posted on March 30, 2001 12:41:52 PM new
What if the question asked is concerning one particular moderator's actions and THAT moderator is the one answering the question? Its alittle bit like complaining to the cook before eating the meal, isnt it?
Or, wanting to complain about an employee and the only one there IS the same employee. Kind of defeats the purpose, doesnt it?
[ edited by Hepburn on Mar 30, 2001 12:46 PM ]
posted on March 30, 2001 01:00:51 PM new
Twinsoft... grannyfox... how many others?
The policy changes STINK.... you know it.
Just how the whatsit are we supposed to understand your "moderation", when we have to sit in isolation, waiting for your words of wisdom to arrive in individual emails?
AW diktated us on how we could discuss the fees
AW changed the rules on how we can discuss AW auctions...
Now they have completely changed the style of moderation, and we can't even get any meaningful discussion. It was one of the things that just about worked here, a bit heavy-handed at times, but mostly ok.
Now... it STINKS! One of the "mods" makes decisions on the wing, and no one can gainsay him without your approval. This is clearly an example of "divide and rule". We are not allowed to express ourselves collectively at the way in which moderation is being done, so you make us have to do it individually, and then ignore the emails, it seems.
The discussion is good here, but is it worth the aggro?
I am sure there are other discussion groups that could be just as entertaining.
posted on March 30, 2001 01:04:25 PM new
With all due respect, IMHO and with the requisite number of smilies ( 2 should cover it ) I must say that the past couple of days have shown me that this place has gone to Hell in a handbasket.
I am, I guess, what is known as an "oldtimer" - one who remembers when the posters that came here were what MADE AW what it is today. I remember when this place started out. And today ...
I will remember how it finished up ... with grannyfox leaving. Now, show some fairness and leave my final post stand.
Hold the door, grannyfox, I am right behind you.
This is a hard decision because there are some posters here whom I care for so very much and this is the only place I see them. To those (and you know who you are) I am sorry. I can not lend my support to this place anymore.
posted on March 30, 2001 01:13:57 PM newKatyD - It is against the CGs to open a thread to discuss a moderation issue, yes.
If you have an issue that you and others are wondering about, please email the [email protected] email list and let us know. In most cases, someone will get back to you if you have a question and not just a complaint.
As far as the moderator email going to all the moderators, it is really no different than posting in the Moderator's Corner (we still sometimes take weekends, vacations, etc. the same as always!)
Hepburn - If you have a complaint about a moderator's performance, you may email the moderator email list - which will go to all moderators and myself. You may also email me directly at [email protected]. I don't guarantee that I'll be able to respond immediately, however.
And toke - again, if you email us with a legitimate question you will most likely receive a response.
posted on March 30, 2001 01:15:23 PM new
EO is needed for the sellers who use the services and pay for them here. But RT is not really needed, is it? Therefore, if the posters get upset and leave RT, that leaves more bandwidth for EO and the other business forums. Cant "make a friend, share a poem, etc" in EO because it isnt business related. So to me, it "seems" as thought RT is being weeded out and it doesnt matter if posters leave, since they arent paying for services.
posted on March 30, 2001 01:17:12 PM new
DianaAW, it was just a "what if" question. I dont have any complaints about a moderator. So far, none have focused on me.
posted on March 30, 2001 01:36:49 PM new
Diana, to clarify once more(and thanks for being patient here) are you saying that..
it is against Cg's to publically ask a moderator WHY a post or thread was deleted or locked, when the moderator gives no reason for such an action (as happened this morning)? So while many others are wondering WHAT offense or IF there was an offense (and there wasn't this morning that I could see)that it will be up to each individual poster to email the moderator for his/her own reasons? That would make people wonder if the "reason" is a secret, and also an avalanche of emails in the moderator's box. I just don't understand AW's reason for this.I certainly can understand if AW prefers to keep disciplinary action in private email between a disciplined poster and moderator, but what purpose is served to keep the reasons for locked and wom'd threads a secret? How does this benefit the "AW Community" and pose examples of expected behavior from said members? When a moderator deletes and locks threads with absolutely no explanation (as Marty did this morning)how are we expected to know the REASON? I did go and review the CG'S and they do not explain this. When threads are deleted with no explanation, it gives the appearance that either the Moderator's actions are being done capriciously or at whim, or that there is some "secret" that needs to be kept from the membership. It also does not inspire confidence that Moderators will be impartial to the various personalities that post here and apply the CG's and "rules" equally and impartially. I just don't understand the "secret" actions being put into place here.
Also, last question, and this is asked honestly and respectfully...is it the desire to eventually close down the RT, or does AW wish certain posters or groups of posters to leave AW? Perhaps they are considered too "controversial" or a "pain in the b*tt" or something like that? Would AW prefer only non-controversial topics, or "fluff" as somemay call it to be in the AW exclusively? I'm trying to understand why these policy changes have been enacted. Is there benefit to AW posters or AW administration, or what? Again, I thank you in advance for your response.
posted on March 30, 2001 01:53:26 PM new
Policy changes usually need some kind of grounding time.. an opportunity for all the parties to understand WTF the change means.
