Despite the fact that it goes against something Ewok said in the thread earlier, I think this should be closed.

My internet was down last night, so I left work thinking this thread may be a way for the mods to get some good ideas about certain topics going forward. I come back today and find it has deteriorated into this. Its serving no purpose now except for people to show who they don't like and why they don't like them.

I see your point, Tracy. I locked this thread temporarily this morning as a calming measure and I'm hoping that, now everyone has had a chance to take a breath, we can get back on track!

Captain Ewok, I believe that is what has always been done in the pre-moderator days. I remember many times when you had edited posts and typed something like " I love pizza". Then you signed it, so people knew it was removed per TOS violation, and knew that you did it. Problem now is, all the mods are "anonymous", so no one knows who is reading or deleting, and no reason is given for deleted posts. If the mods feel compelled to edit a post, I think a reason should be given, and we should know who performed the edit. It may eliminate some of the "WTF just happened?" posts. Just my input, since you we're asking for suggestions.

Party pooper, we were discussing hats, here.


Yeah, I don't see why that's not possible currently. But I do see where Ewok's coming from, knowing what happened with the previous batch of mods a few years back.
But you have to realize, VJ is a different place and our mods now are different peeps, Captain.
I'm not for making posts invisible; it's just confusing when, as someone who isn't on here 24/7, catching up with a thread and then having to read two other threads to find out what the heck's going on.

Just as I stated with the organizers a while back, I don't think the mods should *have to* acknowledge which one of them did what to anyone. It only opens them up even further for backlash..that will happen occasionally anyway since there are only 3 of them, but why make it even worse for them? It's only MY opinion, of course, and I'm more than happy to go with the flow whatever happens. Lisa and I have been known to disagree on the odd occasion but I agreed with her last post on this particular part of things wholeheartedly....we hope for certain things to happen/not to happen, but in the end, this is Captain Ewok's site, and he will do as he sees fit with it. I haven't liked certain things that have happened here recently, others didn't care at all about it, but in the end you just deal and get over it or don't come here...yanno? As to the FBI thing, yeah...I think that is what started a lot of it...and I *love* that site and think Wenchie did/does a fantastic job with it...but I also love VJ and will to continue to come here. In order to do so, I'll do what Cap. says....mods, IMO, with the limited time we've had to "judge" you, I think you're doing a great job. Keep it up! M.

...and no, that's not sucking up...because I rarely do anything that would get me even close to banned....and if I'm ever *that* angry, then I won't be giving a rat's hiney about being banned from a stinkin' message board!!!!

I guess I just don't understand why they should ever be afraid to identify themselves or their actions.

They shouldn't be afraid to per say...and I do get what you're saying...if you did it, there's a reason, so say so...etc. ...and there's every possibility they wouldn't mind saying what they are doing, why, and by posting it would automatically show *who* they are....and that's fine too, of course..if they want to. It's only my opinion, after all, that they shouldn't have to...Ewok made them mods for their general likeability, fairness and how they acted on the boards before becoming mods...if he trust them, why shouldn't we? I just don't think they should have to justify their every move to anyone/everyone..if they did, that would open everything they did up for questioning and/or "well you did this for such and so, why did you do THIS to me..." you know? We can agree to disagree at any rate... M.

1) Posts are not "deleted". Mods cannot do that. They can only make them invisible.

2) Mods cannot edit posts. At all. When Ewok would delete a post and leave his little messages, he was editing the post - hence the "edited by:" line. He can edit posts, since he's an administrator. Mods cannot.

3) Ergo, the only way for a Mod to leave some notification that he/she has "invisibled" a post is to post a new reply. If the post that was hidden is on page 3 and the new reply from the Mod is on page 6, it ain't gonna make a lot of sense to people, is it?

4) I think the only way to keep the Mods doing what they do is to give them some level of invisibility. Y'all have seen the amount of crap that Mags just took. Why would the Mods WANT to expose themselves to judgement and sentencing by the crowd?

mags and lal, not seen yodrak get any gried directly yet. i've read all of the accusations and grief leveled at the mods, and lal and mags have lots of patience

What is the difference, out of interest? If the post is never made visible again, then its the same as deleting to the reader, no?

If the post is not made visible again, then you know that it was Ewok's decision to leave it that way. You can then assume that the post was deleted.

