A question to people who post in this section regularly

[Cixso]

I don't know about you, but to me I feel as if this "section" is starting to bore. Moderators close a thread at a glance of an argument, nobody can now have a joke on this forum without receiving a warning.

What are your views? I'm interested, also, to relate to web hosts, I am making a web hosting review website where people can submit there company/hosting site for free, receive user rating and comments. I am wondering if anybody is interested?

I was doing a "Habbox Hosting Awards" but Habbox are killing them selves and a lot of us are moving away from this forum because of the "stupid rules and regulations".

Thread moved by Agesilaus (Forum Super Moderator) from Web Hosts: Post moved to the correct section.

[Aflux]

No, the fact is there's an instinct if we know a thread is turning into an argument or meets all the credentials to be an argument. Arguments are not allowed on this forum - you know that.

Any who, the web hosts award sounds a good idea and I'll definitely back that, plus, I'm all for the reviews but they cannot be100% negatively biased :P

[Cixso]

No, the fact is there's an instinct if we know a thread is turning into an argument or meets all the credentials to be an argument. Arguments are not allowed on this forum - you know that.

Any who, the web hosts award sounds a good idea and I'll definitely back that, plus, I'm all for the reviews but they cannot be100% negatively biased :P

Hmm, taking on board.

Comments that are posted with say... "negative" attitudes will probably just be deleted to give every a fair, fighting chance.

[L!nK..]

When someone passes their test *cough* the *cough* will start backing away.

But I fully agree

[Cixso]

Was also thinking of re-making advertisehosting.net too.

[.Daniel]

Sounds good,
Stick with it Danny.

I totally agree with the 'harsh' attitude of HabboxForum moderators. We all know where the arguments lead, they never turn out good for the people involved. OK, sometimes the mod's are over happy with thread closures, but at the end of the day, they run the forum... so we just gotta bite our lip's.

Dan

[Lycan]

Lol,
This happened a year ago as well... the moderators that is... and the year before
you get used to it...

And judging by what normally happens, shoudn't this of been moved to spam or feedback by now,

[LOLROB]

since the new mods have came not nameing the one wich i done like
this section has bored me as danny said closeing of threads

and we all got a threat in one of the threads by a mod (not nameing names) that is we didnt stay on topic we would of all got a warning and this was from a new mod (ROFL)

i think hxf management have gone over bord and they should sack all these new mods :l cz i h8 them

i rarther karl who was a good mod. Since he quit because of it beeing to much on him because he owns karlshost and has alot on wich is fair enouth but these new mods are rubbish and made this forum boreing

i want karl back :(

[Corporal]

I know what you mean, what really annoys me is people posting in the wrong section though.

[Cixso]

I know what you mean, what really annoys me is people posting in the wrong section though.

Parts of it was related to web hosts though.

But I guess it works just as well here, although people who don't post in the web host section won't have a clue what I'm on about.

[Paulio]

If you want an argument, join in, in the debates forum :P

[Mentor]

If you want an argument, join in, in the debates forum :P

If the debates forum ever had any decent debates, i expect people would...

Why its still run as a closed system, something which means more work for staff, a dead and uninteresting debates forum with no preservable advantages is still a mystery to me though. Especially since who ever is in charge of it, never seems to actually get round to doing a whole lot with it.

[GommeInc]

No, the fact is there's an instinct if we know a thread is turning into an argument or meets all the credentials to be an argument. Arguments are not allowed on this forum - you know that.

Any who, the web hosts award sounds a good idea and I'll definitely back that, plus, I'm all for the reviews but they cannot be100% negatively biased :P
Surely that whole post suggests Habbox Forum and it's moderators have re-written the whole point of a forum and that post also contradicts another comment made by MAD suggesting the forum isn't for chit chat, it's for deep discussions. No discussion can be one-sided and I don't believe in having members having to act like someone they're not, just to save their accounts being banned or the threads and posts removed from the forum, even though at the end of the day those posts and threads would not make the blindest bit of difference between attitudes.

The debates forum is boring and useless. You may aswell remove it and just have the world news / politics and religions forum. At least that forum is remotely interesting. Why should debates which the whole forum is about be dumped in the debates forum? We've having a debate now with two arguments, surely now this thread should be moved and/or deleted from view?

[Catzsy]

No, the fact is there's an instinct if we know a thread is turning into an argument or meets all the credentials to be an argument. Arguments are not allowed on this forum - you know that.

