Mods who are SOOOOO smart they don't even have to read the guidelines

Originally Posted by DThomas

Yes I have.

But you also dinged Ed for abuse of warning system when he dinged Bobby for the post in question.

Rich, with all due respect, I think this would have been the better question:

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Well, let me ask the site mods about this one. Jay, Dennis, and Ken, have you EVER given warning points to someone who was posting in an antagonistic manner towards you NOT in relation to your MODERATOR duties?

[IMG][/IMG]

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Well, let me ask the site mods about this one. Jay, Dennis, and Ken, have you EVER given warning points to someone who was posting in an antagonistic manner towards you in relation to your MODERATOR duties?

Yes I have. However, to be specific, those instances were usually when someone cussed at me, or went off in direct retaliation to my giving them warning points. In contrast, there have been many times (more times than I can count, really) when someone has been criticizing me as a moderator, and I have deliberately not given them warning points because I didn't want to use my power as a mod in an unfair manner in order to try to "win" or "get even." I would like to say that I have never given warning points in the later example, but to be perfectly honest, I've been doing this for quite a while now, and I can't say that with 100% certainty.

Originally Posted by Bill & Amy

How many threads in the BOI aren't antagonistic? So if one of the mods has a bad guy thread and we are antagonistic towards them, they have the right to ding us? So the bad guy has more rights just because he paid for a higher level of memebership. I can see it in the regular forums, but not the BOI.

I think in skimming what I wrote, you misinterpreted what I said.

I specifically said that a mod would be justified in issuing warning points (specifically ANTAGONIZING A MODERATOR) in a BOI thread about them ONLY if they were being attacked for their actions here AS a mod. What they do around here as a mod clearly has no bearing or relevance in their business proceedings and the person attacking in such a manner is doing in ONLY to antagonize that mod. A mod giving YOU warning points about profanity or any other infraction has nothing at all to do with how they do business and just is not appropriate within a BOI thread about them. A mod has every right to use any tool at his/her disposal to defend against that sort of blatant antagonism.

Certainly if someone posts blatant profanity within a thread about a mod, I would not be concerned about it being abuse if that mod dinged the poster for that offense.

No mod on this site has to put up with being attacked for doing their job here. None of them have to bow out of a thread wherein someone is bashing a mod for the way they do their job here and HOPE that another mod will try to cease the abuse being heaped on them. I have absolutely no reason NOR intention of tying their hands in that manner.

If someone wants to discuss perceived problems in a respectful (or at least non-combative) manner, then by all means do so. But I am just not going to stand by and allow you all to bash these people AT WILL who are really making the extra effort to help me out here.

If you want to feel that I am protecting them, then just go right ahead and think that. The alternative is that I just throw them to the wolves when they come around, and I am just NOT going to do that. Not when THEY are helping ME here.

Originally Posted by Dr Owens

Yes I have. However, to be specific, those instances were usually when someone cussed at me, or went off in direct retaliation to my giving them warning points. In contrast, there have been many times (more times than I can count, really) when someone has been criticizing me as a moderator, and I have deliberately not given them warning points because I didn't want to use my power as a mod in an unfair manner in order to try to "win" or "get even." I would like to say that I have never given warning points in the later example, but to be perfectly honest, I've been doing this for quite a while now, and I can't say that with 100% certainty.

Yes, Jay, that is what I believe to be true as well. Criticism just comes with the job. Blatant abuse and antagonism, however, just do not have to be tolerated.

The thrust of my argument here is that the warning system mods MUST be afforded the same consideration, and are entirely within their rights to defend themselves when they are being attacked for the actions they engage in as MODS of this site.

I will stand behind my people. When there is doubt, I will give them the benefit of the doubt. Mistakes can and will be made. This sort of thing can only be done via on the job training, and I have to make allowances for some mistakes in judgement.

But when there is NO doubt about abuse, then that will leave me no choice but to take appropriate action in order to end the abuse.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

I think in skimming what I wrote, you misinterpreted what I said.