(Mags is busy making necklaces at the moment. Plus, I'm building a new site, so she doesn't have access to the computer for a little while.)

1) Yes, well "permanetely invisible" and "deleted" are different words for the same meaning. So I will now refer to said posts as "nuked", to avoid any confusion.

2 & 3) If Captain Ewok creates something to let the mod replace a nuked post with a place holder and a reason, as he stated, then that would act just the same as an edit, wouldn't you think? Thus there would be no need for the mod to post a reason 6 pages ahead of the nuked post. We would all know who did it and why immediately as it was done.

4) No position of power comes without criticism. They accepted the position and as long as Ewok is happy with their performance, then why should they be afraid to do the job that they agreed to do? Unless of course, they acted outside of their jurisdiction (on a bias, alliance, etc.). Why else would a mod need to act invisibly?

They are not afraid to do the job. I simply don't see the reason they should have to announce each time that they do something. I don't get enough time with Mags as it is; imagine how grumpy I'll be if I see her even less due to her having to post a "who and why" each time she "moderates" something. The mods aren't paid, you know.... I think it's pretty rude for people to demand that they do more than they already do - or to complain about them at all, really.

In the end, it's JUST a message board. If something that happens here affects "your" (generic you) quality of life that much, it might be time for treatment of internet addiction.

I agree, Platy. Not picking at you at all here, Matt but it really just boils down to you see it one way and I see it another. I don't think they are *afraid* to announce when they do something, but why should they have to is all? Because you (or anyone else) wants it done? No.....ya know? M.

Platy,
What does your personal life have to do with VJ ? The issue is not how grumpy you may become, or how busy you are. After all, it is just a message board, and it might be time for treatment of internet addiction.

You're right, in that I don't really care what happens on VJ - until it affects my own life. When Mags has to spend extra time online due to cretinous ingrates causing problems, that affects me. Otherwise though, I don't care at all what happens here or to whom.

Okay! Please don't let this thread veer off topic again. My personal life is exactly that, personal. I want no further discussions of it in this topic. It is irrelevant to the topic at hand; online and offline - two separate entities.

I have already stated in this topic that, if the Captain is able to write something that enables the mods to add an edit reason for invisible posts, I will be happy to undertake that and put it into practice.

I still actually quite like the invisible posts idea though. It means that we CAN retrieve a post after the fact; if we edit, we wouldn't be able to do that. I'd feel happier with the invisible post idea, but if the moral majority wish to have us edit as a preference then we can go with that; although I feel it is dodgy ground...

I'm always happy to explain many of my actions to people. However, many of the things us mods do is also behind the scenes. I feel that that should stay there, behind the scenes.

However, I do feel that this trend of people wanting to control what the mods do a little tiring. There are quite a few people that have admitted publically on VJ that they dislike authority and I can't help but think that they like to try to retain some control by dictating what the mods do and who they answer to. Let's face it, mini-mods and people micro-managing are a pain.

The simple fact of the matter is that we DO try to accommodate everyone. But it can get a little tiring to be constantly told we are doing this and that wrong. I'm not expecting people to bow down and say "ah the mods have spoken" and become little sheep, but some respect for what we do and the fact that we ARE here to moderate the board and we ARE here to keep things in check (regardless of how people would like to dictate things to us) would be nice. We welcome ideas, of course, that is the whole idea of this thread, but I wish people would try to work with us, rather than against us.

Thanks for reading.

I personally don't want another person having the power to go into my posts and edit what I have to say. No offense, mods! If that becomes the new rule around here, that will be the time I pack my bags and leave VJ.

I personally prefer invisible posts with a disclaimer left behind so people with brain injuries like me don't get confused.

Just a thought for you -

The way we do it at work, is to have forums within the forums that are only accessible by employees (and a few volunteers) of our company, we then take all edited posts, and put them in a thread or "suspect file" if you will, and keep all edited, and inappropriate content posted by that customer, so if they continue to violate the ToS, they will be given a 3 day ban, after that, the penalties rise - week ban, month ban, permenant ban, IP ban. In the same "employee only" forum we also place all removed or as you are calling them "invisible" threads.