Any who, the web hosts award sounds a good idea and I'll definitely back that, plus, I'm all for the reviews but they cannot be100% negatively biased :P

What are the credentials?(criteria) for closing a thread these days. There is a very thin line between debate ( people airing their views) and arguments.
I do not think that you can close a thread for instinctively feeling that it may turn into an arguement because then again it may not! :P

[Aflux]

There's a huge difference between arguing and debating Gomme.

Edit;

Only just saw Catszy's post, when you've spent 99.9% of over 2/3 years on Habbox Forum in one section, you can tell almost instantaneously which threads there are going to be arguments in.

[FlyingJesus]

The debates forum is boring and useless. You may aswell remove it and just have the world news / politics and religions forum.

That's exactly what I was thinking when Carl said about the debates section being crap; news/politics serves the same and is more open :P

Still, there's a difference between an argument and a debate. I'm not against either myself because some arguments are absolutely hilarious, but if the forum rules state that they aren't allowed then that's that, it's not difficult to live with it.

[Catzsy]

There's a huge difference between arguing and debating Gomme.

Edit;

Only just saw Catszy's post, when you've spent 99.9% of over 2/3 years on Habbox Forum in one section, you can tell almost instantaneously which threads there are going to be arguments in.

Yes I know lol :) but you are not saying that you close them before it becomes an arguement are you? Thats how it is coming over. Keeping an eye on them is a different thing and that's there your instincts comes in, surely.

[GommeInc]

There's a huge difference between arguing and debating Gomme.

Edit;

Only just saw Catszy's post, when you've spent 99.9% of over 2/3 years on Habbox Forum in one section, you can tell almost instantaneously which threads there are going to be arguments in.
Not really, debates have arguments in? Not everyone is going to say "Oh yes death penalty is bad, but it is good at the same time" otherwise this forum would be filled with mindless drones who have no opinion and will just agree. It is not about agreeing with someones opinions, it's about putting yours forward and trying to accept someone elses beliefs at the same time. So tell me, you're psychic? Why remove threads with arguments in when you should be doing your job and dealing with the members arguing. Someone may of had a good debate and you've ruined it as much as the members who are going into severe arguing, by closing a harmless thread with a minute amount of malicious people. No wonder the forum doesn't have any good discussions, the terribly run moderation team is removing the interesting, fun and humourous debates on the forum :O

[Mentor]

Debate and augment are the same thing. The only difference is whether there done maturely or not. arguing your case in a debate is what debating is.

Don't believe me? Thanks to the magic of google define, i can present an my augment with some dictionary definitions to back me up:

a fact or assertion offered as evidence that something is true; "it was a strong argument that his hypothesis was true"
Im arguing my case right now to the tune of this definition.

controversy: a contentious speech act; a dispute where there is strong disagreement; "they were involved in a violent argument"
Disagree ment, auguring is two people with different opinions disputing who is right. Again, that's exactly what a debate is.

a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal; "the argument over foreign aid goes on and on"
Again, sounds like a debate to me.

Now, since you offer an opposing view to me, that debate and augment are different. This means where doing exactly what the second and third definition of arguing are now.

Does that mean this thread needs closing? Personally i think not: augment are one and the same, this augment at current is both civil and mature.

As long as it doesn't break down in to immature "you suck" type squabbling, i think arguing in this and most other cases is perfectly acceptable, as is debate. Its the root of all conversation keep in mind, if everyone agreed on everything, there wouldn't be a whole lot to talk about :)

[Adzeh]

What are the credentials?(criteria) for closing a thread these days. There is a very thin line between debate ( people airing their views) and arguments.
I do not think that you can close a thread for instinctively feeling that it may turn into an arguement because then again it may not! :P

I personally close threads in this forum in particular when I feel that the question has been answered appropriately, or a topic has been exhausted of all meaningful discussion.

I agree that there has to be evidence of arguments actually taking place before threads can be closed; however I find it strange that people can say this forum isn't interesting anymore because argument threads are closed. Does that mean that all you guys come here for is an argument? Clearly the forum has gone to pot, but not by effect of management :S

[Catzsy]

I personally close threads in this forum in particular when I feel that the question has been answered appropriately, or a topic has been exhausted of all meaningful discussion.

I agree that there has to be evidence of arguments actually taking place before threads can be closed; however I find it strange that people can say this forum isn't interesting anymore because argument threads are closed. Does that mean that all you guys come here for is an argument? Clearly the forum has gone to pot, but not by effect of management :S

The reply was in response to something Aflux said but what i think they mean is that they can't air their views i.e. diasgree with each other without it being closed. There is a great deal of difference between constructive disagreement which happens in this forum everyday between members and all levels of management and argument which includes personal abuse or insults. I think its the definition of argument that needs looking at. E.G. Question Time on TV is full of arguments and disagreements but thats acceptable however I do not think that any personal insults would be acceptable on the show.

