Making it Better: The future of WP
smudge wrote:
Hence why I have hardly responded. Constantly implying "Some people" and repeatedly specifying their actions (I.e. Mine) instead of talking to me about it first and actually asking ME what my intentions were, it's been a massive slagging off match in this thread. I get the implied includes me. A few of the people here have done it repetitively and have not stopped going on about it. I name names instead of making digs at people because I'm straight forward and prefer to address the issue then and there, not make snooty digs or dismiss people. Or f*cking list names of the entire forum except the users they don't like. "Some people", and being specific on their actions to imply its them, and complaining about them instead of assuming that maybe they aren't who they make them out to be. Honestly you think that's more tactful? If I have an issue with whoever, I name them OR I TALK TO THEM first. Fnord is honestly not the worst person here. At least he can take crap spoken about him.
I tried to say it earlier in this thread, but my post was deleted.
I honestly can’t remember who was saying it, so I’m not singling anyone out or holding any grudges. I just got a bit scared of the thread as a whole even though I knew a lot of people were making constructive comments. I appreciate that the ambiguity could be stressful for some people so I’m sorry.
Your suggestion that I PM people to get their thoughts is a good one. It shows real wisdom. I should probably do that more often. I guess I’d be concerned about either being seen as nosy or perhaps as domineering, but perhaps that’s better than being ineffectual.
Fnord wrote:
Pepe wrote:
... I am simply, and rationally, saying there needs to be a balance, and *INTENT* needs to be considered...
The question then arises: "How does one determine intent?"By reputation - "I hear he's a mangy flea-bitten junkyard dog, so his intent simply MUST be evil!"
By gut reaction - "If that was said to me, I would be outraged! Off with her head!"
By naive assumption - "I feel that he must be given the benefit of the doubt because no one can really be that mean."
By strict interpretation of The Rules - "You are mistaken. No offense occurred. She has done nothing wrong."
Other ... ?
There are times intent/attitude is very obvious to me.
Call it the perks of life experience,
And being super-duper smart in regard to human psychology.

And yes, past history (reputation) is a consideration.
Gut reaction?
"Say what?" Are you a god darn NT?


The benefit of the doubt?
Absolutely.
But if there is an ongoing pattern of suspect behaviour,
There is an ongoing pattern of suspect behaviour.
How often would that happen?
Rarely, I suspect.

This is all academic.
An intellectual exercise.
If the mods, as a group, make a decision,
Let's face it, they aren't going to listen to unofficial upstarts who think they know better, right?

<whisper: even if they *DO* know better.

Fnord wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Pepe wrote:
There could be an unofficial "Court of inquiry" which could bring questionable judgements to the attention of the mod team...
Do you really want a layer of squabbling bureaucrats between you and the moderators? Keep in mind that the moderators could bypass that layer at any time to take action (or not) as they see fit.Thus, it is easy (for me) to imagine a few members applauding Donald Trump as a new moderator, while the rest of us flee to other websites...
I literally dedicated my self to "The Truth", when I was 22, after I broke out of my dissociative "bubble".
That was over 40 years ago.
Some people value personal integrity over and above personal gain/status/power.
I can point them out if you wish.

If you think that is an unrealistic capability/skill,
Well, that is telling in itself.

Brictoria wrote:
Steve1963 wrote:
Fnord wrote:
I expect at least one new moderator to try to make a public case for banning his or her least-favorite member(s).
But how could a case be made unless one of the Rules has been broken? Isn't that what the Rules are for? If a Rule is broken, no case has to be made.Being that bans need to be made based around rules, it sounds like Fnord may have a premonition of a member (or members) who have been breaching them without penalty finally being caught up with...
I wonder if he has any potential "victims" he would care to share the name of with the rest of us, just so we can be aware of why they potentially go silent...
Why do you think I am doing this?:

Teach51 wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
Oh_no_its_Ferris wrote:
Steve1963 wrote:
Oh_no_its_Ferris wrote:
I publicly banned you as well as the entire mod team ( for 20 mins or so ) , it's not something I knew would stand. I doubt anyone else would be that stupid. I suggest you get an email off one of the mods if you fear you may be targeted.
You were once a moderator here?




yep


I vote Ferris for re-election.
I loved Ferris as a moderator. So I second that.
I haven't a clue why it all went belly up but it was dramatic.
I third that.
magz wrote:
Which gives me an idea: how about leaving visible track of mod operations? Instead of removing posts, how about editing them into something like this:
Quote:
Content removed by a moderator (mod name). Reason: personal attack.
That may add to transparency and remove some confusion about further actions.
I have seen this as a default on other websites.
I don't know why it isn't done more often here.

