Since the mods are unwilling

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt46537.html

contains a discussion about wandering off topic,
and seeing as a thread in this section was closed
for that reason alone, I figured some here might
want to comment.

I can’t believe this puerile nonsense; I don’t want to be associated with any group that has internecine strife at this level or live with the worry that it may be ongoing and/or could resurface in future.

Does anybody know how I can completely resign an account? I looked at my account page but don’t see anything that helps.

If you want to resign, you just stop coming.

If you want to improve matters, stick around and do so.

Gwenevyn
Thx for the response, but your suggestions are not a solution.

“…you just stop coming.” is not consubstantial to resignation.
1) It is simply not actively participating.
2) It does not reduce the membership count by 1.
3) I cannot truthfully say I have no association with WP.

“….stick around and do so.”
I’m sure you can appreciate that as a lifelong aspie I have no interest in being in an environment where there is an ongoing silent undertow of strife; and I certainly have no interest in possibly becoming an unwitting victim of it; or seeing others so abused for reasons I cannot fathom.

Given the history of this site,
strife might be the only way to
keep the admin staff from going
wrong. There have been a large
number of mass purgings in the
past, and we may just have found
a solution to that problem.

Frankly, I can't see what a bit of
complaining over in another section
of the site, nor the responses of the
staff to that has to do with enjoying the
rest of the place.

As to deleting your account, sorry.
'Fraid 'tis time that you learned that
sometimes actions ill-advised cannot
be trivially remedied.

Why not a petition to have certain mods brought under reign, or demodded.

So far, these methods have worked.
Their constant intransigence at being
called on overmoderating doesn't really
bother me - as far as I'm concerned,
'tis a means of keeping the issue alive,
so I rather support it.

While it's sad that they actually believe
that the site should be more heavily
moderated than their instructions stated,
the fact is that all of those willing to take
an active hand in moderating, but unwilling
to exceed their instructions have been driven
off, one way or another.

Figured it out!

Ave atque vale

Gosh, the whole REASON this thread was started
where it was was simply to allow those who
were disturbed by the original lock, but unlikely
to wander down here a chance to see what happened
and complain.

The presumption is that they are trying to hide this issue
from the rank and file membership, by moving it.

No need for paranoia. Personally I thought that creating this thread was overkill. People who are interested in issues of site upkeep visit the WrongPlanet.net discussion section of the forums. No need to advertise any such issues elsewhere. It would certainly be frowned upon to advertise a PPR debate in the Random forum.

There's NO paranoia involved.
The mods didn't take the suggestion
that a link should be added to the
thread which originated the problem.

Many members are silent about such issues,
when faced with an abuse of power. Especially
when they are unaware that anyone else is
taking the risk to challenge it. And this section,
at the bottom of the page, doesn't get visited
anywhere near as much as the rest of the site.

Mind you, this is the SAME staff (minus
one) which had no problem with lots of
old issues, no longer on topic, being dredged
up from the Adult section - well, until they
were overruled. The same staff which seems
convinced that the OP has some control over
their thread. All very hypocritical, if you ask me.

To call the act in question an "abuse of power" presumes to know the intent behind the action. You saw how the manner in which this issue was approached appeared too close to drama for the comfort of one poster. Part of me does wish that more people would speak up, because I am curious how the average user regards this issue, and where he or she would place it on the spectrum of importance. But as in all issues, those who are upset generally are quicker to join in than those who are content. It would certainly contribute to this discussion being more of a spectacle than a useful conversation, to have a large number of posters involved.

I can't claim to know why this thread was moved. But I do disagree that this particular issue is one of such magnitude as to warrant advertising it (even if it were a huge issue, I would still be inclined to find such advertising to be in poor taste). The "wandering" thread was hot and the "view posts since last visit" option would have been enough to draw any interested poster toward it.

Fair enough. An accusation of an abuse of power then.
All the same, neither adding the link from the locked
thread, nor leaving this one where originally posted
just implies an attempt to hide the issue. Consider
another such accusation of an abuse of power to
have been made.



Honestly, I have no idea what that poster's complaint
was about. If about making the original complaint, well
moderators' actions DO need to be monitored. However,
the responses by the staff here might have been the main
cause for complaint. That people in a position of power
should resort to name calling and outright insults is pathetic,
to say the least.



Ah, like the average voter, I'm sure that most
members don't really care. But, I'd expect that those
involved in the thread which was silenced might have
wanted to see the complaint and comment on it.



And those who are fearful are the LEAST likely to
say anything. Sometimes, one person's noting a
problem can cause others to join their voices in
the chorus.



Perhaps, but that's no reason to silence their input.



Now, here, your parenthetical seems to
be entirely contradicting what you are otherwise
saying.



For those who use that feature. I never have.
I suspect that many members stay in the sections
that they feel most comfortable in. I'd rather presume
that the spammy games threads would drown ANYTHING
else out anyhow.

In all fairness, it was not in the right section. That many users do not at least look in this area from time to time is a bit of an issue, but not one that can be addressed so easily as trying to spread it elsewhere. That was partially how all of this started, the constant changing of threads in the love and dating section to threads more appropriate to PP&R.

(That is one of the areas that I try to avoid.)

And it is important that such complaints be taken seriously, and not simply brushed off as criticism from those that aren't "able to hold them accountable."

I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that Alex wants this site to flourish. As such, keeping the membership happy is of importance. If there are instances where it goes the other direction, it should be possible to discuss it openly. The moderators are accountable to Alex, yes, but ultimately it is in their best interests to avoid conflict with members. Not saying that is an easy task, but it isn't one that should be taken lightly.


And problems should be noted, and discussed freely and openly, but not made into a spectacle.


Lumping all of these many issues, the faults of multiple people, into one singular place of discussion can make it quite difficult to address any of them with any real success.


How something is done is just as important as that it is done at all. I'm not claiming to be an expert on such things, nor am I claiming that I've never been at fault in such things.

Indeed. Though moving threads without the owner's
permission (which would have killed the original conversation,
as some probably don't visit PPR any longer, it having gotten
far too pedantic) would again be a change in site policy. I still
contend that the BEST means of handling the issue would have
been for MrMark to add a link from the original thread. I gave him
several hours before I started this one, to direct people. Since I've
not seen GoatOnFire post in this section often, I believe that it drew
at least ONE person involved in the original discussion.



To be fair, those faults only
came out through the development
of the thread. Indeed, had the moderator
responses been of a different nature, their
arrogance would not have been noted. Moreover,
had they not essentially asked for elaboration,
and forced me to provide examples, prior issues
would have remained unmentioned as well.


WHAT does this have to do with what you
quoted?

Of course your statement is correct, but it seems
a complete non-sequitar.

I don't see that it's hidden, simply by confining it to the appropriately labeled forum.



I assumed it was regarding the level to which both sides stooped. That's something that has consistently been a worrisome issue for me. I think we owe it to the site to maintain a higher standard of conduct. Pot-shots, personal attacks, and name-calling are clearly inappropriate. I don't think "he started it first" is an acceptable excuse.



Oh, sure. I'm not fully convinced that many of those who typically join the fray are interested in anything more constructive than merely revelling in (or rolling their eyes at) the sight of conflict and others' failings. It's like passersby gawking at the site of a bloody accident.



Nothing was silenced. Everything is available in the appropriate section, for those who take an interest in such matters.



I see the potential for a lot of misuse of the liberty, if such cross-posting is allowed. I think my intent there was to convey that I know some would disagree with me and my opinion isn't rigid.



I'm unconvinced that people who fail to inform and familiarize themselves with the various sections of the site would be likely to contribute meaningfully to the issue at hand.