Members like having fun and a bit of a banter and perhaps they feel it is this that is being censored too much. Just my opinion though.

[GommeInc]

The reply was in response to something Aflux said but what i think they mean is that they can't air their views i.e. diasgree with each other without it being closed. There is a great deal of difference between constructive disagreement which happens in this forum everyday between members and all levels of management and argument which includes personal abuse or insults. I think its the definition of argument that needs looking at. E.G. Question Time on TV is full of arguments and disagreements but thats acceptable however I do not think that any personal insults would be acceptable on the show.

Members like having fun and a bit of a banter and perhaps they feel it is this that is being censored too much. Just my opinion though.
Personal insults should be allowed unless they go a step to far. I doubt anyone on the forum has been upset or distraught after an argument, becuase they're short term insults and really, are just there to liven up discussion.

"It's that you stupid pleb" is acceptable unless the member who was called a pleb thinks otherwise. What Habbox Moderators, Management and Admins need to learn is that they're not the ones being insulted and they should not take offence. It's only if the member being 'insulted' takes offence and reports it. If they do, don't touch the thread unless severe rule breaking breaks out.

They could save themselves alot of time and effort if they enforce members to report posts, that is afterall why that button is there.

[Adzeh]

The reply was in response to something Aflux said but what i think they mean is that they can't air their views i.e. diasgree with each other without it being closed. There is a great deal of difference between constructive disagreement which happens in this forum everyday between members and all levels of management and argument which includes personal abuse or insults. I think its the definition of argument that needs looking at. E.G. Question Time on TV is full of arguments and disagreements but thats acceptable however I do not think that any personal insults would be acceptable on the show.

Members like having fun and a bit of a banter and perhaps they feel it is this that is being censored too much. Just my opinion though.

Well the banter aspect is something you could raise if you were appointed to the Habbox Council, which I personally feel has a great chance of happening.

With regards to disagreements, I do believe that members should be allowed to disagree with each other. However, as you say, the line between argument and disagreement is so fine, that friendly disagreements are often mistaken for full blown arguments and the thread is closed.

I try to overcome this, in this forum in particular, by choosing the close a thread if it meets any of the following criteria:

Disagreement becomes so far gone that the original point of the thread is no longer being discussed
Genuine disagreement results in mindless insults being thrown at different members/staff
The disagreement is filtering in from a different thread, and the appropriate thread is not being used
As I'm sure you'll appreciate as a forum super mod, every moderator has their own style, and interprets the rules in different ways. Where one moderator can see an argument, another may see an interesting discussion. Unfortunately I doubt this problem could be overcome, unless we install some sort of hack which moderates the forums without need for human action; which of course is not possible :P.


Personal insults should be allowed unless they go a step to far. I doubt anyone on the forum has been upset or distraught after an argument, becuase they're short term insults and really, are just there to liven up discussion.

"It's that you stupid pleb" is acceptable unless the member who was called a pleb thinks otherwise. What Habbox Moderators, Management and Admins need to learn is that they're not the ones being insulted and they should not take offence. It's only if the member being 'insulted' takes offence and reports it. If they do, don't touch the thread unless severe rule breaking breaks out.

They could save themselves alot of time and effort if they enforce members to report posts, that is afterall why that button is there.

As I said in your rep comment, we cannot force members to report posts.

Also, people expect abuse to be sorted without having to report it. Imagine your reaction if somebody was offensive to you, in ront of a police man/woman, and the police man/woman did not do anything until you personally reported it to them that you found it offensive.

People would just act immaturely if we were to allow this sort of thing. They would claim that they found the slightest thing offensive, just to get people in trouble. It happens already, and would just escalate.

[Catzsy]

Well the banter aspect is something you could raise if you were appointed to the Habbox Council, which I personally feel has a great chance of happening.

With regards to disagreements, I do believe that members should be allowed to disagree with each other. However, as you say, the line between argument and disagreement is so fine, that friendly disagreements are often mistaken for full blown arguments and the thread is closed.

I try to overcome this, in this forum in particular, by choosing the close a thread if it meets any of the following criteria:

Disagreement becomes so far gone that the original point of the thread is no longer being discussed
Genuine disagreement results in mindless insults being thrown at different members/staff
The disagreement is filtering in from a different thread, and the appropriate thread is not being used


As I'm sure you'll appreciate as a forum super mod, every moderator has their own style, and interprets the rules in different ways. Where one moderator can see an argument, another may see an interesting discussion. Unfortunately I doubt this problem could be overcome, unless we install some sort of hack which moderates the forums without need for human action; which of course is not possible :P.

