moderators role - moderation vs. personal involvment

[robin d.]

I guess I am curious about how you would propose "even moderating" would be enforced. Moderators for moderators?

first off, by listening what other mebers have to say. secondly, yo let other mods asses point to other mods if and when they are out of line.

This is a free site, remember? It doesn't pay my bills,

understood but i also realize alot of people help you to pay for it, like as in advertising banners and through donations. so a site that is free to everyone but is being helped by the few whom buy banners, front paged links and donations ... the least thing you can do is listen and look into some of whats being said. WE all of us (most of us) help this comunity in one way or another (whether it be monitarily or just by supporting it) but if all our opinions fall on deaf ears, whats the point?
i will gop out on a limb for this site if i have to and i know ALLOT of others whom would do the same but if a valid concern is brought up and nothing is done about it... what are we really supporting? and why?

 

[WebSlave]

Robin, I have read this thread, which includes your posts, and stated my opinions and position. I do try to listen, but when the volume (meaning quantity and noise level) reaches a certain point, I am not going to let it drive me crazy. So I do hit the "off" button when needed. Just because a molehill becomes a mountain in someone else's eyes doesn't mean that it has reached such an epic proportion in mine.

As far as mods assessing points to other mods, I do not believe I have restricted them from doing this.

As for donations, ALL of the donations to date I have gotten from members of this site would not pay the server bill for even 6 months. It is helpful, certainly, but not to the extent you are inferring. Banner ads are what is keeping this site available to you all right at the moment. At least I think it is all breaking even.....

But if you think for a single moment that this is all paying for the headaches I get from it nearly every single day, you are sadly mistaken.

My moderators and I have all received threats of physical violence and lawsuits from disgruntled members and ex-members. We have to put up with a lot of crap behind the scenes that does not make the public eye. Quite frankly I am astonished that the mods are even sticking it out with me here. I certainly wouldn't do it for someone else. So you want me to just spit in their eye at the drop of a hat and because of problems in a single thread?

If I think a mod is stepping over the line, I will act on it. But I will not take such things on the word of one or even a few people who have obviously been involved in an argument with one. There are over 13,000 registered members here. If I get complaints from a sizeable number of them, then I would certainly believe at that point that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. As it is, I get complaints from SOMEONE every day about SOMETHING here, and I just have to accept the fact that nothing I do will ever please everyone.

So I do the best I can, and repeat again "take it or leave it." That is the best I can do.

 

[robin d.]

i understand your feelings and i for one am thankful for fauna
but as far as this

So you want me to just spit in their eye at the drop of a hat and because of problems in a single thread?

it has not just been a single thread but several including one i have not even been a part of

 

[Seamus Haley]

So soon after this discussion, I find another example of Jay using moderator powers as a suppliment to his personal involvement in a thread.

This thread here about MidWest Tongs...

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50317&perpage=5&pagenumber=1

A member (Steve Jordanides) had a communication problem with the company which made it look, from his perspective at least, as if he was being ripped off. He had a legitimate situation, a legitimate problem and he explained it.

The problem turned out to be a communication issue and was fueled by poor information which was given by the shipping company, MidWest took care of it and Steve wrote several posts retracting his earlier complaints, apologizing and heartily endorsing the company.

Jay participated in the thread. He stuck his foot in his mouth demanding that Steve apologize days after it had already happened and made himself look a little on the slow side but he posted an opinion which showed that he disagreed with Steve's position. He's emotionally and intellectually involved in the thread, he's taking a stance and adding his opinion as an individual within the industry... Which should, by Rich's earlier statement about moderator involvement in a thread they have a personal stake in, mean that he doesn't participate AS A MOD.

Steve Jordanides now has six warning points, issued the same day as the reply Jay posted, for profanity. One word in one post which was picked up by the filter and appears as "**censored**" when there was no attempt to circumvent the filter and the word never actually appeared. Happens a lot in numerous posts, it's bound to when people are posting about a subject which they feel strongly about. So Jay applys points to a post and a person he has a personal disagreement with in a manner which is NOT even handed, NOT unbiased and NOT in keeping with the previous applications of the warning violation as it has been used on the site.