I specifically said that a mod would be justified in issuing warning points (specifically ANTAGONIZING A MODERATOR) in a BOI thread about them ONLY if they were being attacked for their actions here AS a mod. What they do around here as a mod clearly has no bearing or relevance in their business proceedings and the person attacking in such a manner is doing in ONLY to antagonize that mod. A mod giving YOU warning points about profanity or any other infraction has nothing at all to do with how they do business and just is not appropriate within a BOI thread about them. A mod has every right to use any tool at his/her disposal to defend against that sort of blatant antagonism.

Certainly if someone posts blatant profanity within a thread about a mod, I would not be concerned about it being abuse if that mod dinged the poster for that offense.

No mod on this site has to put up with being attacked for doing their job here. None of them have to bow out of a thread wherein someone is bashing a mod for the way they do their job here and HOPE that another mod will try to cease the abuse being heaped on them. I have absolutely no reason NOR intention of tying their hands in that manner.

If someone wants to discuss perceived problems in a respectful (or at least non-combative) manner, then by all means do so. But I am just not going to stand by and allow you all to bash these people AT WILL who are really making the extra effort to help me out here.

If you want to feel that I am protecting them, then just go right ahead and think that. The alternative is that I just throw them to the wolves when they come around, and I am just NOT going to do that. Not when THEY are helping ME here.

Originally Posted by Wilomn

Couple of things rich.

You've accused me of lying. I think you need to either prove that or withdraw your accusation.

I think Mr. Clark is a very poor excuse for a moderator that abuses his position, which he had to pay for, to get back at people he has personal beefs with. I think the same is true of christopher666 whose last name I do not know.

I think that by allowing those two to remain moderators you are slapping the face of all the others who are mods, paid for or not, who ACTUALLY try to maintain a higher standard of interaction between themselves and the general fauna population.

I think it's a shame for them to be in the same catagory as the two mentioned above, the two who have lied, abused thier positions, and generally brought down those who are forced by title and position to be judged by the same standards.

You have made your decision and I have had my say.

I'm done.

Rich, I ask in all seriousness the following.

In the first post above you state that "If someone wants to discuss perceived problems in a respectful (or at least non-combative) manner, then by all means do so."

I was being at least non-combative and, for me anyway, respectful, in my giving of my opinion.

ancientdna dinged me for that post.

Was I out of line, or more correctly worded, do YOU think I was out of line?

I surely had no intention of being combative in any way shape or form.

I'm not sure I would use the term "combative", but I would use "abusive" for at least most of that post.

But quite certainly I would interpret your opening statement demanding that I prove you are lying or to withdraw an accusation (I never made, btw) as DEFINITELY being combative in nature.

You are in the same role you have been in all along in this thread by attempting to belittle those people who have paid the higher level memberships in order to lend a helping hand with warning system use. I am fully aware that you are attempting to undermine this entire plan and I am certain other people see it as well. I'm not sure of your goals, but I believe without a doubt that you do not have this site's health and welfare in mind. Quite the contrary, actually.

I have already posted evidence concerning Ed Clark's actions as a mod that I have seen while analyzing the warning system log that apparently disputes those claims you are making about him in this statement:

I think Mr. Clark is a very poor excuse for a moderator that abuses his position, which he had to pay for, to get back at people he has personal beefs with. I think the same is true of christopher666 whose last name I do not know.

I haven't looked at the actions of christopher666, and probably won't without a damned good reason. I suspect I would likely find more of the same, where a handfull of people are just pissed that they got warning points from him. This is not at all unusual from what I have experienced myself and seen from the site mods. But I believe the resentment runs a little deeper in reactions to the warning system mods.

So as I have said before elsewhere, people are just getting tired of your witchhunt of the day directed mostly at people who have exercised the power I have granted them in order to help with this site. I believe they are seeing that you just resent authority in any form, as that just appears to be your nature. You just do not LIKE anyone telling you what you can or cannot do.

