Proposal for a new forum AND a change in the rules.

[BackAgain]

This post (just to be clear) is NOT about moderation, itself.

It is partly about the Board rule which prohibits any discussion about “moderation” in the public forums. I suggest that this rule is in need of change. And I also recommend that there be a new forum which will be the sole (viewable) forum for member commentary about moderation.

Comment: the rule prohibiting public forum commentary from members regarding moderation should be relaxed at least to the extent of permitting it in the proposed new forum. (The rule itself shouldn’t even exist, but this suggestion doesn’t delve into that.)

And the new forum should allow a frustrated member who has been subjected to “moderation” to address the specific moderation in question. Honestly, our voices count. (I read that somewhere.)

 

[okfine]

This post (just to be clear) is NOT about moderation, itself.

It is partly about the Board rule which prohibits any discussion about “moderation” in the public forums. I suggest that this rule is in need of change. And I also recommend that there be a new forum which will be the sole (viewable) forum for member commentary about moderation.

Comment: the rule prohibiting public forum commentary from members regarding moderation should be relaxed at least to the extent of permitting it in the proposed new forum. (The rule itself shouldn’t even exist, but this suggestion doesn’t delve into that.)

And the new forum should allow a frustrated member who has been subjected to “moderation” to address the specific moderation in question. Honestly, our voices count. (I read that somewhere.)

This must be because of your projection on others. You know, the BS you say others do while you are doing yourself, right Mr. Off Topic?

 

[BackAgain]

This must be because of your projection on others. You know, the BS you say others do while you are doing yourself, right Mr. Off Topic?

Unlike you, I don’t post BS.

Oh, by the way, you’re off topic. As usual.

Nobody requires you to agree with either part of my proposal. Your input is of no consequence as things stand, though.

 

[Donald H]

This post (just to be clear) is NOT about moderation, itself.

It is partly about the Board rule which prohibits any discussion about “moderation” in the public forums. I suggest that this rule is in need of change. And I also recommend that there be a new forum which will be the sole (viewable) forum for member commentary about moderation.

Comment: the rule prohibiting public forum commentary from members regarding moderation should be relaxed at least to the extent of permitting it in the proposed new forum. (The rule itself shouldn’t even exist, but this suggestion doesn’t delve into that.)

And the new forum should allow a frustrated member who has been subjected to “moderation” to address the specific moderation in question. Honestly, our voices count. (I read that somewhere.)

Best to not object to any actions taken by the moderators. You will lose and that just ends up making an ass of yourself.

Or in your case, confirms it!

 

[Dante]

Best to not object to any actions taken by the moderators. You will lose and that just ends up making an ass of yourself.

Or in your case, confirms it!

touche!

 

[BackAgain]

Best to not object to any actions taken by the moderators. You will lose and that just ends up making an ass of yourself.

I’m not objecting to a single bit of moderation. Try reading with comprehension.

 

[Dante]

This post (just to be clear) is NOT about moderation, itself.

It is partly about the Board rule which prohibits any discussion about “moderation” in the public forums. I suggest that this rule is in need of change. And I also recommend that there be a new forum which will be the sole (viewable) forum for member commentary about moderation.

Comment: the rule prohibiting public forum commentary from members regarding moderation should be relaxed at least to the extent of permitting it in the proposed new forum. (The rule itself shouldn’t even exist, but this suggestion doesn’t delve into that.)

And the new forum should allow a frustrated member who has been subjected to “moderation” to address the specific moderation in question. Honestly, our voices count. (I read that somewhere.)

Addressing any specific moderation in question is something many of us would probably support. But I doubt wanting to it publicly would ever be good for anybody - members, staff, the holy ghost

 

[Auld Phart]

This post (just to be clear) is NOT about moderation, itself.

It is partly about the Board rule which prohibits any discussion about “moderation” in the public forums. I suggest that this rule is in need of change. And I also recommend that there be a new forum which will be the sole (viewable) forum for member commentary about moderation.