Looks to me like he assigned a good, polite guy who only had one warning point prior to this incident (for posting a link instead of a screenshot or text, a slip kind of error rather than a malicious or deliberate one) six warning points out of sheer bloody minded vindictivness. He utilized his moderator capabilities in a manner which punished someone not on the merit of their actions but because he disliked them and their position was not in agreement with his.

That's an abuse of a trust right there, clear, simple and undeniable.

 

[Ken Harbart]

Seamus,
I would tend to disagree with you on that one. The warning for profanity is pretty consistent with the way Rich and I have been doing things. Regardless if they don't make it past the filter, it generally merits a warning when we are aware of it. As with anything, there's going to be times that similar offenses that merit warnings are missed by us. That's just the nature of this beast.

I wouldn't consider a warning for profanity to be biased in nature, as the criteria for that one is fairly objective.

 

[Seamus Haley]

I wouldn't consider a warning for profanity to be biased in nature, as the criteria for that one is fairly objective.

It's not specifically the warning being issued... it's the manner in which the application of the warning points was so subjective. Jay disagreed with Steve and seemingly found a reason to issue points. Jay has participated in many threads where profanity was filtered out and chose not to issue warning points so I don't think it's solely a matter of being aware of one example of profanity and missing others.

I LIKE Rich's position, moderators are human and you guys are involved in the industry and will have opinions and thoughts centered around threads. But I can't think of a single example where any of the other modertors have allowed their opinions to influence how, where and when their moderation duties are applied. Whereas Jay seems to have both a history and ongoing problem keeping the two seperate- this is becoming more and more clear as he's subjected to additional scrutiny.

 

[Mustangrde1]

This thread was brought to my attention partially im sure because people know I dislike The Bob Clark forums and the way they are Administrated and Moderated.

Perhaps looking at the reasoning of why I dislike that forum Might help.

I have seen Jay and Randy abuse their powers over there all to often Obviously these two are friends and support each other constantly. I have seen threads Deleted and Edited because it was obvious people did not conform to their belief. Both Jay and Randy have done this and then backed each other in a way that appeared to be slapping each other on the back. In the thread in question I do believe Randy deserved points for his comments yet nothing was done. This to me and potentially other members shows favoritism which especially on the BOI should never be shown from a Moderator.

I have seen both of these two also abuse members in a way that when other people did the same thing were warned harshly or banned or edited on BCF and now I am seeing it on Fauna from Jay in points awarded.

Moderators do just that MODERATE. If Jay has to get involved in a thread as a herper he should do so, but once he associates himself as a participating member of a thread then he should not be allowed to use his Moderation powers when he doesn't like something said. I am certain he can report a post to another of the Moderation team and allow them to fairly judge it.

As a STAFF member on any board you should never give the impression of favoritism. Unfortunately after reading the post in question then looking back at some of the other post and points Jay has handed out. My opinion is Jay is abusing his moderating abilities. He appears to also show favoritism to some members while a grudge toward others.

This is Rich's Board and how he and 4 others manage to keep tabs of it I do not know 13,000 members and only 4 people keeping an eye on it. { OVERWHELMING }.

I do however see Robins point about what happened and constantly happens on KS. a prime example is what happened with Tanith Tyrr. Peoples personal opinions are very difficult to keep in check sometimes, however they should also not be penalized for having them. Nor should a Moderator ever show such obvious favoritism to some and obvious grudge to others.

Rich I know moderating a site is a pain in the old behind but when a staff member someone you choose to help you and is an obvious Authority figure has his actions questioned it is your responsibility at that point to at least check in to it.

I held off Posting this for sometime now as seeing Jay's actions in the past certainly feel as others I have spoken to that it will do nothing more then insight Jay on another revenge trip. While discussing this with a friend I had to ask, Do I want to be part of a site I feel if I disagree with a moderator I may be penalized for it? Also how many others on the site feel this way yet will not speaking out for fear of retaliation. Those last few questions as a site Administrator would make my hair stand up as a I feel all members are valuable and they should not feel that way.

 

[bcfos]

Points for some, but not for others??

Simple written fact. You get a post like this one from Randy May which recieves no points for making derogatory statements which if I am reading it correctly it is nothing more than a derogatory statement. The post as written by Randy May...

Awe, we're not trying to bait Anthony with the transparent and mindless gender divisive characterizations of him are we? Looks like some women commenting on this thread are the ones suffering from an inferiority complex. What a disservice you perform to the women in our reptile community.

