly.

If the amount of banning is so low.. Then it shouldn't be so bad to allow people to ask when they feel that they or their friends are treated wrongly..

I don't think there would be anarchy if there were proper rules in place. This is a method to streamline, and allow members to be involved, develop community, and to demystify decisions made and why they've been made.

I like what you said about approving moderators, lurk, and I agree.

 

[Danfalc]

I just think people should be able to ask without being reprimanded.. and if they want to ask in public they can.. And they should be responded to in public, because if they are wondering.. so is someone else, possibly.

If the amount of banning is so low.. Then it shouldn't be so bad to allow people to ask when they feel that they or their friends are treated wrongly..

I don't think there would be anarchy if there were proper rules in place. This is a method to streamline, and allow members to be involved, develop community, and to demystify decisions made and why they've been made.

I like what you said about approving moderators, lurk, and I agree.

Us mods offer to do this on our free time..We cant be everywhere at once,you can ask In public,but I might not notice your thread.What happens if the person wants it kept private.The easy thing to do is PM us.But more often than not there isnt a lot to be discussed.

As for being allowed to ask,you are allowed to ask,the thing is say you disagree with a decision which has been made.There are already methods in place for these situations.But more often than not,we (mods) have all agreed on a decision before it was made.When do we draw the line?I have issued a friendly warning over trivial things,and then been bombarded with threatening pm's accusing me off all sorts and thats with the current rules.We try and be understanding because everyone is going to act defensive If warned ect Hence the cooling off period.

So IMO and it is just that,Us mods have problems too,letting people debate every decision we make will just open a flood gate of flaming.As for mods,the webmaster has the final say I believe.

 

[Remus]

Then it shouldn't be so bad to allow people to ask when they feel that they or their friends are treated wrongly..

We don't consider whether anyone has friends or not when making moderating decisions, when someone does get banned (rarely) its often for something harsh that usually only moderators know about.

for example the Vent thread contained something written by someone that would of opened a huge can of worms, so we dealt with it quietly to avoid a flame war, if we went public, flame war would ensue

some things are best kept quiet for the peace of all

 

[lurknomore]

We don't consider whether anyone has friends or not when making moderating decisions, when someone does get banned (rarely) its often for something harsh that usually only moderators know about.

for example the Vent thread contained something written by someone that would of opened a huge can of worms, so we dealt with it quietly to avoid a flame war, if we went public, flame war would ensue

some things are best kept quiet for the peace of all

I completely agree with this. I believe all decisions should be kept private, even if the member in question wants to make it public- it's really no one else's business. I think it's great to have friends here, and I'm very grateful for mine, but to be honest, friends will back you up even when you're guilty as sin (which could be a good thing or a bad thing) and I just think that the issue should be between yourself and the hopefully fair moderator team, which I think we have. The moderators have a tough enough job, opening up any of their decisions for public debate would lead to flame wars, factions being formed, and general harassment of the moderators. This could lead to an environment where the moderators become hesitant to take certain actions or afraid to make unpopular/controversial decisions- because the resultant harassment would be more trouble than the original issue is worth- which could then lead to a slackening of enforcement of the rules due to the loudest "clique" or "faction" basically ruling.

To me, SPW is a place for people to come to discuss their problems/issues without fear of judgment/ridicule- a comfortable, safe haven if you will. I don't come here to watch/participate in flame wars, and I'm sure a lot of people don't want to see this place come to that. The suggestions I made earlier about selection of moderators are really the best improvement I could see here (although I do think our current mod team is a good one), and then it would just be up to us to respect and support our mod team in their decisions without them having to fear harrassment/retaliation, or just turning SPW into a hostile environment.

 

[RedRibbons]

Well. Lurk, you make good points. I can see both sides, how it would be a good thing to have open discussion and how it might be bad. I don't really have anything else to say, other than what I said.

I still think there could be some refining of rules and warning/ban system and such..

I think we should all be able to get to know our moderators a bit better too..

And I think the idea of public votes for moderators would be great too..

 

[Remus]

I still think there could be some refining of rules and warning/ban system and such..

suggestions are always welcome

I think we should all be able to get to know our moderators a bit better too..

Do you mean personally?

And I think the idea of public votes for moderators would be great too..

This has been debated on mods forum for years, trouble is selection, obviously we have a case history to look at with a candidate,any infractions/bannings/complaints, then look for a level headed person on the forums (even when in heavy debate). Lastly mental stability. The first part would only be known to mods as users are unaware of most wrongdoings etc. the second would be known by the forum users, So the forum was to say "we want this likeable popular person as mod" and we find a bad case history, we cannot say we said "no because of x, y and z offences", this again breaches privacy.