I totally agree with your views apart from where you say that moderators
interpret rules in different ways. Yes they all have their own style which is applauded but a uniform system system of moderation is encouraged and to a great extent delivered under the present and past forum management by checking the standard of new moderators in particular and advising them of what the standard is to make sure it is constant and even handed all over the forum - it is pretty well explaned in the moderator guide which is quite comprehesive from what I remember. There also seems to be a lot of custom' editing' going on which used to be frowned upon deeply but this may have changed. :)

[GommeInc]

As I said in your rep comment, we cannot force members to report posts.

Also, people expect abuse to be sorted without having to report it. Imagine your reaction if somebody was offensive to you, in ront of a police man/woman, and the police man/woman did not do anything until you personally reported it to them that you found it offensive.

People would just act immaturely if we were to allow this sort of thing. They would claim that they found the slightest thing offensive, just to get people in trouble. It happens already, and would just escalate.
Then re-word it for the common situation.

What if I was arguing and being called names infront of police person, who then warned/banned (lol) my friend, but we were actually just playing around? This is the case loads of members suffer from incompitent moderators who warn first, think later.

I got a warning for calling someone a biznatch which isn't a swear word nor was it used inappropriately, which is the key word in this sentence. What seems inappropriate actually was just there to have fun and joke with friends, which some moderators seem to mis-judge. It's not about what moderator thinks what, it's that you've hired moderators who don't know the blindest bit about moderating...

Perhaps a guide on moderating is in order, and if a moderator warns for stupid reasons, they get warned themselves.

[Adzeh]

I totally agree with your views apart from where you say that moderators
interpret rules in different ways. Yes they all have their own style which is applauded but a uniform system system of moderation is encouraged and to a great extent delivered under the present and past forum management by checking the standard of new moderators in particular and advising them of what the standard is to make sure it is constant and even handed all over the forum - it is pretty well explaned in the moderator guide which is quite comprehesive from what I remember. There also seems to be a lot of custom' editing' going on which used to be frowned upon deeply but this may have changed. :)

Again, things liek custom edits would be something that would be brought up by the Habbox Council. I know that some of the General Management do not get real chance to post around the forums, and miss things like moderator edits etc..

Yes the moderator guide is good, and the management do coach the moderators and inform them of their mistakes; however it all does really come down to how a moderator perceives a post. It is extremely difficult for a moderator to take action or give an infraction/warning if they do not fully beloeve that rules are being broken. On the reverse, it is extremely easy for a moderator to give infractions/warnings if they do full believe rules are being broken.

We can give our moderators all the advice, coaching, and information in the world, but they still have to use their personal judgement to see that rules are being broken.

[GommeInc]

Informing of mistakes is far too gentle, they should be warned for continually abusing their powers. Afterall, badly reading the threads and infracting for the wrong reasons is, in terms of power, abuse.

What's the current way of dealing with malfunctioning moderators and staff? How do they get warned? A simple PM is far too simple, you need someone to do reports on each moderator (nothing complicated, just something monthly) and see what the appropriate form of action is. I suppose Moderators do have it tough lately, with the complicated rules which suggest any negativity should be removed from the boards immediately.

Ah yes, before I forget. It's not forcing members to report posts, just suggesting they should do if they witness rule breaking or abuse. Afterall, Moderators and the like can't be in two places at once :P

[Catzsy]

Again, things liek custom edits would be something that would be brought up by the Habbox Council. I know that some of the General Management do not get real chance to post around the forums, and miss things like moderator edits etc..

Yes the moderator guide is good, and the management do coach the moderators and inform them of their mistakes; however it all does really come down to how a moderator perceives a post. It is extremely difficult for a moderator to take action or give an infraction/warning if they do not fully beloeve that rules are being broken. On the reverse, it is extremely easy for a moderator to give infractions/warnings if they do full believe rules are being broken.

We can give our moderators all the advice, coaching, and information in the world, but they still have to use their personal judgement to see that rules are being broken.


Again agreed. The only comment I would have to make is to refer to the original post where Aflux has suggested that you could close a thread because he 'instinctively' knew when a thread was going to turn into an argument and it was never established whether he closed on his instincts or waited to see if it actually did turn into an argument. The thread starter has basically said that the moderation in the Web Section has become way too harsh and they are not allowed to have fun anymore which perhaps should be looked into. :)

[Adzeh]

Informing of mistakes is far too gentle, they should be warned for continually abusing their powers. Afterall, badly reading the threads and infracting for the wrong reasons is, in terms of power, abuse.