Comment: the rule prohibiting public forum commentary from members regarding moderation should be relaxed at least to the extent of permitting it in the proposed new forum. (The rule itself shouldn’t even exist, but this suggestion doesn’t delve into that.)

And the new forum should allow a frustrated member who has been subjected to “moderation” to address the specific moderation in question. Honestly, our voices count. (I read that somewhere.)

where is this board rule?

I don't see it.

Thread 'USMB Rules and Guidelines'

Feb 8, 2013

USMB Site Guidelines and Regulations​

List of Current Active Moderators:
AyeCantSeeYou Dont Taz Me Bro katsteve2012 White 6 OKTexas

Registration Guidelines:
Individuals are allowed only one (1) account. Anyone found to be in violation risk having all accounts banned.

Site Wide Rules And Guidelines:
The following Rules Apply Everywhere unless otherwise stated on USMB, including Posts, Private Messages, Visitor Messages, and Signatures:

• Please post in English. We like having global...

• cereal_killer
• Replies: 2
• Forum: Announcements and Feedback

• 
• 

 

[gtopa1]

Interesting that the usual hair on fire vermin are attacking the OP when it's just an interesting suggestion. Overall the mods get it right but sometimes it'd be good to know the "why" of things. Let's be clear; on some things mods' actions may seem strange when a simple reference to a particular rule may clear it up. Or the action may be "over the top" on occasion or the result of "pack reporting"; it would be nice to know. Would it make the station of being a mod somewhat onerous? Maybe at first but it may also lead to less in the long run. I'm mostly interested in perma-bans and the reasons behind them. I know that process requires more than one mod agreeing so it's not the sole responsibility of a particular mod at any one time but I do dislike permabans in principle even for those with whom I disagree, so there's that I'd like more discussion on. I've lost a few good quality enemies over the year. I miss them.

Greg

 

[Concerned American]

Best to not object to any actions taken by the moderators. You will lose and that just ends up making an ass of yourself.

This post ^^^ sounds like the voice of experience, eh duck?

 

[Donald H]

This post ^^^ sounds like the voice of experience, eh duck?

You'll never find an example of me objecting to a moderator's actions my friend.

To discuss the point further we're going to have to do it in private. Let me know.

 

[MagicMike]

Interesting that the usual hair on fire vermin are attacking the OP when it's just an interesting suggestion. Overall the mods get it right but sometimes it'd be good to know the "why" of things. Let's be clear; on some things mods' actions may seem strange when a simple reference to a particular rule may clear it up. Or the action may be "over the top" on occasion or the result of "pack reporting"; it would be nice to know. Would it make the station of being a mod somewhat onerous? Maybe at first but it may also lead to less in the long run. I'm mostly interested in perma-bans and the reasons behind them. I know that process requires more than one mod agreeing so it's not the sole responsibility of a particular mod at any one time but I do dislike permabans in principle even for those with whom I disagree, so there's that I'd like more discussion on. I've lost a few good quality enemies over the year. I miss them.

Greg

I first got "permabanned" on this forum back in 2003.
I simply took about a 20 year break then got back on without any problem.
All it takes is a little patience.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

where is this board rule?

I don't see it.

Thread 'USMB Rules and Guidelines'

Feb 8, 2013

USMB Site Guidelines and Regulations​

List of Current Active Moderators:
AyeCantSeeYou Dont Taz Me Bro katsteve2012 White 6 OKTexas

Registration Guidelines:
Individuals are allowed only one (1) account. Anyone found to be in violation risk having all accounts banned.

Site Wide Rules And Guidelines:
The following Rules Apply Everywhere unless otherwise stated on USMB, including Posts, Private Messages, Visitor Messages, and Signatures:

• Please post in English. We like having global...