We had a way of selection where we selected someone and then put it to the forum but everytime we did that the chosen mod did not want the publicity (and negative feedback) and dropped out.

most of the people we have asked say no anyway or remain undecided for a while, thats mainly because we tell them exactly what to expect.

when we select a mod it also is a unanimous vote between us, a majority vote still prevents selection

 

[cosmosis]

This has been debated on mods forum for years, trouble is selection, obviously we have a case history to look at with a candidate,any infractions/bannings/complaints, then look for a level headed person on the forums (even when in heavy debate). Lastly mental stability. The first part would only be known to mods as users are unaware of most wrongdoings etc. the second would be known by the forum users, So the forum was to say "we want this likeable popular person as mod" and we find a bad case history, we cannot say we said "no because of x, y and z offences", this again breaches privacy.

We had a way of selection where we selected someone and then put it to the forum but everytime we did that the chosen mod did not want the publicity (and negative feedback) and dropped out.

most of the people we have asked say no anyway or remain undecided for a while, thats mainly because we tell them exactly what to expect.

when we select a mod it also is a unanimous vote between us, a majority vote still prevents selection

How about giving the moderators the ability to VETO then if its that important? With all due respect though, someone who is highly respected on the forum is very unlikely to have a criminal record or infractions on the forum, right? Credit should be given to us peasants in knowing who we think would be the best to guide us. It would add greater diversity down the line (even though the current moderators are quite diverse right now)

I agree with what lurk and redribbons are saying, in fact I cast my vote for both of them

 

[Remus]

How about giving the moderators the ability to VETO then if its that important?

Thats an option but I've never seen a moderator sit on the fence with mod selecting, it's very important to us. e don't always agree and debate about selection.

With all due respect though, someone who is highly respected on the forum is very unlikely to have a criminal record or infractions on the forum, right?

respected or popular? theres a difference. A respected person would get my vote, a popular one would not. If you got a blend of both then thats a bonus.

Credit should be given to us peasants in knowing who we think would be the best to guide us. It would add greater diversity down the line (even though the current moderators are quite diverse right now)

We could always go back to the "does the forum support this person as a mod" poll but most people did not want to put themselves through that so it failed

I agree with what lurk and redribbons are saying, in fact I cast my vote for both of them

one of them would get my vote

I expected more feedback than this???? Do people actually care how we run things or is this just people unhappy with thier freinds being disciplined?

I'll add a poll option, that's more anonymous.

 

[Nack]

I don't really know what this is about... I've never had problems with the previous rules so all is good.

Btw, did one of the rules involves removing of the chat box? cuz it aint appearing like it use to anymore.

 

[cosmosis]

respected or popular? theres a difference. A respected person would get my vote, a popular one would not. If you got a blend of both then thats a bonus.

I think you might be surprised that most people would themselves vote for the highly repected over just the popular ones (the ones that might not be level headed) - if it was for moderator. Most people do know the difference between the type that is just cool to hang around (popular) vs the type you would want as your boss (more repected). If we had a vote or a say, someone like lurknomore, would easily be at the top.

We could always go back to the "does the forum support this person as a mod" poll but most people did not want to put themselves through that so it failed

Right, I don't personally like that way for the reasons you have stated. I would have a thread asking people who they would want as a moderator or a way to vote somehow. The slant is positive instead of debating negatives on a specific person.

 

[Remus]

Right, I don't personally like that way for the reasons you have stated. I would have a thread asking people who they would want as a moderator or a way to vote somehow. The slant is positive instead of debating negatives on a specific person.

The nature of the poll is based on the title of the thread.

So if you want a moderator vote thread, would you (or the candidate) want us to show all that we know in private about the candidate? to dish out the dirty? only then could it be a fair assessment. at what majority vote would someone be accepted? In the past we selected someone and put it to the forum, anyone with grave complaint could PM us, with an open election would it be a case of people shooting down a prospective candidate in an open forum with thier grave concerns?

I've done this moderating lark for a long time and we have tried all sorts of different recruitment policies, the one at present seems best but still needs tweaks.

I'm with you on the mod choice you made though I agree on that at least (whether we are looking into that already I could not say)

 

[RedRibbons]

I don't care if you cool me off remus..

but you're being a douche.

 

[Remus]

but you're being a douche.

I'm sorry you don't like being disagreed with and have to resort to an insult instead of arguing your corner.

And does that mean vaginal wash like it does in the UK?

 

[Remus]

Sometimes people are too serious around here would be my only complaint.

I hold my hands up to that, I do take it very seriously because I care

 

[RedRibbons]

It's sad isn't it? I'm sorry if you eluding to certain things, and trying so hard to keep control and keep things as they are bothered me a little.

 

[RedRibbons]

I'm sorry you don't like being disagreed with and have to resort to an insult instead of arguing your corner.

And does that mean vaginal wash like it does in the UK?

oh you're funny.

 

[Remus]

little suprise:

http://www.socialphobiaworld.com/rules-17410/#post155861

moved from mod forum, just to show we do discuss such things