-Randy May

Then two or three posts later when the person attacked by Randy defends herself she not only gets points for derogatory statements about a member, but also recieves points for Failure to provide SUBJECT name in topic line just for defending herself against an attack which should have recieved points and to top it off she issued an apology in the post for the statement which Randy used as a basis for his derogatory post. Her post as written by her..

Randy,

don't read more into things then there are.

Reading about just how low of a thing Anthonys done simply reminded me of a study I read about a few weeks ago, that is all.
I was "thinking out loud" and yes, I probably shouldn't have.

But one just wonders just what it is in some people, that make them do the things they do....and since he sent those particularly nasty emails and threats to 2 women, I couldn't help but wonder.

But I'm doing such a disservice to the industry. I think the industry needs no help from me in this regard, seeing as to what levels some will stoop.

For what its worth, I'm sorry for the above mentioned comment, it really wasn't relevant and I should have kept my thoughts about that to myself.

But I stand firm in my opinion about Anthony.

and that is what it is, my humble opinion.

And this is but the tip of the iceburg. Maybe no one complained about Randy's post but they did on Misty's. Or else it is selective moderation.

 

[WebSlave]

OK, I have looked through that thread and noted that the post where Steve got assessed points was dated 10/09. Jay Owens posted messages in that same thread on 10/20 and apparently assessed warning points for that old message on 10/20 as well.

Although I do agree that the warning points were valid, since attempting to post profanity that is caught by the automatic filters is still considered as profanity, the issue has now arisen about violation of my request for moderators to avoid acting as both a moderator and a participant within the same thread.

I have asked Jay for an explanation of this.

 

[bcfos]

Seamus - no, I have not. This is the reason for the statement above about people asking me to step in to take a look at their situation. I just have trouble accepting why everyone thinks I should take my time to look into their problems. My time is better spent doing things I HAVE to do, or when I do have some free time, there are other things I would LIKE to do other than spending all of it reading about other people's squabbles and problems.

Sorry people, but my time is valuable to me. And this site already sucks away more of it then I care to think about.

I know how it is being busy and not finding enough time to even think straight. But being as serious as I can with this have you thought of selling the site yet? If so feel free to shoot me an e mail for a private discussion about it.

 

[TooManyBurmese]

Although not involved in any of the threads this thread mentions, I have to agree, if a moderator is going to be abusing his power and penalizing others for disagreeing with him, something should be done about it.

Webslave, yes you do not have time to handle all of the boo-boos in this playground, but perhaps there is someone you trust who you can put in charge of dealing with the every day whining and complaining?

 

[robin d.]

i got points from jay for using the word "wordhole" if i knew i was going to get points i would havae much it a much more detailed and colorful phrase... a wordhole is a mouth....simple as that just a synonym.
*shrugs*
however randy may's rude and derogitory remarks in that post apparantlydid not warrent any points.

how about taking the point system off the place by our name since you stated

The warning system is a method that the moderators and myself use to communicate problems with behavior to a member that we would like to see corrected. Although some people may use the warning points system to judge a person, that is not what it is for.

maybe put it in the user CP area., if it is not meant for people tp judge someone. or only made viewable by the person logging on

just a suggestion.

 

[Mustangrde1]

Rich Robin brings up a very valid point. I have seen people that have many warning points basically discounted by members or harassed by them.

I think that though it does serve a purpose perhaps not where the open Public can see it at every post?

 

[Gary O]

Here is my opinion

People are bias no matter what they say........

When I read threads I have seen Jay be very bias. And Rich I am going to be the first to say I have seen you once or twice do the same lol(nothing big bro) But Jay has really only Modded threads that he posts in. I mean really look at his posts then the person he gives warnings too.

They are all people he disagrees with. That is not right bro. Not on the BOI.

I mean if I disagree with him is he going to look for a way to give me points. Go over my posts with a fine tooth cumb? That is the point here.

Also bro I think you should be more involved here. I mean come on he is making this site money if he gets someone up to 10 points right? And lets say 80% of them were him just searching for a reason to give points. You should step in and review them when asked. If one person gets points for something in a thread EVERYONE I THAT THREAD SHOULD. If not then the points givin should be taken away.