• cereal_killer
• Replies: 2
• Forum: Announcements and Feedback

• 
• 

I think he means this one:

The thing is, we DO allow questions about mod actions up to the point where mods get attacked for following the forum rules. I don't mind telling people why they got a warning or temp ban or why a thread was locked/moved elsewhere.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

I first got "permabanned" on this forum back in 2003.
I simply took about a 20 year break then got back on without any problem.
All it takes is a little patience.

We have an amnesty for former banned members from time to time.

 

[citygator]

This post (just to be clear) is NOT about moderation, itself.

It is partly about the Board rule which prohibits any discussion about “moderation” in the public forums. I suggest that this rule is in need of change. And I also recommend that there be a new forum which will be the sole (viewable) forum for member commentary about moderation.

Comment: the rule prohibiting public forum commentary from members regarding moderation should be relaxed at least to the extent of permitting it in the proposed new forum. (The rule itself shouldn’t even exist, but this suggestion doesn’t delve into that.)

And the new forum should allow a frustrated member who has been subjected to “moderation” to address the specific moderation in question. Honestly, our voices count. (I read that somewhere.)

As it turns out vermin dont deserve a voice on moderation.

 

[BackAgain]

As it turns out vermin dont deserve a voice on moderation.

So? Don’t use your voice then.

 

[Auld Phart]

I think he means this one:
View attachment 1082794

The thing is, we DO allow questions about mod actions up to the point where mods get attacked for following the forum rules. I don't mind telling people why they got a warning or temp ban or why a thread was locked/moved elsewhere.

he obviously can't read,

 

[1srelluc]

There should be no "question mark" alerts that a thread was locked, moved, much less warnings.....That should end.....Today.

Mods should own their actions and be prepared to discuss it with the offending member when/if contacted.

That said, if they do own them then it is up to the member to talk to that particular mod 1 on 1 for explanation/redress and not address it here.....If they carry their gripe to other subfourms without first talking to the principle mod involved then to me that is a bannable offence.

As it stands now a member's only recourse is posting in this subfourm to "question mark" mod actions. IMHO it's a piss poor way to run a railroad and it need not be.

I'm sure the mods that tend to "own it" would appreciate it too as they end-up getting tarred with the same brush as the "question mark" mod in this subforum.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

There should be no "question mark" alerts that a thread was locked, moved, much less warnings.....That should end.....Today.

Mods should own their actions and be prepared to discuss it with the offending member when/if contacted.

That said, if they do own them then it is up to the member to talk to that particular mod 1 on 1 for explanation/redress and not address it here.....If they carry their gripe to other subfourms without first talking to the principle mod involved then to me that is a bannable offence.

As it stands now a member's only recourse is posting in this subfourm to "question mark" mod actions. IMHO it's a piss poor way to run a railroad and it need not be.

I'm sure the mods that tend to "own it" would appreciate it too as they end-up getting tarred with the same brush as the "question mark" mod in this subforum.

There are many members that PM me when they have a question about a warning or other mod action taken against them. I look into it and talk with them about it.

 

[BackAgain]

There should be no "question mark" alerts that a thread was locked, moved, much less warnings.....That should end.....Today.

Mods should own their actions and be prepared to discuss it with the offending member when/if contacted.

That said, if they do own them then it is up to the member to talk to that particular mod 1 on 1 for explanation/redress and not address it here.....If they carry their gripe to other subfourms without first talking to the principle mod involved then to me that is a bannable offence.

As it stands now a member's only recourse is posting in this subfourm to "question mark" mod actions. IMHO it's a piss poor way to run a railroad and it need not be.

I'm sure the mods that tend to "own it" would appreciate it too as they end-up getting tarred with the same brush as the "question mark" mod in this subforum.

I appreciate your view. I still don’t agree, however, that discussing even a particular mod action should be forbidden — much less bannable.

But, if that rule has to continue (for reasons, with which I simply don’t agree make sense), then my alternative proposal is to limit such comments to just one thread.