Moderators - Abuse of 'Power'

[TheBramble]

It would be useful to understand who pulled the trigger on the ‘Shortcut to Trading’ thread started by new_trader.

Although it was sanitised (quite rightly) by one of the mods (Lightning McQueen) for a couple of posters' slightly wide of the guidelines mark comments, it pretty much quietened down. Only after the action and focus had moved away was it silently removed form out sight (site?). A pity, as it seemed to resonate with a fair few members, which is presumably the purpose of the site?

While I appreciate the moment new mods are appointed they immediately rise above the mass form which they were chosen and spontaneously gain the understanding, skills and omnipresence to correctly assess all our posts, and quite as immediately gain the superior reasoning and intellectual faculties necessary to stand in judgement of all our posts.

It would be nice to be given a reason for the sudden pulling of a thread, rather than having is quietly drugged and slipped away from our sight at dead of night KGB style. And to have something other than ‘sorry, can’t disclose’ type BS shoved at us when questioned privately.

Maybe I’m just over-sensitive to abuse of power, but a wiser man than me suggested we should always be prejudicial of those whom have power over us – especially those who are not elected and have no obvious superior talents...

If this site is genuinely interested in the views of it's membership, this post should get answered - rather than just ignored or deleted.

 

[zambuck]

......Why can't mods or controllers just put a black highlighter across the words of contention...??........presumably this is quite possible to programme in to kick in automatically...??.. and let the essence of thread continue...!

 

[TheBramble]

......Why can't mods or controllers just put a black highlighter across the words of contention...??........presumably this is quite possible to programme in to kick in automatically...??.. and let the essence of thread continue...!

That was done Zambuck. LM did the necessary and appropriate sanitising of a couple of posts.

But the thread itself was clearly an item of significant interest to many.

The mod’s (which one?) decision to pull it, quietly, when nobody was watching, was entirely against the best interests on the wider membership and clearly done in a manner to attempt avoiding being spotted. Covert. Very slimy.

 

[counter_violent]

Just so that everyone is clear on this.

Moderators act independently of each other on the whole.
Just occasionally a thread may be started in the mods forum if for example an individual mod feels the need to canvass opinion on a certain sticky topic or individual member. The theory being I suppose, that Two or more heads are better than One.

Moderation as I see it is simply about making judgement calls reference the material posted on the site.....this may apply to a single post or a collection of posts or spamming or whatever....common sense is the order of the day.

In terms of "who holds the power" thats an interesting point...lets consider the forces at play.
Readers, members, moderators, admin, owners, sponsors, advertisers.

Moderators can only moderate to a given level ! Anything beyond this would as you say, be an abuse of a very limited power.

cv

 

[TheBramble]

CV - what exactly is that supposed to add to this?

mods note: restored by rossored as I really couldn't see why it was deleted, sorry CV

 

[Mayfly]

CV wrote:

In terms of "who holds the power" thats an interesting point...lets consider the forces at play.
Readers, members, moderators, admin, owners, sponsors, advertisers.

Hi Tony,

Among things, I think CV's comment above tells you that the site isn't run for the benefit of its members!

Regards

Mayfly

 

[Profitaker]

Tony

The thread was started for no other reason than to provoke a re-action and antagonise anybody that cared to bite. Incredibly the original poster said as much in his first post.

If you and he want to have a futile exchange you are still free to do so using T2W private messaging, but not using a T2W public forum.

 

[TheBramble]

If you and he want to have a futile exchange you are still free to do so using T2W private messaging, but not using a T2W public forum.

So your previous numerous, very public and extremely futile exchanges with Socrates on a t2w public forum are OK, but others' are not - now you're a mod?

Have I got that right?

As for futile exchange - who says so? Are you REALLY the best person to make that call? Are any of the mods? Based on the support and positive reaction from a large number of members for that thread, that decision, whoever made it, was way out of touch with the general membership. And the method of its execution hints at that being known at the time...

cv has already deleted one on my posts on this thread that doesn't contravene any site guidelines. Didn't take him long to get into the swing of arbitrary interpretation.