What's the current way of dealing with malfunctioning moderators and staff? How do they get warned? A simple PM is far too simple, you need someone to do reports on each moderator (nothing complicated, just something monthly) and see what the appropriate form of action is. I suppose Moderators do have it tough lately, with the complicated rules which suggest any negativity should be removed from the boards immediately.

Ah yes, before I forget. It's not forcing members to report posts, just suggesting they should do if they witness rule breaking or abuse. Afterall, Moderators and the like can't be in two places at once :P

A moderator is a person, not a piece of technology, and cannot therefore malfunction :P. I will also say that a mistake by a moderator does not count as a abuse. Abuse of powers is a serious affair, and is where a moderator knowingly uses their superior powers within a forum, without any need or warrant for it. In this case, the moderator is either severly warned or dismissed completely.

I would never for a moment agree that we should warn our moderators for making mistakes. Education and advice are the best way to ensure that the mistakes are not repeated, since it shows compassion to the staff from the management, instead of cold hard slavedriving. Remember, our moderators are volunteers, and it is not good practice for managers to be harsh on the efforts of a volunteer.

If mistakes are continually being made, then of course further action is needed. But in my experience, once a mistake has been made and the moderator in question has been confronted about it, the mistake will not happen again. The moderators do receive monthly reports by the management in which their infraction reversal ratios are discussed and any problems with moderating by the entire team, or individuals, are discussed.


Again agreed. The only comment I would have to make is to refer to the original post where Aflux has suggested that you could close a thread because he 'instinctively' knew when a thread was going to turn into an argument and it was never established whether he closed on his instincts or waited to see if it actually did turn into an argument. The thread starter has basically said that the moderation in the Web Section has become way too harsh and they are not allowed to have fun anymore which perhaps should be looked into. :)

Well I would agree that it was wrong to close a thread due to this, however I still back Aflux and his ability as a moderator; he is commited and professional in the way he does his work, qualities which are often hard to come by.

It is places like this that issues need to be brought up, and then the issues can be discussed with staff members in question. Providing the staff member can accept that they are in the wrong, and take measures to ensure that they shape their future work accordingly, I have absolutely no quarrels with a mistake being made.

If users in the Web section feel that moderation is becoming to harsh, they are always welcome to PM the (Assistant) Forum Manager who can look into it. A good measure of excessively harsh moderating is the infraction/warning reversal ratio in particular sections.

[GommeInc]

Malfunctioning was the best way to put it, and there a few moderators who do like to abuse their ability to warn and infract and they don't seem to learn. Their excuse is that "If you want it removed, report it" and they probably know they've done wrong.Obviously you can educate them, but if they don't learn, why keep them when they're causing problems for the administrators who have to remove the warnings? Abusing their powers doesn't necessarily mean, they're going to use them because they're higher than anyone, it means they're using them wrongly by using them whenever they see fit. They are, in this case abusing their powers. If they were abusing members, I would of simply said they're abusing the members, which is completely different.

There is a limit to educating a lost cause, and if they don't learn to read the main part of a story, why keep them when they're causing problems down the line for someone to remove the warnings? This is, of course related to the main reason this thread was created. There is something wrong with the moderation team, they're not learning to read into things. Someone may call another an idiot, but is that offensive? Not entirely, most of the time it's used playfully and truthfully. How else would you call someone idiotic, especially when the person on the receiving end is normally an idiot. It's not about the moderator having a personal look at something, if they remove threads which they predict will be argumentative in the very negative side of the word, then they shouldn't of been hired because their personal judgement is what, in reality, they're hired for. To hire a Moderator, they must have an analytic mind and read the facts before taking action with a personality that does this.

[Agesilaus]

Informing of mistakes is far too gentle, they should be warned for continually abusing their powers. Afterall, badly reading the threads and infracting for the wrong reasons is, in terms of power, abuse.

All infractions and warnings are checked by a Super Moderator, and if a Super Moderator gave you the warning/infraction, it is checked by a different Super Moderator. This is to double check that the warning/infraction is fair. Reporting infraction/warnings ensures it further since a different moderator (one that might not have checked it might look into it) and it will be reviewed again. So up to 3 different Super Moderators can check to see if the offence deserved that form of action. :)


There is a limit to educating a lost cause, and if they don't learn to read the main part of a story, why keep them when they're causing problems down the line for someone to remove the warnings? This is, of course related to the main reason this thread was created.