What did we get?
A "the Moderator's Corner is no longer necessary, due to the change in policy about the discussion of auctions" (which was contentious in itself).
No discussion, no "how is this going to work?", nothing.
posted on March 30, 2001 02:41:22 PM newKatyD - We understand your concern, and in most cases we WILL provide a reason in the event that a thread is locked. The locked thread issue from this morning was an oversight by a relatively new moderator.
Deleted threads are relatively rare, and normally only occur if the thread contains a gross violation of the CGs.
posted on March 30, 2001 03:07:44 PM new
Okay. I'll bite. This is an April Fool's joke thingy, right?
I mean, no one outside of the government could come up with such an ill-advised, badly thought out, plain STUPID idea as this without chemical inducements or an urge to see how many suckers will bite.
And let me see if I've got this part straight too: People are told to email the mods with questions concerning a moderation call. Yet, it appears when people DO email Diana@aw, they seldom receive an answer. Why is this? According to Diana@aw, all legitimate questions will be answered.
So can it be that everyone who is emailing Diana@aw is doing so with non-legitimate questions? Who makes that call? Diana? The person who routinely dismisses people's concerns and questions out of hand yet snarls whenever she perceives a slight to one of her people?
Yep, gotta be an April Fool's joke.
If it's not, my bookmark list just went down by one.
posted on March 30, 2001 03:24:14 PM new
krs - good point!
We do expect that in time, relative newness will become irrelevant.
shadowcat - Sending an email to [email protected] will go to the whole moderation team, not just me. Thus, if I'm unavailable, there should be someone else who is available to answer your question.
posted on March 30, 2001 03:29:16 PM new
I think everyone here is WAY over-reacting. Maybe everybody should get up from their computers, go outside, and breathe some fresh air. DO something!!
posted on March 30, 2001 03:47:49 PM new
with all due respect to my fellow posters-in the short time i have been here i have seen virtually every possible moderation issue come up. from those i have raised myself, such as(IMHO) failure on the part of the mods to squash incendiary religious threads and posts, to those reporting links to profit-making ventures, to those insulted by perceived name-calling, to those upset with fee changes, to reporting of phony i.d.'s, to those concerned with uneven moderation and now to anger over the removal of the mod board. the truth is that you have gotten very spoiled and have totally lost sight of the fact this is owned and operated by a private company which can and is doing what it pleases. i raised a question on this thread for clarification but i see many whining about something which was not only a bonus, but for many seemed to be a place to stick their nose into others' business as a joyous and sarcastic daily event. some seemed to post on the mod's board as a way to attack or "get even" with others so openly as to amazingly think they would escape moderation somehow because of or in spite of their blatancy. the bottom line is that if you don't like the fees or the boards that they see fit to provide then stop whining and take a hike. remember it is an amusing, and sometimes at best stimulating and enlightening place that is now free and theoretically could also be charged for, not that there would be many left if that happened. i have had some issues with Marty and other mods, but in reality i would not want their job and i wonder how many of you would do it better? for someone to leave because the mod board is closed is a childish, martyr-driven overreaction and it would probably be a better place without such posters. happy April Fool's Day to all.
posted on March 30, 2001 03:55:03 PM new
Sit in your corner Stusi, and while there think of what it is that makes this the "amusing, and sometimes at best stimulating and enlightening place"
you describe it in such an abberant fashion.
posted on March 30, 2001 04:14:19 PM new
krs- certainly not the existence of a mod board or the much overused sarcasm in telling someone to sit in their corner every time they are not in total agreement with you. i can see how you might be the first to respond to my comments, as the removal of the mod board might be a blow to anyone who rarely initiated a thread there but always felt the need to nose into so many others' mod board threads with sometimes excellent but often unnecessary and inflammatory comments. your second 10,000 has not begun in a worthy manner.
posted on March 30, 2001 04:21:46 PM new
Im looking at this from another standpoint. What if I WAS paying for the services here, and came to RT to relax, make a friend, etc. Im paying for it, arent I? So what if I take them up on their kind offer to come relax after a hard day of descriptions and listing and dickering with bidders who didnt quite understand my tos and find that what I pay for is not at my disposal? Do I get a refund? Take my money and go elsewhere? What? (no, I dont use their services, but if I did, I would be just a bit upset that what I pay for is not mine to use in such a manner). Yes, rules are needed. Yes, this is their board. But as long as Im paying rent on it, I want some freedom to be treated as a paying customer, not a child on time out).
[ edited by Hepburn on Mar 30, 2001 04:23 PM ]
posted on March 30, 2001 04:24:28 PM new
Given the amount of use you made of the MC, Stusi, I would think that you would be the loudest objector. But no, you chose to accept the loss of that forum of whine and spread your wings over all fields around. Like a predator hawk now, you are to swoop in shrieking at the top of yourlungs for your hoped for piece of gristle or entrail, eh?
posted on March 30, 2001 04:27:57 PM new
good point, Hepburn, but it is almost as though the posters are wanting a TOP, or "terms of posting" agreement for the mods to live by on a portion of AW that is free. that certainly begs the issue a bit don't you think?
