This place is a joke - Merged with AIRING OUT GRIEVANCES

[jimnyc]

I have tried in the past to have a decent conversation in PM's, but all that happened was one of the mods whined to Darin (without addressing me), who then basically told me to shut the fuck up. What is the point of having a rule of putting questions to mods or the admin in PMs if they are just dismissed.

Be polite, accept the answers, ask again politely, and if still troubled you then PM me. It will work itself out then. Many times users get frustrated when they don't get a quick answer and then they take it to the public, and that will rarely end good, as breaking the rules isn't the best way to get heard. I assure you that by the time a PM reaches me the user will be happy with the decision. They obviously won't always agree, but I'm honest and have no problem explaining board decisions to those pissed or just plain interested.

Well I think that sucks and is an anathema to your " moderated fairly and allowed for open and free debate" quote. But it's your board...I'll go on record as saying the only mods worth a damn are yourself, Jeff and Mtnbkr. Everybody else needs to pull their heads in. Wouldn't do any harm to have a lib moderator either, just for a little balance.

No wanting disruptions on the board with users complaining mods sucks, the forums suck, board sucks... is just good 'ol fashioned moderating on a fair board. Not wanting to ruin the board is certainly not censoring or not allowing debate or questioning, it's just that there are proper places and times. It's not much different than those that come here, go directly to the announcements section and link to somewhere else. Am I censoring them when I remove the post? Do you think I should allow them to have their way in such a manner, or should these posts be moderated in the best interest of the board? Do you know what anarchy is?

I do see what you're aiming at, but please try to see our point of view. There are many benefits to enjoy here and I think the rules are lax enough where members can do much, much more here than elsewhere. It would be nice to not need moderation, bannings or locking of threads, but once again I think we all can agree on what would happen in that case. So it boils down to the decision process. We can't ALL be mods on the board, so only those appointed have that ability to speak on behalf of the board. I try to have them follow things the way I like, but I certainly don't moderate them either. What would be the point of me having mods if I couldn't trust them to make tough decisions on their own and stand behind them?

We all make mistakes, we all disagree at times, and that's why we have ocassions such as this to air things out and speak our minds. And hopefully we all learn from others and then can move on, and talk about better things, like the hole in my neck, or boobies, or drugs...

 

[Mr. P]

Name one person, sharpshooter.

Ain't going there and I was a expert, not a sharpshooter..

I'll leave it at this, roomy and Grump have a case.
I live with it, like many others here do too.

Jim can pm me if he needs to know. Hey, that's the way it works right?

 

[jimnyc]

Don't bannings have to have at least SOMETHING to do with breaking a rule?

In most instances, yes. But I can't say I personally never banned someone out of emotion. It happens and will continue to do so as long as we are human. I can't think of a specific instance where someone was banned outside of the rules but we would be lying if we didn't admit our personalities and opinions do persuade or moderating. But I expect that, knew that going in, and have no issue with that. I take that into account when making someone a mod. We can still be human and yet know how to be fair, even to those we don't like or disagree with, and I think our crew has been pretty damn fair throughout the past few years. But I'm open to suggestions and airing things out, which is why we're all chatting right now!

 

[jimnyc]

Ain't going there and I was a expert, not a sharpshooter..

I'll leave it at this, roomy and Grump have a case.
I live with it, like many others here do too.

Jim can pm me if he needs to know. Hey, that's the way it works right?

I'm honestly happy with the moderating that takes place here. I can't help with what I don't know about, but I won't be on daily scavenger hunts either. If someone is upset and can't get an answer, they are always free to PM me. If it's kept back-channeled and amongst 'friends', then it will unfortunately remain and that's how bad feelings fester.

I'm not complaining, just saying that now is the time to speak up if something needs to be said!

 

[Dr Grump]

Are you talking about that time you wouldn't stop with a moderator, and I told you to back off? Was it you I reminded that 'talking' about a situation was fine, but what you were doing was borderline harrassment?

No. It was the time when I started a thread asking why a thread had been closed and was told to take it to PM's, which I did and then she told me to contact you whereby you were dismissive. I think if a mod has the nads to shut a thread they should give a reason, and if they haven't got a reason then it shouldn't be shut.

When or IF moderators ever used their moderating ability to direct outcomes of threads We'd consider giving two rats asses about their political leanings.

You do it all the time.

 

[Dr Grump]

Be polite, accept the answers, ask again politely, and if still troubled you then PM me. It will work itself out then. Many times users get frustrated when they don't get a quick answer and then they take it to the public, and that will rarely end good, as breaking the rules isn't the best way to get heard. I assure you that by the time a PM reaches me the user will be happy with the decision. They obviously won't always agree, but I'm honest and have no problem explaining board decisions to those pissed or just plain interested.

Fair enough.

I do see what you're aiming at, but please try to see our point of view. There are many benefits to enjoy here and I think the rules are lax enough where members can do much, much more here than elsewhere. It would be nice to not need moderation, bannings or locking of threads, but once again I think we all can agree on what would happen in that case. So it boils down to the decision process. We can't ALL be mods on the board, so only those appointed have that ability to speak on behalf of the board. I try to have them follow things the way I like, but I certainly don't moderate them either. What would be the point of me having mods if I couldn't trust them to make tough decisions on their own and stand behind them?

Well, you are speaking to someone who doesn't really believe in moderation, but I can see you have a good point. As for the mods, there are enough good ones (I should have included Bonnie in there - sorry Bonnie!!!) that some of the others can get cut loose IMO. You need a good temperament to make a board work by being a moderator. Clearly some don't have the temperament.

We all make mistakes, we all disagree at times, and that's why we have ocassions such as this to air things out and speak our minds. And hopefully we all learn from others and then can move on, and talk about better things, like the hole in my neck, or boobies, or drugs...

Cool....

 

[roomy]

Fair enough.



Well, you are speaking to someone who doesn't really believe in moderation, but I can see you have a good point. As for the mods, there are enough good ones (I should have included Bonnie in there - sorry Bonnie!!!) that some of the others can get cut loose IMO. You need a good temperament to make a board work by being a moderator. Clearly some don't have the temperament.




Cool....

Jimmy is sound, all mods are sound in PM, pm is a good call, REALLY, THEY ARE REAL:teeth: :teeth: :teeth:

 

[dmp]

No. It was the time when I started a thread asking why a thread had been closed and was told to take it to PM's, which I did and then she told me to contact you whereby you were dismissive. I think if a mod has the nads to shut a thread they should give a reason, and if they haven't got a reason then it shouldn't be shut.

You are a liar and slanderer. Dismissive? Did you keep bugging people when I finally told you we don't OWE you an explanation? Could it be I and the mod GAVE you an explanation you were just too whiney to accept it?

You do it all the time.

Again, you are a liar. Talk about banning somebody based on emotion - I am not going to put up with your baseless accusations.

Here's your chance:

SHOW me where I have moderated to AFFECT THE OUTCOME of a discussion towards my political point of view.

If you don't show by clear evidence this is the case, you'll owe me a huge apology. IF I do that 'all the time' you'll have no problem finding one. I'll give you until tomorrow. If you don't come up with an example, you'll retract that statement, right? Probably not; as you don't have the strength of character to be wrong.

 

[Dr Grump]

You are a liar and slanderer. Dismissive? Did you keep bugging people when I finally told you we don't OWE you an explanation? Could it be I and the mod GAVE you an explanation you were just too whiney to accept it?

There are many things I am, a liar ain't one of them. I only bugged you because you kept on replying to my PM's with nothing but BS. You gave no explanation. I don't consider "we did it because we can" as an explanation. I call it a cop out....

Again, you are a liar. Talk about banning somebody based on emotion - I am not going to put up with your baseless accusations.

Huh? Are you saying I said that YOU banned somebody based on emotion? We were talking about you affecting the outcome of a discussion...

SHOW me where I have moderated to AFFECT THE OUTCOME of a discussion towards my political point of view.
If you don't show by clear evidence this is the case, you'll owe me a huge apology. IF I do that 'all the time' you'll have no problem finding one. I'll give you until tomorrow. If you don't come up with an example, you'll retract that statement, right? Probably not; as you don't have the strength of character to be wrong.

Show me where you have moderated to affect the outcome? You have never closed a thread? If you have never closed a thread I apologise. If you have, you have affected the outcome...