That way, nothing is lost and everything is tracked and monitored, including the actions of the employees/volunteers. This stops abuse of power for mods, and gives them plenty off ammo when questions arise as to what to do with an unruly customer.

I totally understand this. With the invisibility and reason for edit tag option at least nothing is permanent.

I prefer this over all the other options discussed here.

I'd hate to be accused of something because I edited someone's post, that would be awful and would simply fan the flames rather than abate them.

I believe that if a post is not a violation of TOS it should not be made invisible. If it is a violation, then fine, make it invisible.

I cannot believe this conversation is still going on. Ironic that I'm now adding to it & bumping it, but eh whaddya gonna do?

The mods have not gone power crazy like some of the organizers did.

I said it before and I'll say it again....before there were mods and 'named' organizers...I thought things were just fine. Noooooooo, everyone wanted mods. Well now we got em, so now we have to deal. This is not a democracy per se in the respect of the mods being our elected officials...yes, they can certainly take suggestions, but afaik, the only accountability they really hold is toward Ewok.

Everyone is free to voice their concerns, but we are just regurgitating the same stuff here. In the instance of this particular scenario, the moderating was justified (what I saw of it beforehand). I don't like this place being moderated cos I'd much rather see the snide & smug comments and who said them. But the ppl E chose aren't bad at all. It's a thankless task requiring lots of time...I for one would never ever ever everrrrrr take on such a task as a volunteer...so instead of givin them sh!t, think about all they do here.

Invisible, deleted...who flippin cares really. But as far as mods making em invis and E deleting them...the problem everyone seems to have is actually with E since the perma-invis decision is his, not the mods'.

It's an excellent idea as it creates the 'track record' of known flamebaiters.

But, it would require a 'secret room' where mods could work or hold discussion. Something I believe Captain is not in favor of.

I have read for an hour, and feel like I just read a book with a sh*tty ending. Ya know the ones that leave you hanging and you never get an answer?

Yep.

And I've asked to have it closed (at least 3x), as it serves no purpose, but apparently OPs can't always get their own thread closed.

Maybe your requests were made invisible. I still like the impeachment idea, but apparently noone took it seriously.

What were you looking for?

From back on page 13, not to mention several PMs.



This thread has gone way off topic, many times, and the initial questions were never answered. It became a discussion of hat color & snarkiness.

Under the new Big Brother rules, apparently mods will never be held accountable for their actions. So really, why keep it open (since it was a thread about why did these things happen)?

the thread was already closed yesterday when I received your request. Later when I checked in, it was reopened in the hope to revive the suggestions conversation. I agree that if there are items to discuss and suggestions to be made this thread has much value.

I am kinda seeing it as we want to talk about it openly and closing the thread only acts as stifling the possible suggestions for us to incorporate in the tools we use to keep the peace.

I thought it was closed too. Apparently it was on a temporary LOCKDOWN. To be opened at again at a whim.

So why not close this snarky one & start a new one?

The hat discussion, I feel, added levity to a hot-button topic. However, this thread has gotten back on topic imo. People have been discussing the 'censorship' angle, and Mags has answered many times as to the mods' role and capabilities.

I don't see how this thread on the whole isn't answering your questions.

Your opinion, of course. Some might say that is a thread going O/T.



Selective answering is occurring (& this is only the first 4 pages)...

post #16
post #21
post #22
post #33
post #37
post #40

So I say its raining heavily, someone else says its pouring. Can we argue about that too!!???

devilette,

Further, as I've already explained to you, see Captain Ewok's posts on page 2 and subsequently. He participated in the thread and even when the going got very rough opted to keep the thread open.

It seems to me that the thread is back on track, and this current discussion as to why it isn't closed is also relevant to the basic issue that you raised in your original post. So as long as there are opinions to be voiced, and the discussion remains civil, there is value to keeping the thread open.

Yodrak

I just wanted to mention that no one complained about the organizers until the titles were put under our names.... the organizers had been around for about a year before the titles were added...

I actually find this an "amusing" post as it actually lies at the heart of the problems of the last week(s). People often post comments that to themselves appear innocuous (I actually found nothing out of line with the comments made in the "divorce" thread last week, unless there was a "sympathy only agree with poor me" disclaimer by the OP then comments made by those who did raise perfectly valid comments were totally inoffensive if taken as they were written) but the OP who had leapt on other posters often in other threads over months on this occasion had her own life affected and somehow adverse comments (in their eyes) were enough to start a slanging match/poor me shut my thread not everyone agrees with me degeneration.