IMO I think that some posts are over looked to target a certain person. That is not right.

This site is HUGE.......You have 4 mods. Maybe you should look for help bro. Really.

Your members are what makes this site not the mods. Without the memebers you have nothing. And when they come to you about something like this it should not be put on a back burner......IMO.

Rich I have nothing against you and nothing against the mods I am giving you my outside opinion.......

But I know there are people that fear losing there membership here if they post there opinions unless it is with the in group at the time......You know what I mean.

I can say I have never gotten a point. I work well with in a TOS always.

But I think this thing is such a big issue because it can cost a person money. that is why you should have to step in. It is a fine and you should review the warnings or have a group of mods do it not just one................

 

[Mickey_TLK]

You can even look at the piont thing from a different angle. How does it look for everyone Ive ever given a good review of, all the points I have. It almost reads like the glowing review was given by a DIRT BALL. Cause thats what it starts to look like when you have 69 points (allthough I must admit Im going to try really really really hard to stay at 69, if the numbers got to be high why not 69...LOL)

If the points arent meant to reflect persay on someone, then maybe they shouldnt be right in the open the way they are.

 

[WebSlave]

Pending the results of my investigation into this matter, I have suspended Jay's moderator rights on this site.

I suppose this all started from the "Mites" thread that went from the BOI to the Shows and Events forum, then finally coming to rest in HELL. So my intention over the next few days is to read through that thread, as well as the one about Anthony Caponetto. What I will do is look at all participants within those threads looking for warning points that were assessed as well as posts that may have escaped warning points that I would deem warranting them. I will keep a tally sheet of what I find and make a judgement from that as to whether there is an actual case of abuse. Anyone here is welcome to do the same if they want to compare notes with my own decisions. Bear in mind, that some things may be a judgement call based on who is reading the posts, and something that I deem as being derogatory, may not seem so in your eyes. And vice versa, as well.

One thing I would like to mention yet again is that I do not read each and every post on this site. I cannot and will not ask that of the moderators here, when I do not do that sort of patrolling myself. I read threads that seem like they might be of interest to me. In reading through those posts, if I see something that appears to warrant warning points, then I will assess them as deemed fitting and necessary. I am under tha assumption that my moderators probably work the same way. Sorry, but not everything everyone says here is going to be of interest to me or the moderators. So yes, it is quite likely that violations may be overlooked.

Also, bear in mind that oftentimes I will get an email that is reporting a problem within a thread. I will usually read ONLY that particular post and determine if warning points are appropriate. Very likely, I will NOT read posts before nor after it. Very likely, the moderators on this site treat those reported posts the same way I do. So if someone three posts back calls you an "idiot" and you reply in like kind, it is entirely possible that ONLY the post that was reported by someone will get seen by a moderator and poinsts assessed. That's just the way it is. The school playground defense that "Johnnie called me the name first!" has no bearing whatsoever on your warning. And to answer the statement I have heard many times saying "Well you HAVE to go back and give everyone else warning points as well...", says who? I may or may not. My mods may or may not. It is not being selective nor biased, it is just the way things work with the workload here.

Another thing, these problem reports are set to go to the moderators of a forum, or if there is no moderator, to default to the admin (me). That means that the problem reports go to everyone in respect to those threads posted within the BOI, since I am listed as a moderator on that forum. Usually what happens is the first person who gets there is the one who takes care of the problem. There have been numerous times when two people happened to check a reported post at the same time and both assessed the warning points without realizing that someone else was doing the same thing. When this happens, one of the warning points will normally be deleted if the points are the same. Sometimes we just never realize this error, and it never comes to our attention.

I have been reviewing in my mind my newly stated policy about moderators having to choose between being a moderator OR a participant in a thread, but not both. Sounds good on the surface, but in deeper reflection, I'm not so sure. How long will a thread go on? How many posts will be made on it before it falls into oblivion? How many different directions will that thread take within it's lifetime? These are basically unanswerable. So if a thread gets newly started and let's say on the third post a person violates one of the rules and a moderator assesses valid warning points. Then 50 replies later, through several twists and turns, this thread then becomes something that is of a personal nature to this same moderator. Should he be disallowed from participating in that thread because of that warning point made back at the beginning of the thread? Or from another angle, suppose this moderator had a personal interest from the start, but the thread is of a nature that is not of any interest whatsoever to the rest of the mods or myself. Heck, it could be something going on in the Birds forum, where I am never likely to wander into. Does that posting by a moderator then disqualify him from EVER posting warning points and he has to then send another mod (or myself) notices for all infractions that he runs into while following the thread?