This is also a responsibility the Super Moderator has, which is to make sure warnings and infractions are fairly given by all moderators and other Super Moderators. That's apart of our job and personally, I don't mind going through infractions and warnings to check for any mistakes and reverse if necessary. :)

[Adzeh]

Malfunctioning was the best way to put it, and there a few moderators who do like to abuse their ability to warn and infract and they don't seem to learn. Their excuse is that "If you want it removed, report it" and they probably know they've done wrong.Obviously you can educate them, but if they don't learn, why keep them when they're causing problems for the administrators who have to remove the warnings? Abusing their powers doesn't necessarily mean, they're going to use them because they're higher than anyone, it means they're using them wrongly by using them whenever they see fit. They are, in this case abusing their powers. If they were abusing members, I would of simply said they're abusing the members, which is completely different.

There is a limit to educating a lost cause, and if they don't learn to read the main part of a story, why keep them when they're causing problems down the line for someone to remove the warnings? This is, of course related to the main reason this thread was created. There is something wrong with the moderation team, they're not learning to read into things. Someone may call another an idiot, but is that offensive? Not entirely, most of the time it's used playfully and truthfully. How else would you call someone idiotic, especially when the person on the receiving end is normally an idiot. It's not about the moderator having a personal look at something, if they remove threads which they predict will be argumentative in the very negative side of the word, then they shouldn't of been hired because their personal judgement is what, in reality, they're hired for. To hire a Moderator, they must have an analytic mind and read the facts before taking action with a personality that does this.

You do raise a very good point and I respect you for that.

I think you misunderstood my explanation of abuse of powers, or I simply didn't explain it well. In my opinion abuse of moderator powers is when a moderator will take action in a thread for the sake of it, not because they feel that a rule is being broken. It has always been an issue in some areas of the forum, where moderators are continually editing threads and posts, in order to boost their moderator logs for the particular month. This is an issue that I want to raise with the forum management when I get chance.

In actual fact, when I was a moderator back in the day, we were encouraged to gain as many moderator logs as possible. Those who did not gain many moderator logs in a particular period were warned, and then ultimately dismissed. There was no consideration put it to the point that a moderator can be good, even if they have very few logs. This can of course mean that they are lazy, or infact mean that they are extremely good at application of the rules, and know when it is necessary to infract/warn or edit posts/threads.

Yes there is a limit to education and, while it does not happen very often, moderators who are clearly not up to the job are dismissed. However this happens very rarely since we have such a good Forum Management team; weak moderators are identified during their trial periods and if the management feel they are not improving, these trialists will not make the cut to full time staff.

[Catzsy]

A moderator is a person, not a piece of technology, and cannot therefore malfunction :P. I will also say that a mistake by a moderator does not count as a abuse. Abuse of powers is a serious affair, and is where a moderator knowingly uses their superior powers within a forum, without any need or warrant for it. In this case, the moderator is either severly warned or dismissed completely.

I would never for a moment agree that we should warn our moderators for making mistakes. Education and advice are the best way to ensure that the mistakes are not repeated, since it shows compassion to the staff from the management, instead of cold hard slavedriving. Remember, our moderators are volunteers, and it is not good practice for managers to be harsh on the efforts of a volunteer.

If mistakes are continually being made, then of course further action is needed. But in my experience, once a mistake has been made and the moderator in question has been confronted about it, the mistake will not happen again. The moderators do receive monthly reports by the management in which their infraction reversal ratios are discussed and any problems with moderating by the entire team, or individuals, are discussed.



Well I would agree that it was wrong to close a thread due to this, however I still back Aflux and his ability as a moderator; he is commited and professional in the way he does his work, qualities which are often hard to come by.

It is places like this that issues need to be brought up, and then the issues can be discussed with staff members in question. Providing the staff member can accept that they are in the wrong, and take measures to ensure that they shape their future work accordingly, I have absolutely no quarrels with a mistake being made.

If users in the Web section feel that moderation is becoming to harsh, they are always welcome to PM the (Assistant) Forum Manager who can look into it. A good measure of excessively harsh moderating is the infraction/warning reversal ratio in particular sections.


I did not comment on Aflux's ability as a moderator or indeed want to question it - I am sure he is all those things you say and we have all made mistakes. There is no denying that. This is the feedback section though and the thread starter made a valid point. Personally as a new Mod or Smod I think i would refrain from commenting in these threads until I had gained some experience and leave it to the ones who have been doing the job a lot longer otherwise they could risk looking silly.

[Mentor]

Does that mean that all you guys come here for is an argument? Clearly the forum has gone to pot, but not by effect of management :S
I come to many forums and use many services for precisely that reason. Its not called a discussion board for nothing, its not called a forum for nothing? Wana look up the means of both those words? Debate and Argument are the core reason forums exist.

