OT Rules of pissy behaviour...

[Captain Ewok 1,900]

"Simply another example" of a moderator doing a "bad job" implies a trend.

I see a trend as well. That is that you are complaining about them a lot. Frankly I do appreciate that you do not like them. I told Charles NOT to interact with you. I am leaving that to other mods and me. You not only do not like Charles but find it best to chastise him at every opportunity. You are the #1 anti-Charles person (and that is ok) but a trend would imply many many members are messaging me. If this was the case I would be very concerned that something is amiss. Maybe you are right and everyone else simply is not alerting me. I just do not see it the same way as you. You may post all day what you feel. I will read it. It is my pleasure to address your concerns but I do not simply make decisions because I am being bullied -- sorry.

That was after I posted the incident publicly

Actually not true, I have talked to many moderators including Charles when I thought a member made a valid point. Yours included. You honestly have no way to know when I have or have not. If you do know this then you are able to read the digital 101010's that you should not be. I am being a little sarcastic (and I probably should not be) but seriously mox, you are making very large assumptions and stating them as facts when they are not.

I expect your ticket system to function like a ticket system, and that when my ticket is closed that I'm at least told that it was handled.

Your tickets would never be closed if I had to keep back-and-forthing because there is a very likely chance my decision would not be something you agreed with. This is not a "fix my problem" ticket system in all cases. In those cases I do reply back when a fix was made. Your reports are "look at this example of how Charles is bad". I may take a look and talk to the moderator if needed, but it is not likely that I will reply back to you every time. I will close the ticket as resolved (you get an email) once I take note of your concern and any actions I take behind the scenes.

I tried to reply to that PM, and got a message back that the Mod has me blocked

In the case of charles and you specifically, I will go on record. You two do not get along. There is a conflict of interest for him to mod you and simply I have asked that he avoid you. I would ask the same of you engaging him. If you have a TOS concern please consult any other moderator or myself.

he even had a member suspended

If you think a TOS enforcement mistake was applied incorrectly let me know. Charles btw can not suspend people. If that was done incorrectly it was another mod or myself. Regardless any appeals (read the TOS) should be made to me directly.

...I will not cycle this for hours on end. We do not agree. That is each of our rights but I am trying to express my thoughts and I DO care what you think even though I may not agree with you on this topic.

Hmmmm, this is going to be a nightmare for the mods to try to enforce in OT.

Yeah, revisions or ideas welcome. This is not final (not even close)!

[Captain Ewok 1,900]

On a serious moderation note, lets get this back on topic to the Off Topic forum. I do not want to drag this OT (ironic).

[mox 298]

I see a trend as well. That is that you are complaining about them a lot. Frankly I do appreciate that you do not like them. I told Charles NOT to interact with you. I am leaving that to other mods and me. You not only do not like Charles but find it best to chastise him at every opportunity. You are the #1 anti-Charles person (and that is ok) but a trend would imply many many members are messaging me. If this was the case I would be very concerned that something is amiss. Maybe you are right and everyone else simply is not alerting me. I just do not see it the same way as you. You may post all day what you feel. I will read it. It is my pleasure to address your concerns but I do not simply make decisions because I am being bullied -- sorry.

LOL...I'm in no position to bully you Ewok. It's unfortunate though that you've decided this is nothing more than a personality conflict. I've cited specific examples, and I've even quoted the TOS section that was relevant. I've been very careful to separate my dislike from the person from my concerns about the moderator.

I'd like to also point out that I may be the number one or only "reporter" when Charles breaks the TOS, but you might want to go back and re-read the thread where you announced him as a new mod. There was plenty of opposition. Maybe they've just thrown up their hands and walked away.

Actually not true, I have talked to many moderators including Charles when I thought a member made a valid point. Yours included. You honestly have no way to know when I have or have not. If you do know this then you are able to read the digital 101010's that you should not be. I am being a little sarcastic (and I probably should not be) but seriously mox, you are making very large assumptions and stating them as facts when they are not.

We can't see black holes, but we can indirectly observe it by how it interacts with its neighbors. So you're right, I don't know what's said or done behind closed doors. But I can observe the results by seeing that he continues to have disdain for the membership, and he continues to react to even the most minor criticism with snide and sarcasm. And while snideness and sarcasm may not technically be a TOS violation, it reflects poorly on you and what we're trying to accomplish here on VJ.

Your tickets would never be closed if I had to keep back-and-forthing because there is a very likely chance my decision would not be something you agreed with. This is not a "fix my problem" ticket system in all cases. In those cases I do reply back when a fix was made. Your reports are "look at this example of how Charles is bad". I may take a look and talk to the moderator if needed, but it is not likely that I will reply back to you every time. I will close the ticket as resolved (you get an email) once I take note of your concern and any actions I take behind the scenes.

