posted on March 30, 2001 04:33:17 PM new
No stusi, it doesnt make a difference. They offere RT to "relax", but now it isnt so relaxing anymore. Posters who were here from day one are now gone and not even a bat of an eye from those who gained from them supporting this place. Makes me wonder.
posted on March 30, 2001 04:41:20 PM new
krs- maybe you should go to that now famous(or infamous) corner you so frequently allude to and do some soul searching yourself. if you checked the facts you would see that i perhaps started as few or fewer MC threads as you did in the same period of time. but then again, if i did start more that would only prove my point about your numerous posts there. maybe the strong emotional nature and the subsequent equally strong responses caused it to seem that there were many more than there were. but entrails and gristle? really, ken. did the mods' action devestate you to that extent? it is going to be an incredibly excruciating next 10,000 if you don't lighten up! joice- you are right, i didn't see your post when i started my last one, sorry.
[ edited by stusi on Mar 30, 2001 04:47 PM ]
Diana, "It is against the CGs to open a thread to discuss a moderation issue, yes."
No, Diana, it isn't. I've included a link to the revised user agreement and community guidelines (above). Please specifically cite the prohibition contained within which makes such threads a violation. You may certainly wish it wouldn't happen, and there's little doubt that you and your moderation team will delete the threads (under the 'absolute freedom to delete for any or no reason' clause) and take punitive actions with the perpetrators, but that is of course, another matter...and nothing new at AW.
"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."
My experience suggests that this is a load of happy gas. Even when I was specifically directed to email you to discuss a moderation call applied to me, you did not answer that initial email for over two weeks. And then, when I responded to you (immediately), you again delayed your response by another two weeks, and included in your response at that time the wry observation that it really didn't matter, since the applicable 30 day moderation period was almost concluded. Perhaps you are more responsive to others...but the 'others' who are posting here seem to have had an experience more similar to mine than the alacritous turnaround which you suggest might be expected from you. And while I must credit both PatTaylor and Joice with being more inclined to the 'jiffy', it has been a long time since I've had occasion to correspond with either of them...and I certainly wouldn't expect a higher level of behavior from the subordinates than I would from the leader.
This failure to respond in a timely manner is, of course, a violation of basic etiquette. And your remark to Toke ("And toke - again, if you email us with a legitimate question you will most likely receive a response" ) is, in your own words, "insulting and unacceptable per the Community Guidelines," as it implies that issues of sufficient importance to Toke to warrant an email are "illegitimate." That may be (obviously IS) your view, but I find no definition or guidelines as to "legitimacy" in any of your posts or within the UA/CGs, and frankly, lacking any other forum (other than email) to address and resolve such questions (of varying "legitimacy" ), I personally take umbrage at your remark, both as a direct insult to Toke and by the implications contained therein as they apply to any other customer/user whose sincere questions don't measure up on either your scale of 'legitimacy' or 'validity'.
Lastly, Diana, the revised CGs lack the prior definition as to warning levels ("informal", "formal", "suspension" ) and the punitive probationary periods associated with same. Are these now undefined, or do they exist at all, or in what way has that aspect of moderation policy been modified? I'd appreciate a clarification.
Hellcat
Madness takes a toll. Please use exact change.
edited for unintentional smilies and equally unintentional spelling errors
[ edited by hellcat on Mar 30, 2001 05:05 PM ]
posted on March 30, 2001 05:11:20 PM new
joice, since I can't respond in Mivona's locked thread, I would like to thank you here for the points you disclosed below.
1. Locked threads will generally have a statement as to why they are locked. MartyAW apologized for the oversight on a thread this morning and promptly submitted a post of explanation to the locked thread. 2. It has been made clear that the Round Table will not turn into another Moderator's Corner. 3. Posts about moderation policy can be made in the Round Table forum after email corespondence with a moderator to get the go ahead. This will not include moderator bashing or hashing over why a thread was deleted. 4. If you start a moderation thread without going through a moderator, it will be deleted and the originator will be emailed.
This is more information than ANYONE at AW has been willing to give us. For the record though, Marty deleted 4 threads that I know of, with no explanations given to the originators, although he did email me with a "quote" from the CG's that did not address the topic of deleting threads whatsoever. When I replied asking for clarification, I once again received a vague quote of Diana's from this thread, but nothing specifically answering my question as to why I could not address him(Marty) in the RT, nor WHAT exactly the criteria was for deleting threads. Why could not ANYONE here answer my simple questions as you have done? It's like nobody want's the posters to KNOW what the RULES are for posting. Why is that? Nevermind...I know I won't get a "specific" answer. But thanks anyway for the specifics you DID give us. It is more than any of us have been able to get here today.
KatyD
edited for dang!ubb
[ edited by KatyD on Mar 30, 2001 05:15 PM ]
[ edited by KatyD on Mar 30, 2001 05:16 PM ]
posted on March 30, 2001 05:25:57 PM new
ahem, "you-know-who", didn't you just do exactly what you directed my attention to? i thought you would have caught that joice. our first feeble attempts at self-moderation must be better than that if we are to succeed! only joking mods!
posted on March 30, 2001 05:30:43 PM new
I quote this from the AuctionWatch Company History page, which you can view if you click on "About Us" at the bottom of this page. I call special attention to the last sentence:
"AuctionWatch.com originated in July 1998 as a message board on the home page of co-founder and avid auction enthusiast Mark Dodd. An experienced collector himself, Dodd felt that auction users would benefit from a central Internet destination where they could discuss their experiences and learn from each other. Although many auction sites encouraged user communication, Dodd was frustrated by their failure to provide a well-organized, unbiased discussion forum for their members."
Unbiased. It's right there in the company history.
I have to ask, what became of that vision? What the heck happened that has brought us to this point now, where we're not sure what we can talk about here anymore?
posted on March 30, 2001 05:39:34 PM new
a well known religious leader/author once said,"expecting the world to treat you fairly because you are a nice person is like expecting a bull not to charge at you because you are a vegetarian." it just doesn't know or care. exactly what that has to do with this thread i am not sure but it life is full of surprises and we just have to make the best of it. i have had enough of my own corny preaching now so i will end it right here. in all seriousness i think that the number of slow e-mail response complaints is causing a great deal of skepticism regarding this "absentee moderation" policy and will inevitably lead to self-moderation by some who seem to cherish that role.
posted on March 30, 2001 06:09:29 PM newStusi, I'm sure that all of us are equally (to you) in the dark as to the relevancy of your remarks, but gratified by your announced intention to cease same. Fresh entrails in the corner...
Toke, illegitimacy is one of my favorite states of the state, body, mind, and subconcious ! However, I recognize that not all others place it in such high regard, nor are others necessarily attuned to my own evaluation of legitimacy. It would seem prudent to me (would you agree? ) to turn such matters of fine discrimination over to Marty, who has, in such a short time, amassed an acknowledged record for such discerning determinations...or, failing that, of course, to his superior, whose record is, of course, both lengthy and greatly distinguished (a virtual beacon of light in the dark annals (NOT, of course, the dark anals, no sirrrrreeee! ) of discussion board moderation), I think.
Beth Madness takes a toll. Please use exact change.
posted on March 30, 2001 06:19:58 PM new
Though reading the threads in the MC was sometimes amusing, I really did depend upon the discussions to form at least a general guideline in my mind as to what was considered acceptable communication, as it has changed with each moderator over the years and does vary among the current four moderators. Though I acknowledge the inevitability of a degree of subjective variances in the interpretation and application of the CGs, I also believe that the moderators should be expected to at least articulate the reasoning behind their decisions, even if they are not open for public discussion or argument. This concern is related to Katyd's excellent observation about the appearance of secretiveness in moderation, which almost always leads to suspicion, which almost always leads to distrust. Granted those suspicions may exist among a few members regardless, but their extention and intensification can well undermine the success of any community which is composed of such a widely diversified membership as an OAI community. FWIW, I encourage administration to rethink the recent changes.
Your posting privileges have been suspended. Your total lack of respect and sarcastic and insulting comments about the the moderation staff will not be tolerated.
You know the drill. Email [email protected] if you wish to appeal this moderation.
posted on March 30, 2001 06:33:14 PM new
Ah, Beth...
I have truly missed your posts. DH was somewhat perturbed by my (ladylike, I assure you) guffaws, and felt the need to dash in and judge the state of my mental health. He was not terribly reassured as to my condition, so I fear I must retire and assuage his various anxieties...
A sweet goodnight to you...
Darn...wasn't quite quick enough. I knew I needed to hurry, too.
The CGs are just that- guidelines. I've grown tired of seeing moderators and administrators alike being constantly challenged and picked apart by your posts. This is not a courtroom, and these are not constititutional amendments.
Let me remind you, this is an auction chatroom. No more, no less. It is an extension of the business of AuctionWatch, and will be run as we feel appropriate.
Regardless of others opinions I sleep well knowing that everyone at AW has attempted to run a fair and unbiased message center to the best of their ability. But regardless, they are not accountable to you.
I have read your posts at other venues, and I am familiar with your intent. If you're not happy with the AW MC, so be it. But the team at AW will no longer be subject to your never ending debates on the matter.
And your remark to Toke ("And toke - again, if you email us with a legitimate question you will most likely receive a response" ) is, in your own words, "insulting and unacceptable per the Community Guidelines," as it implies that issues of sufficient importance to Toke to warrant an email are "illegitimate." That may be (obviously IS) your view, but I find no definition or guidelines as to "legitimacy" in any of your posts or within the UA/CGs, and frankly, lacking any other forum (other than email) to address and resolve such questions (of varying "legitimacy" ), I personally take umbrage at your remark, both as a direct insult to Toke and by the implications contained therein as they apply to any other customer/user whose sincere questions don't measure up on either your scale of 'legitimacy' or 'validity'.
! However, I recognize that not all others place it in such high regard, nor are others necessarily attuned to my own evaluation of legitimacy. It would seem prudent to me (would you agree? ) to turn such matters of fine discrimination over to Marty, who has, in such a short time, amassed an acknowledged record for such discerning determinations...or, failing that, of course, to his superior, whose record is, of course, both lengthy and greatly distinguished (a virtual beacon of light in the dark annals (NOT, of course, the dark anals, no sirrrrreeee! ) of discussion board moderation), I think.