 

[Dr Grump]

BTW, thanks for the neg rep Darin. You obviously have so much respect for Jim you ignored the second paragraph in Jim's first post on this thread. So glad you entered into the spirit of it

 

[dmp]

There are many things I am, a liar ain't one of them. I only bugged you because you kept on replying to my PM's with nothing but BS. You gave no explanation. I don't consider "we did it because we can" as an explanation. I call it a cop out....

You are lying. You're lying about our supposed conversation and the outcome. Unless you can give me specifics, I'm remembering SOMETHING about you never being satisfied with an answer given you, so I told you to knock of harrassing me or the moderator in question.

(shrug)

Show me where you have moderated to affect the outcome? You have never closed a thread? If you have never closed a thread I apologise. If you have, you have affected the outcome...

When or IF moderators ever used their moderating ability to direct outcomes of threads We'd consider giving two rats asses about their political leanings

THAT was my reply to YOUR statement to 'add a Liberal Moderator' - MY reply states "When somebody's political leanings affect how they moderate, we'll care about their leanings".


I negative rep'd your slander of my character. I will always do so when I see blatant lying about me or any of the other staff of this board. Your comment, which I repped was personal in nature and not called for. Negative Reputation points are NOT "Reprisal". If I negatively repped EVERY post you made since, based on that one, it'd be reprisal. Or, if I banned you or did something any OTHER member couldn't do, that might be reprisal. NOT approving of your slander, and subtracting from your reputation is something I'd so whether I am an Admin or not.

ANYONE is free to say ANYTHING they want in this thread right here. Air your complaints. Tell me the problems of this board and how I run it wrong in your mind. NOBODY should feel afraid of repraisal, as you have my word that anything in this thread is allowed as I want it finally ALL aired out.

 

[Dr Grump]

You are lying. You're lying about our supposed conversation and the outcome. Unless you can give me specifics, I'm remembering SOMETHING about you never being satisfied with an answer given you, so I told you to knock of harrassing me or the moderator in question.

Nope I am not lying. You and I had a back and forth about your piss weak excuses about why mods close threads....as I said, I don't consider "we do it because we can" a satisfactory answer. It is copout. As for the moderator in question, she closed a thread and told me to take it to PM's. I PMed her, she told me to get hold of you. I asked why I needed to talk to you as she closed the thread and told me to go to PMs (or something along those lines as I haven't kept the PMs in question). Two PMs trying to clarify a position is hardly harassment. As I said, you need to grow a thicker skin.

THAT was my reply to YOUR statement to 'add a Liberal Moderator' - MY reply states "When somebody's political leanings affect how they moderate, we'll care about their leanings".

And I say that if you have closed threads you have done so..

I negative rep'd your slander of my character. I will always do so when I see blatant lying about me or any of the other staff of this board. Your comment, which I repped was personal in nature and not called for. Negative Reputation points are NOT "Reprisal". If I negatively repped EVERY post you made since, based on that one, it'd be reprisal. Or, if I banned you or did something any OTHER member couldn't do, that might be reprisal. NOT approving of your slander, and subtracting from your reputation is something I'd so whether I am an Admin or not.

Look up the word slander. I have not slandered you once. You however have libelled me by calling me a liar, which I am not. It totally was reprisal, and that is fine. I have certain standards as to your character and you are living up to them in spades....

 

[dmp]

Nope I am not lying. You and I had a back and forth about your piss weak excuses about why mods close threads....as I said, I don't consider "we do it because we can" a satisfactory answer. It is copout. As for the moderator in question, she closed a thread and told me to take it to PM's. I PMed her, she told me to get hold of you. I asked why I needed to talk to you as she closed the thread and told me to go to PMs (or something along those lines as I haven't kept the PMs in question). Two PMs trying to clarify a position is hardly harassment. As I said, you need to grow a thicker skin.

I don't buy it not the way you are convieniantly portraying here. But I remember PM'ing with you a few times. It IS a fact we don't owe you explanations. Generally, when ppl approach me via PM and ask why in a respectful manner, I reply in kind. Perhaps you got arrogant with me? perhaps you 'demanded' YOUR way be used?

And I say that if you have closed threads you have done so..

Done so what? Used my moderation ability to affect outcomes favourable to my political leanings? If you say that, you're an idiot because it doesn't happen.