 

[rossored]

Not that it matters one jot, but I pulled it, and for the reasons PT has stated. To be honest I only wanted to bin the first post, but doing so removes the whole thread so that's what happened. It wasn't sneaky, it wasn't done covertly or when I thought 'anyone wasn't watching'; it was done in the middle of the day as well, not the middle of the night. Let's not get started on that tired topic again.

The only people who 'hold the power' here at the mods and admins, although occassionally we will remove posts or threads at an advertisers or companies request - normally when we're threatened with legal action.

 

[counter_violent]

Let he who be without sin cast the first stone

 

[Splitlink]

We're getting a bit pious, here.

 

[grantx]

Bramble,

“the site isn't run for the benefit of its members” (Mayfly); “we will remove posts or threads at an advertisers or companies request” (Rossored”).

Nothing ambiguous there.

Fortunately, T2W doesn’t (isn’t allowed) to descend to the levels of some sites. Unfortunately, the level of sanitisation is indicative of a nanny-state mentality.

We are adults, and the majority are above/beyond the reactionary middle-England, Daily Mail-reading school of morality.

Grant Beria.

 

[Profitaker]

So your previous numerous, very public and extremely futile exchanges with Socrates on a t2w public forum are OK, but others' are not - now you're a mod?

Have I got that right?

Not quite Tony, because any “very public and extremely futile exchanges” were also subject moderation and were either edited, deleted, thread closed, or thread deleted as appropriate. Nobody is exempt.

As has been alluded to in the post above, a site without any moderation would quickly descend into complete chaos and knowing you I can’t believe that is your preference. Something in-between complete chaos and the other extreme of nanny state moderation is more difficult to achieve. But we do aim to please.

Are we all done here now ?

 

[TheBramble]

Let he who be without sin cast the first stone

I think that's the whole point. The decision to choose you as a moderator was a bad one. Nothing personal. Be exactly the same if I was appointed as a moderator – it would be totally inappropriate. Your previous conduct is not, to me at any rate, that which I would expect of someone who could sensibly be appointed to sit in judgement of others. Same for Profitaker. As members – fine, great guys both. But neither have ever given any indication in the past of possessing the skills necessary to handle the decisions mods on this site must if they are to be taken seriously and if the are to be effective.

Even Barjon who is almost a saint has lost it once or twice. And who can blame him with ******s like me around! I don’t feel either of you have what it takes to do the job properly. Just my view. Your knee-jerk ‘delete it…or I will’ PM to me last night was a case in point. As was PT’s hypocrisy on what the forums could and could not be used for. More examples of abuse of power which if it is not checked, or at least aired in threads such as this, will eventually come back to bite this site on the ass big time. As long as moderation is subtle and fair and even-handed, it all works well. When it gets out of whack, there is a reaction to it which can get out of control. It’ll correct in time of course, but not without a lot of pain. Why choose that option?

The skills required of an exemplar mod for this site are an even temper, patience, tact, diplomacy, clarity of thought, lack of bias, total non-partisan impartiality, commonsense, integrity, no hint of previous ‘history;’ with any other member and lack of emotional volatility. Can you both tick all those boxes? I don’t think so.

Perhaps it’s worth considering a process where the general membership are involved in the selection process? Those wishing to be mods could be put up in poll of some sort and those attracting the most votes – get the job. And a regular review process to ensure they retain consensus support.

It’s all well and good Rossored saying the admin and mods have the power – like it or lump it, but totalitarian dictatorships do not prosper in the long run. Over the top? Possibly. But I care enough to take the time and trouble to make these points. Possibly this will all be deleted as well. Whatever.

I believe Rossored was wrong to delete that thread and he probably couldn’t care less. And it’s no big deal in the scheme of things. But in the microcosm that this site is – it is. For all sorts of reasons which will play out in time. The problem with having a big stick is, you have to use it, and when you do, you then need to keep on using it, harder and harder – until it breaks, or someone else comes along with a bigger one.

