New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Very valid point.
More transparency the better, right? It's a balance between letting the "crap" stay published publicly vs. moving it to the mod dump. For many years the process has been to generally move "crap" to the mod dump.
Bottom line, all users are welcome to offer feedback, positive and negative without the fear of a warning or a ban.
That said, when the negative feedback turns into insults, some of which get quite ugly and fast (sort of the nature of the Internet, unfortunately) action has to be taken.
I am completely open to suggestions on how to best handle when personal insults get thrown out there.
One thing I've noticed is that the warning system has a tendency to elevate tensions higher and faster to the point where a temporary ban is implemented. What can we do to better handle things when corrective measures are required? Please offer suggestions as we need some feedback in this regard.
Yes, telling the truth about Admins slandering us & getting away with it will get you banned here. Just not worth it because @jbiloh is either protecting them or perhaps needs them so badly, he's not willing to correct them. Took me one year of reporting that thread to finally get it deleted.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
Everyone:
All feedback is welcome. Please don't hold back (extra points for being polite).
We, as a moderating team, will look at the feedback closely and it will be helpful in refining our approach.
Some other forums have a "hall of shame" area where objectionable posts can be moved to.
I've provided this one directly to the individual concerned - generally I think it's best to allow other moderators to handle posts aimed at a moderator who thinks it crosses a line.
Another one which I've not said before - moderators shouldn't publicly threaten action- either do or do not - or if a warning is suitable, warn in private. Throwing weight around publicly is counterproductive.
Great point. Fully support this. Threatening publicly is not what moderation should be about.
Actually, I'm not too sure on this. There have been a number of threads where someone's said something that's kind of offensive to some and rather than just being banned they've been told to cool it a bit. Then everyone else has piled onto the moderator. In many cases, it might have been better to just ban the original person, but sometimes just a gentle reminder to be civil is enough to stop people being dicks. Or at least, it should be.
This gentle reminder should have been made as a PM. A public threat to ban is not helping but is rather provoking itself.
The SSH thread was an example of toxic behaviour by users AND moderators, it is just easier to side with users when some moderators abuse their power to ban users.
Really? Based on what first principle?
With states/governments the answer to your rhetorical question is "yes" - but for a reason, namely the fact that all of us pay and all of us are concerned by its determinations, decisions and processes.
Also: why and what for? To keep evidence/proof available? For justification? As hopefully helpful bad example?
Also: if some evil user insults another user (or moderator), is it really reasonable to keep that insult or false allegation online? If someone, just assumed, wrote that jbiloh is a pimp and a child molester too, should those false and harmful allegations stand here forever because of transparency? I don't think so.
Let us be careful and not mindlessly cite mantras ...
Practically speaking, one good solution might be to move offensive posts into the mod dump -and- to replace them (in the public section) with a short moderation note like. e.g. "deleted insult" or "deleted personal attack".
Simple suggestion: Let moderator text be clearly recognizable, e.g. by always and without exception having "moderation" or some such be the first text right at the beginning, followed by an empty line of a post in which a moderator is acting as moderator as opposed to normal user. (Or alternatively give Vanilla some new function which e.g. puts a moderation post with a different background colour).
The point is this: a lot of trouble is based on users not being clear whether some post from a user who also is a moderator has the user talking or the moderator. So, make that clear. Maybe hand in hand with a rule that says that moderators should not (except for emergencies) moderate content related to something they themselves said.
Finally, again: Establish a zero tolerance policy regarding any form of ad hominem, no matter whether insult, unproven accusation, or whatever. Make it abundantly clear that the purpose of LET (besides attractive offers) is to discuss matters, not other users (except respectful and polite criticism of mods/admins/their actions because not allowing that makes you sail blindly).
So, if your dog craps on the carpet you leave it there because "transparency"?
And btw, yes, transparency usually is desirable but it certainly isn't a somehow top priority.
Also, "being well liked by EVERYBODY" may seem desirable but actually is (a) not a precondition for a good moderator (but a quite desirable icing on top), and (b) practically impossible.
You, for instance, quite obviously dislike @Arkas, and that's OK; it does however not change the fact that he is a moderator, nor that he deserves to be addressed politely, period.
He offended Arkas and got nuked. xD
There are plenty of forums that I'm a member of where this works fine. On a couple that I know moderators are just standard users and not even shown as a "Moderator" status.
This avoids public threats of bans and anything against rules etc is taken out of public via PM or warning.
Recent "moderation" has been questionable, especially the public reactions.
Weird comparison, I don't even know what to say.
So, is it desirable in this current situation? For me it's obviously yes. Or, in regards to the current poll, what are some other high priority options to enhance moderation?
Well that's the point. Everybody is not possible, however, a majority certainly is and I think should be... Heck, licking doesn't matter, I'd rather say not disliked by the majority is fine. I'd even say that there are certain moderators that are definitely well liked by the majority. But others may and probably are not.
Well obviously (with currently 87 votes) more than the half is currently experiencing some rather negative moderation. So there is something wrong at least.
I do dislike his current temper and actions, yes that's true.
Well, first of all this should be applicable not only to moderators but "normal members" as well.
Secondly, I think there should be consequences when one doesn't. Users get warnings and/or (temp) bans. However what should happen if a moderator isn't polite? That's the reason why @Arkas lost (probably not only by me) some deep respect as moderator (keyword: "hidden agenda"). This, in combination with some (half backed) content pushing, following some negative feedbacks from multiple sides and a non de-escalating manner did lead to gudgres by all participants.
Imo, a good moderator is primarily de-escalating in the first place. I see it as THE key point.