That's not true. You and I had a (I thought constructive) back-and-forth with the first ticket, but it went on--what?--3 replies each? Another time, you decided I was wrong, and I didn't even answer. I never tried to drag incidents out, and I never tried to torpedo your system.

In the case of charles and you specifically, I will go on record. You two do not get along. There is a conflict of interest for him to mod you and simply I have asked that he avoid you. I would ask the same of you engaging him. If you have a TOS concern please consult any other moderator or myself.

Then why did he pm me? And why, when I couldn't reply to his PM and I did the right thing, did you blow me off for 2 weeks and then close the ticket with no comment? This is the first I've heard about this, don't you think this would have been relevant?

If you think a TOS enforcement mistake was applied incorrectly let me know.

As I said, I did. I followed exactly the procedure you asked me to follow. You sat on the ticket for 2 weeks and closed it.

Charles btw can not suspend people. If that was done incorrectly it was another mod or myself. Regardless and appeals (read the TOS) should be made to me directly.

No, he got William33 to help out in that little hit job.

And I did contact you directly via the ticket system. The ticket was closed with no comment.

...I will not cycle this for hours on end. We do not agree. That is each of our rights but I am trying to express my thoughts and I DO care what you think even though I may not agree with you on this topic.

Fine. How about we agree then that you can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts. Because I don't care if you and I disagree on opinion, but I care very much that you keep disagreeing with the facts.

On a serious moderation note, lets get this back on topic to the Off Topic forum. I do not want to drag this OT (ironic).

Certainly.

My opinion is that enforcing two TOS's is a nightmare. But if you're going to have a separate TOS for OT, it needs to be more comprehensive than what's been presented. I agree with Jenn, for starters. More later as I cool down.

Edited January 31, 2010 by mox

[Captain Ewok 1,900]

Fair enough mox. Lets both take a chill pill for now and enjoy some of our weekends . We each voiced our sides. Back to "On" Topic!

[Ban Hammer 13,445]

regarding the pm block, i'd forgotten that i'd placed mox on that over a year ago to prevent any issues from arising over pm exchanges. it's now removed. my apologies for that being in place.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

In one particular case (which I reported), he even had a member suspended because he didn't like what she said to his wife. IN OFF-TOPIC. And what was this terrible horrible thing that Charles' wife was subjected to? Turns out Nessa had said she doesn't give a flying #### about the Haiti earth quake, and the member who is now suspended took her to task as being insensitive. Now sh*t like this happens ALL THE TIME in off-topic, but it was Charles' wife, and that just will not do.

I didn't read anything after that initial post by Nessa. I agree with the characterization that it was a heartless and insensitive thing to say but am skeptical that the poster who said that was banned for merely saying that. That just doesn't sound like William or Charles. It must have escalated beyond that, no?

[StillThePrettiest 3]

I didn't read anything after that initial post by Nessa. I agree with the characterization that it was a heartless and insensitive thing to say but am skeptical that the poster who said that was banned for merely saying that. That just doesn't sound like William or Charles. It must have escalated beyond that, no?

"you'd like to think that, wouldn't you?"

[English Muffin 59]

I didn't read anything after that initial post by Nessa. I agree with the characterization that it was a heartless and insensitive thing to say but am skeptical that the poster who said that was banned for merely saying that. That just doesn't sound like William or Charles. It must have escalated beyond that, no?

erm, NO!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

No? Interesting. I will go back and read the thread again... now you all have my curiosity piqued

Edited January 31, 2010 by w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

sounds like mods are allowing personal feelings to get in the way of sensible moderation decisions.

[English Muffin 59]

Maybe only one mod??

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

sounds like mods are allowing personal feelings to get in the way of sensible moderation decisions.

I will say this - it is a well known fact that Charles and William (and their spouses) are friends IRL. I don't believe any impropriety has occurred - but for purposes of appearance, it may be a good idea for William to let the other mods address issues like this.

Maybe only one mod??

Bad moderating is not limited to just one mod.

[English Muffin 59]

Bad moderating is not limited to just one mod.

But I've only seen one mod allow personal relationships and feelings influence how they moderate.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

But I've only seen one mod allow personal relationships and feelings influence how they moderate.

I hardly ever see you in OT so perhaps that's why? Or hey, maybe we just perceive things differently.. it's been known to happen

[English Muffin 59]

I hardly ever see you in OT so perhaps that's why? Or hey, maybe we just perceive things differently.. it's been known to happen

I don't post in OT but I often venture in there if I move a post from another forum. And I agree that we may perceive things differently - I'm neither a friend or an enemy of this person so I like to think that I can look at their posts objectively - and I honestly believe that they allow their personal feelings to dictate how they moderate.

Anyway, it's late here on the east coast and time for my bed.