IranPlanet.net?

Post Reply New Topic

Disputes should be managed through PMs, a dispute subsection would be akin to the "Callouts" section on Intensity Squared... all I see this doing is making a public spectacle out of something that is ultimately meaningless (internet disputes...) and will lead to people prolonging their problems as the publicity surrounding a dispute thread means that neither person will want to back down out of fear of appearing in the wrong to the observers of said thread. In addition to uninvolved parties becoming entangled in things that are not their business whatsoever.

That's not what it looked like in the porn star reading thread, that looked more like you chiding members for things you were reading into their posts or warning them to participate in a certain way while also attempting to participate in the discussion. Intentional or not, that kind of behavior creates a chilling effect on members when a moderator enters a conversation, as especially to aspies it can appear that the disagreement with the moderator's opinion triggered rebuke and censure rather than a rule violation.

did i warn anyone in that thread for disagreeing with me? sounds like you were seeing things that were not there.

EDIT: also, to add - alex selected me knowing full well that i get involved in debates on the forum. i made it clear that was not going to change when i became a moderator. and many people do disagree with me quite strenuously, apparently without fear of reprisal.

I would have a real problem with this, we already see to many people trying to use the moderators to settle personal scores as it is, this sort of rule would be far too open to abuse. You can see a bit of it going on in PPR when various posters have tried to bar other people from participating in "their" threads when what they really don't want is a dissenting opinion.

Did I say that was what you were doing? What I said was that you were participating in a thread both as a moderator and a member, and that it can be confusing and distressing to members who have a hard time distinguishing the two roles. It's especially confusing when you're specifically editing the posts of members whom you're simultaneously arguing with, it may be perfectly justified and innocent, but it can be easily misconstrued. Hence my suggestion.



Be that as it may, it would still behoove you to separate your moderating role from your membership activities, as even the appearance of conflict will make your job harder, along with that of the other moderators.

yes, you did say that (bolded):



yes, you were involved in a similar discussion about moderators being involved in debates back in 2009.

next time i can definitely get another moderator to change a posted video to a link if i am involved in an applicable debate. he received neither a warning nor a rebuke nor any censure for posting it, so i think you are being a bit harsh. in a particular case where a thread needed locking, and another case where a member in a debate thread needed a warning, another moderator stepped in as it would be a conflict of interest.

it's worth noting that the member clearly had no trouble disagreeing with me even though i am a moderator (and even though i changed his posted video to a link), so your point that me moderating in a thread would have a negative effect does not really seem to be the case in that example.


if the above example is really the only perceived conflict of interest that you can find, then i'm doing a damn fine job here (and the other moderators who debate as well).

Did you not tell Asp-Z, Auntblabby and/or Tequila to keep their posts on-topic and critique them for what you saw as implied insults in their posts? That's all I said, and since you quoted exactly what I wrote then we can safely deduce that any further readings into it was your own doing.



Checking up on me now? I hear the mod log on me makes for interesting reading, not that I'd know.



Well, I'm glad to see you've come around to my way of seeing these things; perhaps all the new blood posting in PPR has convinced you that there aren't hoards of scared posters intimidated into silence. Or did you mean that in some other way?



Did you think I went looking? I've written off some pretty cringe inducing missteps I've observed as new-moderator teething over the last few months, but I certainly haven't gone searching for them. I just saw the originating thread in the News section and followed it here.

auntblabby didn't get an official warning for his insult. i did not invoke any rules or make an official rebuke of any kind.

Asp-Z and Tequila were not debating the subject at hand but derailed the thread. they were not rebuked or warned in any way for their posts that were related to the topic, and the debate itself was fine. i suggested instead that they start another thread as that was the third such derailed thread, and hence where we are right now.

i do think next time i would most likely have another moderator take action like changing the posted video to a link or asking debaters to stay on-topic. not because i think it causes actual confusion, but because i don't want anyone to think my words or actions are related to the debate underway. i'm sure some people would find problems with that too, but at least the boundaries would be clearer and more easily defined.


doing you a favour, actually. i am compiling the background to let you know why you were banned. you have complained multiple times that you were never informed, so i will clear that up for you.


i have no idea what you're talking about here. ?


now i know that this is not the first time you have complained about an identical issue, that puts it into perspective for me.

Ahh, well in that case I'll be very interested to see what you turn up. Despite much improved relations with the mod teams since, I've yet to get a straight answer to that question. I believe it was before your time here, but my understanding was that the WL posts go back to the site's founding. It started over a dispute with a former mod who went by ed, but quickly spiraled into a larger debate over what some of the squishier terms in the ToS actually mean. DW probably knows, but she's never shared it with me over the years. My suspicion has always been that it was essentially done for convenience's sake as I'd been raising a stink for some time before it happened.



I'm referring to our past interactions regarding the PPR forum, where you've held the position that the environment there discourages timid posters from ever contributing in the first place. Your new position, that some posters still interact with you despite your moderator actions in the same thread proves that no speech was stifled, would seem closer to mine regarding the PPR atmosphere.

i don't think we are talking about PPR here. you were talking about members being afraid to disagree with moderators, and i think that has been disproven by the number of posters who disagree with me (or any other moderator) regardless of any badge.

You don't think there are others out there who might disagree with you but are intimidated into silence? Any way to prove it either way?

yes - look at people's responses to me before and after i became a mod in the debate threads. ver little difference, except that members are slightly more likely to swear at me, personally insult me, take public offense to my posts, or disagree openly with me now. it's interesting, almost like people are less inhibited as opposed to more inhibited.

sent you a PM with the details of why you were banned. did not post it publicly as it contains references to multiple locked and removed threads.

I think it should be in the Member's Discussion. Plus I hope the spammers are on a separate list. We already have a thread for that.

I´ll be contacting alex in a few hours about something else and I´ll make sure to bring up the suggestions that have been provided at this thread and a link to this thread so that he can become a part of this discussion if he wishes.

Well you did ask. I think you'll find that hyper was looking into your story for you so she could find out why you were banned, for your information.

You missed one very important point. Then again, I wasn't clear enough either.



In the first case, one user would invite the other, or more than one.

By redirect I actually meant that moderators would invite disputing users there to settle their differences.

I agree that PM's are a good way to do it, if users choose to do so, but sometimes if there's a dispute between two people and one reaches out via PM, the other won't even open the message, because they're afraid it's just another flame.

If it's out in the open, it's there for everyone to see. The advantage to that is that when users DO work things out, others can actually see it happening, and maybe even learn something from it.

The whole point of the idea was for participation in the forum to always be totally voluntary.



I don't agree that this kind of thing is meaningless at all. It may be the internet, but we are all human beings here. We're talking about disputes among people. If it is meaningless, then isn't this thread right here kind of pointless?



I totally agree that will happen. It already happens on every forum here now from time to time. I do not believe this will always be the case though. People CAN work out their problems, and having a place to see that happening, amongst users who are there totally voluntarily, could be beneficial.



Perhaps, yes, but having others look on can also cause people to want even more to work things out. Would that be the norm? I've no idea. We haven't tried it yet.



This is a very good point, and I had considered it. It would though, as I said, have to be a very closely monitored forum.