Warning for a few. (2 Viewers)

[ibramr]

Gents, no real easy way to say this so I'm going to say it as it is. .......

No one wants to lose members but if it is for the greater good for the majority, then unfortunately your going to wonder where certain individuals have gone.

Rant over

yours with love

Steve o

Steve,

Greetings. I support your intentions and work, and I am also thankful for your effort. Please allow me to share my concern that there is no recourse known to me that can be taken by the individuals who were subject to your decisions. To your credit, there is no one single case that I can quote here as an example of a possible capricious use of your power. Yet, fairness requires some sort of protection.

It is not practical to ask the Forum to devise a complex and a time-consuming recourse mechanism. Therefore, I would like to suggest instilling some more "transparency" in the process. This "transparency" is to take the form of a log in the Forum in which your decisions are listed for all the Forum to see. For example, the log--in half liners--will list member x was warned for such & such in that date, then warned again on such date, and then banned on such date. Also, "Post Y" was removed, or deleted, because of "such & such", and so on. Hopefully, this increased transparency will be of help for all Forum members to feel that the process is more just and reasonable.

This is a great Forum, and thank you again for your effort. Best regards.

 

[David in NC]

Steve,

Greetings. I support your intentions and work, and I am also thankful for your effort. Please allow me to share my concern that there is no recourse known to me that can be taken by the individuals who were subject to your decisions. To your credit, there is no one single case that I can quote here as an example of a possible capricious use of your power. Yet, fairness requires some sort of protection.

It is not practical to ask the Forum to devise a complex and a time-consuming recourse mechanism. Therefore, I would like to suggest instilling some more "transparency" in the process. This "transparency" is to take the form of a log in the Forum in which your decisions are listed for all the Forum to see. For example, the log--in half liners--will list member x was warned for such & such in that date, then warned again on such date, and then banned on such date. Also, "Post Y" was removed, or deleted, because of "such & such", and so on. Hopefully, this increased transparency will be of help for all Forum members to feel that the process is more just and reasonable.

This is a great Forum, and thank you again for your effort. Best regards.

Oh my GOD. ||||



No "transparency" isn't best for everyone. It's one of those utopian "buzzwords" that folks love to use today knowing that ON THE SURFACE it sounds so great no one could say it's not good for the collective.

Like "for the children". 3

Having been a moderator before on another FREE Internet forum board it is NOT best to be "transparent." Some things NEED to be done behind the scenes and I have no problem with this. Warnings DO NOT NEED TO BE PUBLIC and there needs to be no roster of wrongs for everyone to see, because it doesn't matter what everyone thinks about each decision.

The Terms of Service when signing up for this FREE forum ARE transparency enough.

 

[ibramr]

Oh my GOD. ||||



No "transparency" isn't best for everyone. .....

David,

The suggested transparency is a suggested cost and time effective approach to mitigate the absence of a recourse process. You do have an experience as a moderator, so perhaps you can suggest a better alternative. Thank you.

 

[David in NC]

Those signing up for a free forum are bound by the terms and conditions of the board or website, and on every forum I've been on since 1998 that including an understanding that moderators policed the boards as needed, issued warnings when appropriate, and their decisions were final.

Moderators get no compensation I'm aware of for this duty on this board. I think this is one of the least heavy-handed boards I've ever been on. I once read 4 PAGES of drivel about coffee here on a thread supposedly about binoculars. If ANYTHING they (mods) could easily be MORE visible and active. I am fairly new here and I have not lost sight of that but if I had a dollar for every bino thread hijacked over coffee, any member of the Beatles, etc. I'd buy the Zeiss SFs tomorrow.

So even though you carefully worded your suggestion to be as non-accusatory as possible, almost to the point of hypothetical example, AT SOME POINT you have to accept that the suggestion itself implies that unfairness has existed or will exist. Lets not mince words either...it is on the heels of Brock's departure and in a thread warning of general behaviors like we seen from him, so it appears it could be almost argumentative in his defense. No matter how "harmless" you worded it...:smoke:

At the end of the day no one promised "recourse" on moderator decisions so how "cost-effective" IS IT then to create another time-consuming area that mods must then post to have their decisions publicly scrutinized? I think this has been the fairest board I've ever posted on... (mirror, mirror on the wall...)

No one even promised "fair" either but that doesn't mean I don't think they aren't MORE than fair, or that statement should be MISconstrued to imply the hint of unfairness here.

The whole suggestion however that mod decisions must be visible to all just everyone will know they were "fair" doesn't catch traction with me. To those still lobbying for such a scheme-it must be heck going through life wondering if the guy on the binocular sub-forum of one of the bird forums on the Internet had a warning or ban administered fairly...:-C

 

[sbpbirder]

I wish you would post more, Leif, as I find what you have to say very informative and reasoned.

As for the rest of it, it's the internet and what would the internet be without vitriol? ...

A nicer place!

It doesn't have to be that way it's an excuse that is used for bad behaviour. It shouldn't be acceptable.

FWIW if posters in general are not happy to play by the rules then go elsewhere. Boards and life need modding. :t:

 

[David in NC]

FWIW if posters in general are not happy to play by the rules then go elsewhere. Boards and life need modding. :t:

The shortened version of what I'm trying to say also! :t:

 

[ibramr]

.......

FWIW if posters in general are not happy to play by the rules then go elsewhere. Boards and life need modding. :t:

Plus

The shortened version of what I'm trying to say also! :t:

And please allow me to say "Amen"--that is Boards and life need modding. The whole point is rules in both life and Boards need to include a recourse process. An effective solution could be in some transparency where events are simply logged. Maybe other members can think of other alternatives.

As for defending a specific person here as suggested by David in the thread above, in this particular case, "no" I am not defending him, and will not do so.

Have a wonderful weekend. Regards.

 

[Leif]

As for the rest of it, it's the internet and what would the internet be without vitriol? There isn't a forum I have been involved in - Porsche, F1, binoculars etc. etc. that doesn't descend into chaos from time-to-time, usually due to just a few folks that have personal agenda's or conflicts of interest - like selling of the products in question.

That, I think, is a big problem here.

I was not referring to rudeness as such, but being talked down to in a patronising manner, which after a while becomes tiresome and insulting.