Look up the word slander. I have not slandered you once. You however have libelled me by calling me a liar, which I am not. It totally was reprisal, and that is fine. I have certain standards as to your character and you are living up to them in spades....

Reprisal? WTF? How is that a 'reprisal'? What Jim means is "None of the Mods/Admins will ban you or F with your Account cuz you blew your wad all over the board in this thread. I Negatively Repped you - that means "I did NOT approve of you lying about me." You LIED about me and what I do with threads. Bald-face LIE. IF you were honest you'd have replied back something like this:

"Oh - I thought you meant you never AFFECTED threads. I consider 'closing' a thread affecting it's outcome. I didn't understand you were repsonding to MY suggestion that the moderators mostly having the same political leanings caused left-leaning people to suffer. My bad. "

But - you're obtuse. I need thicker skin? Try understanding a few things:

1) You don't know me.
2) NONE of the moderators here answer to you. I answer to Jim.
3) I don't have a third - just hate lists w/ only 2 statements.


If you have a problem with ANY of that, take it up with my boss.


And STOP lying about me Liar McLyingMan.

 

[Dr Grump]

I don't buy it not the way you are convieniantly portraying here. But I remember PM'ing with you a few times. It IS a fact we don't owe you explanations. Generally, when ppl approach me via PM and ask why in a respectful manner, I reply in kind. Perhaps you got arrogant with me? perhaps you 'demanded' YOUR way be used?

I know you don't owe an explanation. You made that plain in your first PM. In fact I was more than polite, but due to you taking umbrage with me asking the question, you were on the defensive from the get go..go figure..

Done so what? Used my moderation ability to affect outcomes favourable to my political leanings? If you say that, you're an idiot because it doesn't happen.

No, you said this: When or IF moderators ever used their moderating ability to direct outcomes of threads We'd consider giving two rats asses about their political leanings.

The above doesn't say to me that you use your political leanings to direct outcomes, it says you use your moderating ability to moderate outcomes...why you put in the last bit I have no idea...gibberish??

Reprisal? WTF? How is that a 'reprisal'? What Jim means is "None of the Mods/Admins will ban you or F with your Account cuz you blew your wad all over the board in this thread. I Negatively Repped you - that means "I did NOT approve of you lying about me." You LIED about me and what I do with threads. Bald-face LIE. IF you were honest you'd have replied back something like this:

"Oh - I thought you meant you never AFFECTED threads. I consider 'closing' a thread affecting it's outcome. I didn't understand you were repsonding to MY suggestion that the moderators mostly having the same political leanings caused left-leaning people to suffer. My bad.

I'm not blowing my wad at all. Had a very civil, enjoyable ADULT discussion with Jim about how the board is run. The only one blowing his wad/ego over the board is you. And of course mods having the same political leanings make the lefties suffer to a degree - Jim even said he expects his mods to be like that due to the fact they are human.

But - you're obtuse. I need thicker skin? Try understanding a few things:

1) You don't know me.
2) NONE of the moderators here answer to you. I answer to Jim.
3) I don't have a third - just hate lists w/ only 2 statements.

If you have a problem with ANY of that, take it up with my boss.

And STOP lying about me Liar McLyingMan.

I may not know you, but I know people like you. Of course moderators don't have to answer to me, never said you did, but civil discourse on why certain things are done don't do any harm and having a "we're the supreme beings and dictator's of the world/this is not a democracy" BS, does nothing but cause argument and vitriole. And if that is the kind of board you want to sponsor then so be it, but going on talking to Jim he doesn't want that. If you want to act like Big Man on Campus, go for it. I'll call it as I see it and it has nothing to do with me thinking I can tell you what to do. Oh, and if you read the thread I did take it up with your boss.

Stop whining like a little baby....

 

[dmp]

No, you said this: When or IF moderators ever used their moderating ability to direct outcomes of threads We'd consider giving two rats asses about their political leanings.

The above doesn't say to me that you use your political leanings to direct outcomes, it says you use your moderating ability to moderate outcomes...why you put in the last bit I have no idea...gibberish??

Okay - as if to a child:

YOU say this: "We need more Liberal moderators to 'balance things out'.

See, it's very clear in YOUR statement you feel because most mods are conservatives it has an effect on how they MODERATE.

