I think its really nice that someone made a thread for the mods, they're not perfect but it's a hard job and they deserve some praise every now and again.
Results 31 to 40 of 40
Thread: Personal moderation
-
MUMFORD
-
then coldplay went and got his... lol mhm.
anyways, most of mine are from catzsy too but to me that's just a result of her being first at the scene and thorough in her job rather than anything else.
i agree that moderators need a thread like this every now and again but that doesn't mean the criticism is unfair and unjust because a lot of the time it's more than justified.
-
Originally Posted by MattGarner
Oh, I didn't know this was a private chat.
-walks out-You know I didn't mean that Matt Originally Posted by Catzsy
. I meant why would you care so much when it was clearly a joke (well I though that was obvious) and it wasn't even aimed at you. Catzsy I know, you both took this wayyy too seriously. I don't know what you mean about 'joking' in that sense though. o.O
-
27-08-2009, 09:15 AM #34
Originally Posted by Robald
Originally Posted by Robald
1. How could any member tell you were joking in the first or second quote? Originally Posted by Robald
You know I didn't mean that Matt. I meant why would you care so much when it was clearly a joke (well I though that was obvious) and it wasn't even aimed at you. Catzsy I know, you both took this wayyy too seriously. I don't know what you mean about 'joking' in that sense though. o.O
2. I have never seen anybody before basically tell others, and this was the Forum Manager to 'butt out' of a public thread.
3. Yes we take comments seriously when it looks like another member has been targetted negatively - that's our job although it could be an unfortunate choice of emoticons on your part though which might be worth thinking about.
-
Oh dear. Right, my first post was the joke (which you've succeeded in destroying). The next post was something to back the original joke up with - (Jake's always going on about how much he's been infracted and how close he is to a ban) - still, without actually being serious as it's not like I'm complaining about him is it? (I do not actually believe there exists a "bad book" btw, just to clarify :rolleyes Originally Posted by Catzsy
1. How could any member tell you were joking in the first or second quote?
2. I have never seen anybody before basically tell others, and this was the Forum Manager to 'butt out' of a public thread.
3. Yes we take comments seriously when it looks like another member has been targetted negatively - that's our job although it could be an unfortunate choice of emoticons on your part though which might be worth thinking about.
. I thought the emoticon would be the key thing to tell other users it was a joke - the fact an emoticon was used at all suggests that. I can't think how an emoticon could have been used to make that a serious post anyway. When I said 'I wasn't even talking to either of you :eusa_wall', it was intended to mean something like, 'I wasn't even talking to either of you, so why are you complaining about it? - the person it was "aimed" at isn't even complaining' not, 'I wasn't even talking to either of you so do not respond'.
The fact I've just has to explain all that is embarrassing because I know you're intelligent enough to work it out. And nobody was being "targeted" - except maybe me; by all the super mods ganging up on me over a joke, whom the thread starter will have understood, and going widley off-topic in the process. 'Gratz :eusa_clap. (< that's sarcasm, before I have to explain it in three posts time).
Speaking of the thread-topic, I already stated that I agree with it, but it's instances like this that somewhat contradict it. Rather ironic one should occur in such a thread.
Last edited by Black_Apalachi; 27-08-2009 at 09:54 AM.
-
27-08-2009, 11:38 AM #36
Originally Posted by Robald
Oh dear. Right, my first post was the joke (which you've succeeded in destroying). The next post was something to back the original joke up with - (Jake's always going on about how much he's been infracted and how close he is to a ban) - still, without actually being serious as it's not like I'm complaining about him is it? (I do not actually believe there exists a "bad book" btw, just to clarify :rolleyes. I thought the emoticon would be the key thing to tell other users it was a joke - the fact an emoticon was used at all suggests that. I can't think how an emoticon could have been used to make that a serious post anyway. When I said 'I wasn't even talking to either of you :eusa_wall', it was intended to mean something like, 'I wasn't even talking to either of you, so why are you complaining about it? - the person it was "aimed" at isn't even complaining' not, 'I wasn't even talking to either of you so do not respond'.
The fact I've just has to explain all that is embarrassing because I know you're intelligent enough to work it out. And nobody was being "targeted" - except maybe me; by all the super mods ganging up on me over a joke, whom the thread starter will have understood, and going widley off-topic in the process. 'Gratz :eusa_clap. (< that's sarcasm, before I have to explain it in three posts time).
Speaking of the thread-topic, I already stated that I agree with it, but it's instances like this that somewhat contradict it. Rather ironic one should occur in such a thread.
Oh well all explained then. I don't actually think all the Smods have posted. The subject was personal moderation- you replied 'targetting a member' whether joking or not and we responded which is on-topic as it is to do with moderation in one form or another and it's our job. It's the first time I have ever used this emoticon on this forum.:rolleyes:Last edited by Catzsy; 27-08-2009 at 01:06 PM.
-
WHY RUIN MY POSITIVE THREAD N00BS
-
27-08-2009, 03:12 PM #38
Sorry, Jake Originally Posted by Immenseman
-
27-08-2009, 03:22 PM #39
-
Yeah sorry Jake - thanks for moderating me Catzsy! ^_^
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts