Question 3: Moderation fairness and Consistency

This is a discussion on Question 3: Moderation fairness and Consistency within the T2W Feedback & Announcements forums, part of the Off the Grid category; Are our moderation standards fair and consistent? To expand on this question, some members feel that our moderation lacks consistency ...

View Poll Results: Are our moderation standards fair and consistent?
reasonably fair 5 19.23%
a little unfair 9 34.62%
very unfair 3 11.54%
reasonably consistent 1 3.85%
a little inconsistent 11 42.31%
very inconsistent 12 46.15%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 27, 2005, 2:56pm   #1
 
barjon's Avatar
Joined May 2003
Question 3: Moderation fairness and Consistency

Are our moderation standards fair and consistent?

To expand on this question, some members feel that our moderation lacks consistency and that some members are favoured over others.

As dbphoenix has pointed out there is a distinction between fair and consistent. Fairness is about whether our moderation standards are applied equally to everyone and consistency is about whether they are applied every time a similar infraction occurs. The poll allows multiple choice in order that you can answer each separately.


Some people have already commented in the main thread about Site Guidelines and Moderating Standards or in relation to other questions. Note has already been taken of those and there's no need to repeat your comments here unless you want to do so. I would be grateful if you'd cast a vote though. Thanks.

jon
barjon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2005, 4:29pm   #2
 
MasoMinos's Avatar
Joined Nov 2005
Do you really think the majority who find there is an overwhelming lack of fairness and consistency are likely to vote in a public poll?

Unhappy they may be - stupid they are not.
MasoMinos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2005, 4:31pm   #3
Joined Sep 2005
John ,

Seriously I don't see why you are taking a poll here . This is a private board owned by someone and someone will always have favourites over others - usually the greasers shall we say over the honest types.

My only problem is if there is a pretense that moderation is " fair and consistent " in the universal sense .

Far better and would gain much more respect if you came out and be truthfull and said " Look this is a personal fiefdom and will be moderated as such with favouritism et all " , and preferably name the favourites so everyone knows where they stand .
Stockjunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2005, 4:58pm   #4
 
MasoMinos's Avatar
Joined Nov 2005
I see barjon has voted for 'reasonably fair'. No reason why the moderators shouldn't vote.

So can we get back all those who were banned by your inconsistent and unfair moderation so they can have their say too, or doesn't it quite work that way?
MasoMinos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2005, 5:19pm   #5
 
Mr. Charts's Avatar
Joined Sep 2001
I for one am perfectly happy for my views to be public.
I can't imagine the mods are going to victimise someone for voting in a way they don't like. I really don't believe any of them are malicious.
FWIW, as can be seen by clicking on the number next to each option, in my personal opinion standards are "a little unfair" and "very inconsistent".
This is not a complicated issue. If someone is rude or aggressive - edit and warn.
If they do it again - edit and temporarily ban.
Three strikes and they are out.
"Rude and aggressive" to include deliberately provocative and disruptive.
And that applies to every single member, newbie or 1000 poster, regardless.
Richard
__________________
Mr. Charts
Full time US Share Trader
Follow me on Twitter twitter.com/MrChartsJoyson

Contributor to T2W's Trading FAQ Book
http://www.trade2win.com/books/trading-faqs

T2W interview

http://www.trade2win.com/knowledge/a...ichard-joyson/
Mr. Charts is offline Coach/Trainer   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2005, 5:34pm   #6
 
fxmarkets's Avatar
Joined Aug 2005
hmm, well with these things I dont like the little bit fair or very etc. either its fair or unfair or consistent or inconsistent. black and white. or shall we be a little grey ??

so taking that stance if you havent measured or moderated to a policy of fair continually then you have been unfair at times, how can it be any different? likewise consistent...

I cant tick unfair and inconsistent because you are bringing in shades of grey....

well i ticked very.. but can someone be a little bit dead?
fxmarkets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2005, 5:44pm   #7
 
barjon's Avatar
Joined May 2003
barjon started this thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasoMinos
I see barjon has voted for 'reasonably fair'. No reason why the moderators shouldn't vote.

So can we get back all those who were banned by your inconsistent and unfair moderation so they can have their say too, or doesn't it quite work that way?
i voted because otherwise i can't see the results - but i'll knock my vote off from the final total if it bothers you

jon
barjon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2005, 5:48pm   #8
 
barjon's Avatar
Joined May 2003
barjon started this thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxmarkets
hmm, well with these things I dont like the little bit fair or very etc. either its fair or unfair or consistent or inconsistent. black and white. or shall we be a little grey ??

so taking that stance if you havent measured or moderated to a policy of fair continually then you have been unfair at times, how can it be any different? likewise consistent...

I cant tick unfair and inconsistent because you are bringing in shades of grey....

well i ticked very.. but can someone be a little bit dead?

sorry fx - i was trying to determine the degree of concern. maybe someone can't be a little bit dead but they can be a little bit ill or terminally ill.

jon
barjon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2005, 5:55pm   #9
 
fxmarkets's Avatar
Joined Aug 2005
Thats ok jon, but I would be asking ourselves, are we fair and consistent. thats the only concern, but there might be a technical issue as to why consistency, and fairness is challenged, like no time to check all the posts, if you are unpaid I totally understand.... you have been more than fair with your time if thats the case.
fxmarkets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2005, 6:42pm   #10
Joined Aug 2003
You are not going to get fairness. That is a definite. To start with the notion is very subjective.

Many who thrive on boredom and tedium, don't like to see a few sparks flying. If you are a Moderator, likely as not, you going to give in when some little toady starts bleating about some big bad words he has run into. The Moderator will then expunge your post or posts. But these bleaters are the sort who sure as hell are not going to take a fortune out of the market if minor stuff like that affects their pea brains.

The other thing is that if the owners or the Moderators don't like your views and you express them too often they may well exclude you. Its not a question of fairness. They can do it if they want to because its their website .. simple as that.

My view is it is up to them what they do, fair or not.
fudgestain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2005, 7:21pm   #11
 
fxmarkets's Avatar
Joined Aug 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by fudgestain
The other thing is that if the owners or the Moderators don't like your views and you express them too often they may well exclude you. Its not a question of fairness. They can do it if they want to because its their website .. simple as that.

My view is it is up to them what they do, fair or not.

yes totally agree and if I was looking at it from a commercial viewpoint , then i'd suggest keep the moderation slackish. So they (members)spend more in the industry. tolerate the squabbling , but they will spend more. if they didnt squabble they wouldn't .

make sense... ?
fxmarkets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2005, 8:07pm   #12
 
MasoMinos's Avatar
Joined Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by barjon
i voted because otherwise i can't see the results - but i'll knock my vote off from the final total if it bothers you

jon
It doesn't bother me at all. Nor should it bother anyone else. As a member you have as much right as any to vote in this or any other poll.

My issue is that the 44K+ members of this site, including you and all the other moderators, are able to vote because we haven't fallen foul of any inconsistent or unfair moderation. What my previous post attempted to underline was the irony of those currently unable to vote precisely because of inconsistent or unfair moderation in the past.
MasoMinos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2005, 10:05pm   #13
 
DaveJB's Avatar
Joined Dec 2002
I agree with Mr Charts.
I also agree with the suggestion that this is a board Sharky set up, and it's up to him what standards are set and how it's moderated. What I BELEIVE to be true is this -
Moderation is almost always applied with the best of intentions.

When people were being shot for daring to argue with Soc it didn't take much to apply the 'spin' required to see his detractors as being deliberately sabotaging a popular thread, while others saw it as a robust exchange of views where one side was unfairly shackled. I think it's fair to say Soc is the main (but far from the only) poster on here to polarise the membership to such an extent, hence he's the chap I've picked on here for my example.

It is not unreasonable (I suspect) if you are a mod to help to shut up those who seem to be arguing from the 'wrong side', I believe the mods should actually warn, then ban, those who get personal in their attacks and also those who 'wind up' the people concerned by adopting a patronising tone in their replies., Nobody on here knows who the heck anyone else is, for the most part - it is plain wrong for any member to adopt a supercilious or patronising tone when disagreeing with another. For all they know it's St Buffet 1st they're arguing with.

I voted for 'slightly unfair', I think I'd be inclined to go for 'inconsistent' too - but I think the mods and the management are genuinely trying to keep it all on track... just not actually managing to do so. I'll happily offer 10:1 that Sharky would much prefer we all got along though, the arguing isn't being deliberately inflamed by mod efforts. Damned if I'd want to waste hours of my life sorting the squabbles on here out!
Dave
DaveJB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2005, 10:17pm   #14
Joined Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasoMinos
It doesn't bother me at all. Nor should it bother anyone else. As a member you have as much right as any to vote in this or any other poll.

My issue is that the 44K+ members of this site, including you and all the other moderators, are able to vote because we haven't fallen foul of any inconsistent or unfair moderation. What my previous post attempted to underline was the irony of those currently unable to vote precisely because of inconsistent or unfair moderation in the past.
Might you be able to give some examples of members who you feel might have been treated 'unfairly' in the past?
__________________
www.triggerbuddy.com

Free app for traders.
rossored is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks! The following members like this post: OpenMind
Old Nov 28, 2005, 12:17am   #15
Joined Sep 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by rossored
Might you be able to give some examples of members who you feel might have been treated 'unfairly' in the past?
Well , rossored if you are serious , then I can say there are many dubious counts of moderation going on .

Rules say no advertising if you are not a sponsor but I have seen some who do it and no one reprmands them , especially if they seem to go up against other " feared and honest " posters .

Some swear and get abusive and nothing happens to them , but the at the first hint of rudeness from those deemd " feared and honest " , the axe comes down on them .

Soon the board will have no original or independent thinkers but just a bunch of yes men agreeing about everything to the extent of being comical .

In my own case it was agreed that I would do an interview article for T2W , and yet it has been a more than a month since I emailed it in and nothing has come of it , not even a reply as to what is going on . Yet I have seen at least 3 new articles go up in that time , it seems that only those who do not threaten the ego of certain parties will be given the green light whereas others will be totally stiffled . Why not just tell me at the start and I would not have had to waste my time and effort in doing an article ? there may be a good explanation but it just seems that way to me .

In the long run , people aren't stupid and talks about an alternative board may soon be a reality.
Stockjunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
mark douglas 'path to consistency workshop' woj The Foyer 2 Dec 19, 2007 2:44am
The Little Circle:Moderation barjon T2W Feedback & Announcements 26 Feb 2, 2007 10:57am
Question 2: Moderation Standards barjon T2W Feedback & Announcements 23 Nov 26, 2005 5:23pm

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)