Yeah, I know, you all want a perfect moderator that is completely unbiased. Sounds good on paper, but anyone who can form an opinion is going to become biased whether they want to or not.

I know I am being set up with this issue. If I side with Jay, I am going to be trumpeted as being biased in his favor. Yet if I side against him, then I will be trumpeted as being railroaded by a minority mob (considering the number of members on this site) into removing him as a mod from this site. Some of you in this thread have already made up your minds, so please excuse me if I discount YOUR bias completely when I look into this issue. I will look at the cards and make the best call I can, no matter who it pisses off.

That's the breaks, I guess. I can't remember anything I have done with this site that has pleased everyone, so this is certainly not going to be an exception.

 

[WebSlave]

Oh yeah, one other thing. When I am going through those threads, don't be surprised if some people get even more warning points assessed if I find that a post may have violated several and were only assessed for one violation. It is QUITE possible for a single post to have MANY violations at one time.

 

[bcfos]

That's the breaks, I guess. I can't remember anything I have done with this site that has pleased everyone, so this is certainly not going to be an exception.

You can't make everyone happy because it is impossible to do with so many members here. But by looking into this matter more deeply I feel the majority of the members who voiced an opinion will be happy that you are doing as they requested.

And fair play means just what you said, if a post diserves points because it violated the TOS or rules so be it. That is fair play in my book.

 

[robin d.]

I know I am being set up with this issue. If I side with Jay, I am going to be trumpeted as being biased in his favor. Yet if I side against him, then I will be trumpeted as being railroaded by a minority mob (considering the number of members on this site) into removing him as a mod from this site.

perhaps a yes or no poll or yes no and i really dont know him so i have idea

 

[Mustangrde1]

Thread Anthony Caponetto...ACREPTILES?


First page fine

Page 2 fine

Page 3 getting heated

Page 4 Anthony responds with an explanation polite and Josh responds back all looks well at this point and the thread should have died.

Page 5 the fight starts Nothing TOSable but its started nonetheless. Jay has involved himself at this point as a Member not a Mod.

Page 6 Robin is still at the fighting and Josh posted he received the animals and happy thread should still be dead but now with a conclusion to the transaction.

Page 7 a little more mud slinging but no reason for points

Page 8 still flaming but no points

Page 9 gets more heated and Repfriend says:Anthony, for what you have said and done to Robin, you are one low piece of horse manure. That is worthy of a warning but not points

Page 10 Jay puts on the Moderator hat and says: Personal grudges do not have a place on the BOI. Rich has already warned certain members about dragging issues from Hell to the BOI.

If someone has information about business dealings that they have had with Anthony, then they are free to post it. Otherwise it's time to dispense with this childish pettiness.
Should have stepped in sooner.IMO by someone.

Page11 More mudslinging. no points

Page 12 Anthony addressed Robin direct and Robin apologized Should have been the end of the flames.

Page 13 err looks to be a start of Robin and Jay getting in to a pissing match.

Page 14 Jay is definitely IMO infighting more of a feud be it unintentional or not. At this point he is wearing both a Poster and MOD hat very big conflict of interest starting to show IMO

Page15 Repfriend says
Jays own words:
"I am not going to go back and give Anthony or Jim warning points if for no other reason than I'm sick of all of the bellyaching about how unjustly you're being treated.

I DID NOT SEE JAY SAY THAT MAYBE I MISSED IT. But {IF} he did then he clearly abused it authority in defense of friends and did abuse his authority.

Page 16 Rich is the final word

I looked over the whole thread again OH JOY looks like the A typical mudslinging going on and person feuds. Seen them to many times on the BOI. If your going to bring up an argument be ready to have your rear end exposed for archery practice.

As far as I can tell No Members would have gotten points from me Maybe a few PM WARNINGS to tone it down though.

Jay did appear in handing out the points to overstep his authority a lot. And if he made the comments about points and defending friends then Yes he has IMO violated his authority as a Moderator