The thing is though, those thread instantly degenerates into "paid sponsorship" or "terrible moderator" solely because you know he's a moderator and people have a beef with him personally and how LET in general is run.
If it was a normal user posting these tutorials, people would either ignore them or make a sarcastic comment and move on.
Well that's about it, people would still post "Just spam at this point", however nothing would happen from the moderators side.
My answer already is in what you quoted.
Frankly, even my wording "icing on top" and "desirable" was very generous. Factually it's utterly irrelevant whether a mod or admin is liked or not. Some examples for what is far more relevant and important are fairness and consistency.
Is that really so? I'm not so sure that "users are happy" is a decisive criterion. I personally would, for example, at least limit that to actually contributing users (and no "bla bla bla" or "always make backups" are not (or very rarely) valuable).
No problem at all IMO. Just stay polite and reasonable, even with mods you don't like.
... and, sofar afaik not clearly stated, users aren't necessarily victims. If a user can reasonably and plausibly show that some mod action against him was not justified, (s)he can contact an admin.
There may be a misunderstanding (probably rooted in a strong believe in democracy etc). Frankly, you (or me or whoever) deeply respecting any mod or not is utterly irrelevant, at least as long as a moderator acts and decides reasonably. If he doesn't (as arguably once was the case with @Arkas) there are consequences. And while I do understand that some took Arkas' banning himself to be theatralic, one should also see that he basically showed the exit to himself and such ended/closed the potential problem zone. Not every mod could and would so that. What I mean is this: Don't focus on what you perceive as negative only, also see the positive.
ACK - when and where there is something to deescalate. Often the situation requires different steps. But yes, I agree, the ability and tendency to deescalate where appropriate is indeed desirable in a mod.
Yep. That's a major reason why I strongly suggested for @jbiloh to find a way to make it clearly visible whether a mod posts as a normal user or acts as a mod. I think, that alone would defuse or avoid a lot of problems here.
And do tell, these forums, are they as 'loud' as ours? Are they as toxic as sometimes ours get? Apples to Oranges. In either case, I am not going to spend any more of my time to help you see another side.
Reddit is a good example. Plenty of toxic users - though often they're drowned out by the downvote mechanism, moderation is handled privately largely. By default there, mods aren't identified as mods. Only when they're acting in an official capacity is that shown (with a green or red username, depending on whether they're a mod or a Reddit employee)
That, and not letting mods mod their own threads.
DP (User Mode) - Hm, yeah, that might work.
DP (Moderator Mode) - We'll discuss this internally.
This reply to my first post in this thread kind of shows why this doesn't work. Your reply is hostile - all I did was share my experiences on other forums (I did not state which, so you have no idea what they are like). Then stating "I am not going to spend any more of my time to help you see another side" "help" me see another side of what?
There's clearly issues with the LET moderating as of recent, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist.
And if someone opens a thread titled "your experiences regarding iKeyZ" then one could assert that obviously there clearly are issues with you, right?
Kindly note that for everyone here there will be some who don't like him/her or feel offended or ...
All that actually proves is that someone doesn't like someone else - and it does not prove that said someone else is somehow malevolent, evil, or ugly (except when it's about me because I am ugly).
I'm unsure if I have told anyone that they are "evil" or "ugly" here. There have been many posts recently about moderation on here compared to in the past, feel free to search through and take a look yourself.
In regards to opening a thread about me, if I saw that thread I'd imagine I must have done something to get someones attention enough to do that - it's the same scenario.
you're a moderator not a forum warrior, you don't have to flex on everybody you disagree with.
My 2c as the Americans say:
It boils down to trust and authority (one which is based on respect and integrity, not only on a title).
If a moderator/admin/owner has earned that (through their actions over time) with a critical mass of members (it doesn't even always have to be a majority - some places see a higher influx of new members), it's all good.
If that's not the lacking - nothing helps usually.
Rules can always be bent, broken, circumvented - but when there is respect and integrity, one simple rule usually does it: "don't be a dick."
Different communities have different criteria of what the above-quoted sentence means. However, there always is a more-less generally accepted line.
The more rules you have, the more they are for-this-and-this-particular case, the worse it gets.
"Transparency" is usually nonsense in practice. Just be reasonable and don't be a dick (goes for users and mods).
It got boring by page 3.
I'll add my opinion here without reading further because I'm an expert and that's what experts do /s.
Realistically, it's a 3 points.
To mitigate this I think a transition plan needs to be set. This would include:
Being a little aggressive here... For the rest of the community, you've got to recognize that LEB/LET are private websites. They have their own objectives and priorities, and you have your own. Asking the site owners to bend to your objectives is pretty dense. But they're selling you and your attention to their marketers. Their only value right now is the ability to market a hosting company to a targeted audience. You see where your objectives lines up with their objectives? Put actual meaningful contributions and thought into this and suggest things that are actually actionable and will help move the needle in this direction. You're not going to get "transparency" or other "democracy" esque things.
There's gonna be another breaking point soon. The community may jump (again?) soon. Maybe some enterprising young lad might have his own website he can grow quickly that offers a better/higher quality content and marketplace. Only time will tell.
and I don't mean those like webmasteroffers or that other guy is positioned well to capture this.
Quick note: I'm just saying that those guys don't know dick and probably won't be able to manage this kind of a community. LEB/LET as a website and as a whole will continue to survive, but it won't be thriving. To really thrive, you really need to re-establish a healthier relationship with the community. There are case studies you can probably refer to and having a proper community manager (external to LEB/LET's ecosystem) would be a useful addition to the team.
$7
I will just say one thing, and I mean it in the most polite way possible.
The fact alone that there is a need for this thread to exist - that means that there is a problem with your moderators.
You do as you see fit though.