Truth is, in my opinion, is that some people are just tired of the way you act here, Wes. And some may even be willing to pay money in order to escort you out the door. Probably the only reason you are STILL here is because I made the hurdle pretty high in order to do that. If I had made the hurdle just at the $25 per year level, or the suspension trigger lower, I am pretty confident you would already be gone.

Apparently one mistake I made setting up this warning system mods program was that I was so concerned with abuse that I made it far too difficult for the mods to actually do their job. 500 warning points to get a suspension is quite steep. Perhaps TOO steep. But that error is DEFINITELY fixable.

Originally Posted by Wilomn

Rich, I ask in all seriousness the following.

In the first post above you state that "If someone wants to discuss perceived problems in a respectful (or at least non-combative) manner, then by all means do so."

I was being at least non-combative and, for me anyway, respectful, in my giving of my opinion.

ancientdna dinged me for that post.

Was I out of line, or more correctly worded, do YOU think I was out of line?

I surely had no intention of being combative in any way shape or form.

Rich,

its ah.. christopher66, only 2 six's

Just a... thought.

There are two seperate warnings for targeted abusive behavior. One specifically for antagonism towards a mod and one for being overly abusive of another member. Would it be fair to say that a mod can also be a member and that one warning or the other might be more situationally appropriate?

Throwing out some hypotheticals...

Example 1:
Poster- Profanity ridden tirade!
Mod- Profanity is not allowed, cut it out.
Poster- Cram it with walnuts, narc!

Would be antagonism towards a moderator. The agression was specifically related to a moderator acting in that capacity, it was a violation that specifically hinged on the status as a moderator.


Example 2:
Poster- I saw Mod X at a show and he smelled like slim jims and dandruff shampoo. Also, he was ugly.

Would be member abuse- since the infraction was not specifically pertaining to the status of the member AS a mod.

Someone quoted one of the warning messages that had been left for system abuse and I found this part kind of appropriate "Just because you're a mod doesn't put you on some sort of untouchable pedestal." to me... to read into that a bit, it seems to say that the motivation for and content of the antagonism matters pretty strongly in determining which warning would be appropriate. If the antagonism is a direct result of a dissatisfaction with the mod that was created in the performance of that role- then the slightly weightier antagonism towards a mod warning would be appropriate. If the antagonism has another source though- it's a member speaking to another registered member and it should be judged using those standards.

That still leaves a lot of room for interpretation where the terms "antagonism" and "overly abusive" come into play... and I have no doubt that the inherent elasticity of the terms will create debates and argument for a long period of time to come, but at least it'd seem to be a logical distinction to make between the two warnings.

The next fight will be one over specific terms. Is it overly abusive to call someone a liar when they have lied? How about a con artist when they have conned? Thief when they have stolen? Scumbucket when they are literally a metal pail full of stagnant pond water?

Seamus,
Those are good examples of the distinction that I was trying to make previously. Good post.

It's not fair for a mod to use the "Antagonism of a moderator" warning when it is not a matter of antagonism of their actions as a mod. To do so levies twice as many warning points as the "overly abusive" warning, and gives the impression that the mods are somehow supposed to be immune to criticizm simply because they are mods. THAT is not the purpose of that warning.

My point is this...
Just because you're a mod doesn't mean that you are placed in some sort of special class of members that shields you from scrutiny or criticism. You are subject to it just like everyone else. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that other members are free to bash you for your actions as a mod. The purpose of the "antagonism of a moderator" warning is to protect you so that you can do your job without drawing a lot of grief. To use that warning just because someone doesn't like you, or doesn't like the way that you do business, etc. is misuse of that warning...it doesn't matter how irritated you are, and how badly you want to give them those extra warning points associated with this warning...you have to use the appropriate "overly abusive" warning.

Admittedly, there is often some grey area, but if you (the mods) seem to always error on the side of using your mod powers in order to levy more warning points than necessary (ESPECIALLY when you are defending YOURSELF), then the other members will end up pointing it out, and you're going to create more headaches for yourself than if you just used the warning system correctly.

(I'm in a huge hurry, and I typed that fast, so I hope that it all makes sense. )