Unless there is clear evidence of serious contravention of site guidelines in posts and threads, the bias should be to leaving them alone. On that specific thread, moderator action had already been taken to edit out those posts which did contravene site guidelines. Rossored’s subsequent unilateral action in deciding to delete it effectively undermines his team, demeans the content supplied by the memebrs and devalues the entire site.

 

[TheBramble]

Not quite Tony, because any “very public and extremely futile exchanges” were also subject moderation and were either edited, deleted, thread closed, or thread deleted as appropriate.

Would you like me to prove you wrong on this PT? Unless you get to the offending posts first of course...

As has been alluded to in the post above, a site without any moderation would quickly descend into complete chaos

There are a few degrees between complete chaos and inapprorpiate moderation I think. Moderation in line with site guidleines - not over and above on the whim of the mod.

But we do aim to please.

Well then, it isn't working.

Are we all done here now ?

Are you deciding to pull the plug on this thread too now?

 

[Profitaker]

Tony

There comes a point where continuing to question a decision made by somebody appointed to assist in running this site goes beyond reasonable discussion. You are at that point now, and I would it hope it ends there.

If you are intent on arguing for the sake of arguing there are a number of sites that cater for this. One in particular springs to mind, where I'm led to believe arguing and chaos are actively encouraged. PM me if you want the address.

rgds,

PT.

 

[timsk]

The skills required of an exemplar mod for this site are an even temper, patience, tact, diplomacy, clarity of thought, lack of bias, total non-partisan impartiality, commonsense, integrity, no hint of previous ‘history;’ with any other member and lack of emotional volatility. Can you both tick all those boxes? I don’t think so.

Tony,
The skills you outline are fine and dandy as a utopian ideal but, in reality, no one is going to be able to tick half your boxes - let alone all of them. Speaking personally, I don't think any the worse of the mod's - new or old - who perhaps fall a tad short of this very high bar. I know I would. That's the first problem. The second problem is that as far as I'm aware, there isn't a long queue of members wanting to become moderators. So, whilst I broadly accept some of your criticisms, Sharky and the Admin' team can only work with that which they've got to work with! May I suggest that as counter_violent and Profitaker are new to their posts, it's only fair and courteous to give them a little time to settle into their new roles to see how they get on. After all, it was Rossored who deleted the post; I'm sure his shoulders are broad enough and his skin thick enough to withstand your eloquent literary blows if you really want to pursue this!

Tim.

 

[jkplay]

Tony

There comes a point where continuing to question a decision made by somebody appointed to assist in running this site goes beyond reasonable discussion. You are at that point now, and I would it hope it ends there.

If you are intent on arguing for the sake of arguing there are a number of sites that cater for this. One in particular springs to mind, where I'm led to believe arguing and chaos are actively encouraged. PM me if you want the address.

rgds,

PT.

Hey Profitaker.

If there was a debate and somebody made the comment below would you delete it and issue a ban of any sort?

Mr.B has short term memory loss, cannot think logically, behaves irrationally, is emotionally unbalanced in the extreme, and I'm sure he's suffering from some sort of psychotic disorder - schizophrenia perhap ? Any medical people lurking ?

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/showthread.php?p=217323#post217323

Is that not a provociative comment made only to provoke an unpleasant and aggressive reaction?

I expect this post to be deleted very soon

JK

 

[zambuck]

CV wrote:



Hi Tony,

Among things, I think CV's comment above tells you that the site isn't run for the benefit of its members!

Regards

Mayfly

....If that was the case then members / people would not keep coming back...!!...They would leave.......

 

[zambuck]

That was done Zambuck. LM did the necessary and appropriate sanitising of a couple of posts.

But the thread itself was clearly an item of significant interest to many.

The mod’s (which one?) decision to pull it, quietly, when nobody was watching, was entirely against the best interests on the wider membership and clearly done in a manner to attempt avoiding being spotted. Covert. Very slimy.

....I don't agree....If one can delete a post then one can 'black line' either a word in a post or whole post.....That would be better as it will frustrate a 'culprit' - if that is the right word....!