Secondly when all else fails online (as perhaps too often in real life) the whole situation degenerates into name calling. To refer to people as "cretinous ingrates" is I find personally as I read pretty offensive but then who am I to say.

I'm sure the mods all do a grand job for no reward, such is life. Everyone will always have different views (thank god for diversity) like I said i didn't see anything wrong with the threads that were locked last week but not my call, I just get suspicious when OP's can open threads that everyone knows will never have replies that are all in sympathy/agreement and then say close it cos everyone isn't being nice to me! This is the internet where we are all anonymous and require slightly thicker skins than in real life such is the nature of the beast - which would lead me to suggest than instead of just an OP asking and getting a thrad closed there might have to be a certain number of requests required . Plus a disclaimer somewhere that people post at their own discretion and not all replies may be what you want to hear!

VJ is great place for the masses not for a few posters to adopt their own rules of behaviour.

From reading the entire thread, I think the most appropriate, on-target, relevant post is this one: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1003072

To improve consistency and quality of moderation I have implemented a feature to let the mods collaborate before making moderation decisions when possible. This will also allow us to get group opinions in advance of things getting out of control thus allowing better consistency and more uniform moderation. Nothing will be perfect but I think that the good ideas in this forum are helpful in making it better .

I know that....which is why I highlighted the pertinent word re: the organizers. I always knew ppl had organizing ability...never thought they were literally called 'organizers' (which was my question you answered in that sticky thread).....but the issues didn't become noticeable (to me) until the titles were handed out.

yeah, I wasn't sure if you had read my post in that other thread

well the only ability us organizers have is to move threads.... so not sure how power crazy we could have gotten

Topics on VJ almost always go off topic of the original posts at times. What matters I think is whether the thread goes so far off topic that it cannot be salvaged, or once in awhile goes off topic and then goes back to topic.

I think this one has remained mostly on topic. A few off topic things here and there does not ruin the thread IMO. If we all complained about threads that had any ounce of off topic-ness to them, most threads would get closed. But it's a normal thing I think to have occasional off topic posts in a thread.

So maybe that would open another question about the right for the OP to ask for their thread to be closed. What circumstances should the OP be allowed to ask? I think it's a good question.

I usually have seen it for cases when TOS violations occur, or for instance if someone started a thread about car choices and they are ignored and the entire thread turns into a discussion of cheese, which could make the OP mad unless they also like cheese. But if only a couple posts are about cheese but the thread is still mostly about cars, I don't think the OP should be allowed to say "close it". That is how I feel about this thread too. If it's currently back on track, why should it be closed?

Stina, I think you raise some good questions & I'm glad you brought it up.

I'm of the notion that the thread does not belong to the OP. Generally speaking, not being specific for just this one. An OP brings about a topic of conversation, and that conversation online follows. I don't think it's fair for the OP to have 'rights' to stifle everyone because the conversation is not going 'their way'

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, I'm sure.

Good points Stina. TOS violations are in here, but have been ignored.

See below for my reasons why I wanted it closed. They still stand.






I've tried to get an answer to this, but was told in one PM by a mod, An OP may ask, but it is not always granted. Um, what? No explanation about how or when it can be closed, etc.

No one else seeing the intense irony in this thread?

nope, guess not? We read your earlier post, no need to repeat it.

Personally, I saw more irony in H_A's 'goodbye' thread.

Well, I honestly do not think it would waste as much time as you think it would. Invisiblise a post, replace it with a place holder, done. The same place holder can be used repeatedly. It wouldn't take up much precious time. Quit bein so melodramatic.

Remember, suggestions were openly asked for. I don't think it is fair to say that I am "demanding" anything, just because you don't agree with my suggestion.

Dev - I really don't at this point know what to tell you. You are suggesting we are not being held accountible for our actions but we are requesting advice on how to improve the way we use the tools available. How is this not holding ourselves accountible?

I think the question on when to close a thread per request of the OP is excellent and I have asked for clarification on this.

when a tread gets a ridiculous & redundant as this one would be a great time