I quoted THAT statement, YOU made - remember the one I just listed a few lines up? Yeah - I quoted THAT one saying WHEN (their political slant) changes the outcome of threads due to their moderator 'powers', we'll start CARING about moderator's political slant.

YOU quoted THAT statement and said I do that all the time.

See? You're a liar or you have comprehension problems. If you can't follow lines of thought just SAY so and we'll ALL word our comments VERY clearly so you don't have to reach logical conclusions all by yourself.

I'm not blowing my wad at all. Had a very civil, enjoyable ADULT discussion with Jim about how the board is run. The only one blowing his wad/ego over the board is you. And of course mods having the same political leanings make the lefties suffer to a degree - Jim even said he expects his mods to be like that due to the fact they are human.

See - now you're saying what I think you claimed, which you just denied claiming.

I asked you to show me ONE instance of a Moderator using their mod abilities to change a thread's outcome to THEIR Point of Political View. You claimed I, specifically "do that all the time".

I may not know you, but I know people like you. Of course moderators don't have to answer to me, never said you did, but civil discourse on why certain things are done don't do any harm and having a "we're the supreme beings and dictator's of the world/this is not a democracy" BS, does nothing but cause argument and vitriole. And if that is the kind of board you want to sponsor then so be it, but going on talking to Jim he doesn't want that. If you want to act like Big Man on Campus, go for it. I'll call it as I see it and it has nothing to do with me thinking I can tell you what to do. Oh, and if you read the thread I did take it up with your boss.

Stop whining like a little baby....

I can and will stop you in ad hominem attacks on my character, and insults about the way I administer or that of the moderators. Outside this 'amnesty' thread I will shut down ANY voice you have which doesn't STRICKLY adhere to the rules of this forum.

 

[Shattered]

This isn't to anyone in particular, but having watched all 82 billion pages of this drivel come to life, my opinion is this...

Yes, a few threads have been shut down needlessly, just because 1 or 2 people were acting like children..

However, a new process was developed wherein the problem children can be removed from the thread in question without the whole thing being shut down.. I see this as a good thing. The people having fun in a thread shouldn't have it locked on them.. The people causing a problem shouldn't be allowed to be a problem to others..

So, what's all the bickering still going on for? What's the point? The "way this board is run" has numbers that speak for it loudly, and clearly..

I'd say suck it up and deal, or try to join DU.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

This isn't to anyone in particular, but having watched all 82 billion pages of this drivel come to life, my opinion is this...

Yes, a few threads have been shut down needlessly, just because 1 or 2 people were acting like children..

However, a new process was developed wherein the problem children can be removed from the thread in question without the whole thing being shut down.. I see this as a good thing. The people having fun in a thread shouldn't have it locked on them.. The people causing a problem shouldn't be allowed to be a problem to others..

So, what's all the bickering still going on for? What's the point? The "way this board is run" has numbers that speak for it loudly, and clearly..

I'd say suck it up and deal, or try to join DU.

Because remove from thread is a nazi feature which has only been used for abusive purposes this far. Just so you know.

 

[Shattered]

Because remove from thread is a nazi feature which has only been used for abusive purposes this far. Just so you know.

I disagree.. I don't think it's being used enough.. I can name at least half a dozen threads one particular member should have been removed from last night, but wasn't. I can also come up with close to a dozen I think should have been shut down completely last night, but weren't.

Just my opinion, tho..

 

[Abbey Normal]

This isn't to anyone in particular, but having watched all 82 billion pages of this drivel come to life, my opinion is this...

Yes, a few threads have been shut down needlessly, just because 1 or 2 people were acting like children..

However, a new process was developed wherein the problem children can be removed from the thread in question without the whole thing being shut down.. I see this as a good thing. The people having fun in a thread shouldn't have it locked on them.. The people causing a problem shouldn't be allowed to be a problem to others..

So, what's all the bickering still going on for? What's the point? The "way this board is run" has numbers that speak for it loudly, and clearly..

I'd say suck it up and deal, or try to join DU.

Exactly. Don't you love it when someone new comes around and tries to change the way a well-established organization is run just to suit their pov? I've seen it everywhere from business meetings to PTA meetings to message boards.

 

[MtnBiker]

Because remove from thread is a nazi feature which has only been used for abusive purposes this far. Just so you know.

Nazis would force you to be an active member of this messageboard. No one on the admin or mod staff is doing so.