The_Walrus wrote:
smudge wrote:
Hence why I have hardly responded. Constantly implying "Some people" and repeatedly specifying their actions (I.e. Mine) instead of talking to me about it first and actually asking ME what my intentions were, it's been a massive slagging off match in this thread. I get the implied includes me. A few of the people here have done it repetitively and have not stopped going on about it. I name names instead of making digs at people because I'm straight forward and prefer to address the issue then and there, not make snooty digs or dismiss people. Or f*cking list names of the entire forum except the users they don't like. "Some people", and being specific on their actions to imply its them, and complaining about them instead of assuming that maybe they aren't who they make them out to be. Honestly you think that's more tactful? If I have an issue with whoever, I name them OR I TALK TO THEM first. Fnord is honestly not the worst person here. At least he can take crap spoken about him.
I tried to say it earlier in this thread, but my post was deleted.
I honestly can’t remember who was saying it, so I’m not singling anyone out or holding any grudges. I just got a bit scared of the thread as a whole even though I knew a lot of people were making constructive comments. I appreciate that the ambiguity could be stressful for some people so I’m sorry.
Your suggestion that I PM people to get their thoughts is a good one. It shows real wisdom. I should probably do that more often. I guess I’d be concerned about either being seen as nosy or perhaps as domineering, but perhaps that’s better than being ineffectual.
I should clarify, I did not mean it was not you implying "Some people", it was others. I didn't like this thread either. Why were you scared?
_________________
I've left WP.
Teach51
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,808
Location: Where angels do not fear to tread.
Pepe wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Steve1963 wrote:
Fnord wrote:
I expect at least one new moderator to try to make a public case for banning his or her least-favorite member(s).
But how could a case be made unless one of the Rules has been broken? Isn't that what the Rules are for? If a Rule is broken, no case has to be made.Being that bans need to be made based around rules, it sounds like Fnord may have a premonition of a member (or members) who have been breaching them without penalty finally being caught up with...
I wonder if he has any potential "victims" he would care to share the name of with the rest of us, just so we can be aware of why they potentially go silent...
Why do you think I am doing this?:

Lol lol lol you are impossible lol
_________________
My best will just have to be good enough.
Pepe wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
I did check News in March and realised that a couple of users were basically using it like PPR, so I started checking there more often and gradually got it under control - although the steps I took were not always popular.
Surely you know why.
Sigh - I read The_Walrus' previous post 3 times trying to make up my mind if or how to answer it.
A few of us deliberately avoided posting links to obvious rule violations or confronting the mods directly about some of their actions that contributed or instigated trouble or inaction about things that have been repeatedly reported. As a mod, you cannot always pick and choose what you like doing, sometimes you just have to do what needs to be done because it's part of your job and nobody else will.
BUT... I also understand how sh***y the job can get and that such confrontation would only put them in a defensive position where they feel they have to justify their actions somehow, even the mistakes. And this will only lead to more strife and hostility on both sides.
I know some of my posts here were harsh, but I held back as much as I could and made a significant effort to try to point out problems instead of making accusations. I'll mention again that in over 8 years here I never got as much as a cautionary warning or had any kind of conflict with any mod, past or present. The only reason I decided to speak up, knowing that it might affect my friendships here and attract some degree of hostility, is the attachment I formed for WP and many of its inhabitants over time and the hope that whether this will still be a welcoming place for me or not, it will still be here for those that need it much more than I do.
I do hope though that after things settle and people feel a bit less raw, some will go over parts of this thread and try to re-examine their own past behaviour and decisions, along with the consequences they had on others in a more detached light, for their own benefit. And while it's not my decision, it would be great IMO if some people would actually receive an apology: both because I'm old-fashion enough to think it's the right thing to do, but also because some of those who left were quietly making the moderators' job a lot easier by mediating conflicts themselves, having a stabilising influence in the PPR and the whole forum and putting a lot of effort and time into helping new members integrate or taking care of vulnerable people in the Haven. These people will be very difficult to replace and I hope at least an attempt to reach out to them will be made.
Because no matter how heated up this thread got at times, most of us really want to let bygones be bygones and find a way to move on/forward in a fashion that will prevent history from repeating itself.
_________________
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." Aldous Huxley
Pepe wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
Problem with naming names is people will still feel bullied or harassed when someone talks about them openly in a thread or something.
Have no worries. Fnord is used to it.Like it? Not so much. The only benefits are that I know people have read my posts and are thinking of me. What they may actually be thinking, however, is largely open to conjecture.
Fnord wrote:
Pepe wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
Problem with naming names is people will still feel bullied or harassed when someone talks about them openly in a thread or something.
Have no worries. Fnord is used to it.Like it? Not so much. The only benefits are that I know people have read my posts and are thinking of me. What they may actually be thinking, however, is largely open to conjecture.
It may be worth a little introspection.
Maybe have a look at they posts you have made where you know people had a problem, and see if there is one (or more) factors or traits that some or all of them have in common, to help you pinpoint the cause of the problems?
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Future for walle |
22 May 2025, 6:11 pm |
Making Friends |
10 May 2025, 6:26 pm |
Short Film Making |
12 Jun 2025, 5:20 pm |
Making up for lost time |
27 Jun 2025, 1:14 am |