What do you talk about if everyone always agrees on everything?


Personally as a new Mod or Smod I think i would refrain from commenting in these threads until I had gained some experience and leave it to the ones who have been doing the job a lot longer otherwise they could risk looking silly.
I would kinda disagree, if you cant antiquity deafened or justify a decision, then you really shouldn't have made it. Id rather look silly than incompetent.

[Catzsy]

I come to many forums and use many services for precisely that reason. Its not called a discussion board for nothing, its not called a forum for nothing? Wana look up the means of both those words? Debate and Argument are the core reason forums exist.

What do you talk about if everyone always agrees on everything?


I would kinda disagree, if you cant antiquity deafened or justify a decision, then you really shouldn't have made it. Id rather look silly than incompetent.

Well yes that is true as well. :)

[GommeInc]

What do you talk about if everyone always agrees on everything?
How nice a cake is. Although, would you be able to agree to the same amount of niceness as someone else?

But as you have said, the core reason for forums is for arguments which, if no one has noticed, is the core of debating. You have an argument, someone has a counter argument, hey presto, a debate!

[Adzeh]

I come to many forums and use many services for precisely that reason. Its not called a discussion board for nothing, its not called a forum for nothing? Wana look up the means of both those words? Debate and Argument are the core reason forums exist.

I fail to see the need for you to say something like that. In this context it just sounds rude and abtrusive and simply insults my intelligence; I would find it hard to believe that an Assistant General Manager of a site with a forum such as this would not know the meaning of the word "forum" :).

Yes this forum is for discussion and debating, but if you* have just come for a full blown, mindless argument with other users, and are happy to turn genuinely friendly discussion threads into unwarranted and sometimes abusive arguments, then this forum is unfortunately not the place for you.

I also disagree with your last statement, in my opinion, forums exist for discussion and information gaining/giving between users in a socially positive environment.

* The word you is used as a general term for the members of this forum, not as a specific term for any one member :).

[Mentor]

I fail to see the need for you to say something like that. In this context it just sounds rude and abtrusive and simply insults my intelligence; I would find it hard to believe that an Assistant General Manager of a site with a forum such as this would not know the meaning of the word "forum" :).

So rather than a simple misunderstanding, youd rather i take it that you for all intensive purpose's asked "Do all you guys come to a debate to a debate"... ? o.0


Yes this forum is for discussion and debating, but if you* have just come for a full blown, mindless argument with other users, and are happy to turn genuinely friendly discussion threads into unwarranted and sometimes abusive arguments, then this forum is unfortunately not the place for you.
So where agreed forums are a place for civil debate and augment?


* The word you is used as a general term for the members of this forum, not as a specific term for any one member :).
Alot of people, me included, probably find it rude when you talk down to them. May i remind you, despite your position you are also a member of this forum, just like everyone else.

[Adzeh]

Now that just seems pedantic to me. I see no instance in any of my posts within this thread where I have talked down to anybody; I am under no impression that I am not a user of this board, and I actually find it quite insulting for anybody to suggest that I am looking down on anybody simply because of my position as AGM.


So rather than a simple misunderstanding, youd rather i take it that you for all intensive purpose's asked "Do all you guys come to a debate to a debate"... ? o.0

I never understood that... I never asked the question in that way, I simply asked the question "Does that mean that all you guys come here for is an argument?" to support my point made in that particular post. Obviously it was implied that by "argument" I was referring to the more heated arguments that take place on this board.

[Catzsy]

Now that just seems pedantic to me. I see no instance in any of my posts within this thread where I have talked down to anybody; I am under no impression that I am not a user of this board, and I actually find it quite insulting for anybody to suggest that I am looking down on anybody simply because of my position as AGM.



I never understood that... I never asked the question in that way, I simply asked the question "Does that mean that all you guys come here for is an argument?" to support my point made in that particular post. Obviously it was implied that by "argument" I was referring to the more heated arguments that take place on this board.

Well I hate to say this Adzeh, I agree with Mentor, but they do come across as being somewhat superior even though perhaps it is not a conscious thing. Indeed I have seen this slightly snooty tone practised by quite a few of the staff lately. Sorry :(

[Mentor]

Now that just seems pedantic to me. I see no instance in any of my posts within this thread where I have talked down to anybody; I am under no impression that I am not a user of this board, and I actually find it quite insulting for anybody to suggest that I am looking down on anybody simply because of my position as AGM.
The very part i quoted is an example of it, in that you separate yourself from other users. You equally use your rank as if it should imply a superior knowledges to another when you state
"I would find it hard to believe that an Assistant General Manager of a site with a forum such as this would not know the meaning of the word "forum""


I never understood that... I never asked the question in that way, I simply asked the question "Does that mean that all you guys come here for is an argument?" to support my point made in that particular post. Obviously it was implied that by "argument" I was referring to the more heated arguments that take place on this board.
I can see where your coming from in this, but its a misuse of the word "argument" to suppose that it directly entails personal attacks and none civil debating techniques. Which was my point from the beginning.


Well I hate to say this Adzeh, I agree with Mentor, but they do come across as being somewhat superior even though perhaps it is not a conscious thing. Indeed I have seen this slightly snooty tone practised by quite a few of the staff lately. Sorry :(
I agree with it not really being just Adzeh, there are a few staff that do it and in my view its the primary reason they often come under fire from other users (it is something, intentional or not that gets peoples backs up)

[Adzeh]

Well I hate to say this Adzeh, I agree with Mentor, but they do come across as being somewhat superior even though perhaps it is not a conscious thing. Indeed I have seen this slightly snooty tone practised by quite a few of the staff lately. Sorry :(

Well I apologise if my posts seem imposing, but that is my style of writing and is the style that I am accustomed to, and comfortable with.

I try to maintain a high level of professionalism where appropriate (usually always on the public forums and in formal PMs or announcements in the staff sections); this is reflected through well structured and appropriate posts. I've always been good at English and excelled at essay writing (which is the reason for the rather lengthy posts that I often make :P), and I find that posting in this sort of manner keeps my writing skills sharp.

But with the professional and formal nature of my posts, it does not take away validity of any points I raise. Whether I come across as degrading or not, I would still expect my points to be considered appropriately.

[Adzeh]

The very part i quoted is an example of it, in that you separate yourself from other users. You equally use your rank as if it should imply a superior knowledges to another when you state
"I would find it hard to believe that an Assistant General Manager of a site with a forum such as this would not know the meaning of the word "forum""

The reference to my job title there was to simply put the point across that it was insulting for you to suggest I may not know the meaning of the word "forum", since it is one of my job aspects to keep the site, forum and radio going smoothly.

It is no different to if I were a professional footballer, and you were to seriously tell me I have no idea about how to play football; I would then inform you that I am paid to know about football, and that if I didn't know anyhting about it, it would not be my job.

[Mentor]

Well I apologise if my posts seem imposing, but that is my style of writing and is the style that I am accustomed to, and comfortable with.

I try to maintain a high level of professionalism where appropriate (usually always on the public forums and in formal PMs or announcements in the staff sections); this is reflected through well structured and appropriate posts. I've always been good at English and excelled at essay writing (which is the reason for the rather lengthy posts that I often make :P), and I find that posting in this sort of manner keeps my writing skills sharp.

But with the professional and formal nature of my posts, it does not take away validity of any points I raise. Whether I come across as degrading or not, I would still expect my points to be considered appropriately.
Personally i prefer a much more informal approach even in professional areas, but i don't have any direct problem with your writing style, in some cases though you do come off as using a superior tone.
Secondly i take your points as valid and would consider them fully regardless of how there presented. That said, it doesn't mean id agree with you.


The reference to my job title there was to simply put the point across that it was insulting for you to suggest I may not know the meaning of the word "forum", since it is one of my job aspects to keep the site, forum and radio going smoothly.
I didn't suggest you didn't, the post you misused it in did. if you look back ive defined a number of words in order to defend my position already, it wasn't meant to be offence in any more a way than would be posting the definition directly to demonstrate the validity of what i was claiming.

[Adzeh]

Well it is your personal preference to use an informal style of posting, and I fully respect that. Equally however, it is my personal preference to use a formal tone and style when posting, since this is what I feel comfortable with. I do not fully believe in my mind that my posts on serious topics are credible, when they are posted in an informal way. This is the reason for my excessive formality :).

Of course you do not have to agree with me; but so long as you tell me why you disagree, with a valid reason, then I am content.

[Mentor]

Well it is your personal preference to use an informal style of posting, and I fully respect that. Equally however, it is my personal preference to use a formal tone and style when posting, since this is what I feel comfortable with. I do not fully believe in my mind that my posts on serious topics are credible, when they are posted in an informal way. This is the reason for my excessive formality :).

Of course you do not have to agree with me; but so long as you tell me why you disagree, with a valid reason, then I am content.

On that final note, we can both agree :)

[Adzeh]

Yes indeed.

Thanks for a good argument discussion :).

Omgzzz was I just informal for a second? ;)