The who should be Mod and Mod Issues Thread

[Teddy B 17,251]

And that along with Cereal Gate will prevent her from ever being a mod. Think Ted K and Chappaquiddick.

That makes her Admin material.

[GandD 5,966]

I likes Harpa. Where she be anyway?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You should report them.

Oh I have.

So last week I posted an article about an Israeli conscientious objector who was thinking of burning their passport because she didn't agree with what Israel are doing in Gaza. There was no editorialising of the article, it was posted verbatim, and no editorialising in the subject title. It was deemed to be a bait thread and locked.

A different poster on the same day started the thread about Sweden being the world's rape capital because muslims have moved there and "how long until the US is like this". I reported it as a bait thread but no action was taken.

So what do you think a bait thread is? The powers that be don't seem interested in clarifying it, what do you think?

[Teddy B 17,251]

Oh I have.

So last week I posted an article about an Israeli conscientious objector who was thinking of burning their passport because she didn't agree with what Israel are doing in Gaza. There was no editorialising of the article, it was posted verbatim, and no editorialising in the subject title. It was deemed to be a bait thread and locked.

A different poster on the same day started the thread about Sweden being the world's rape capital because muslims have moved there and "how long until the US is like this". I reported it as a bait thread but no action was taken.

So what do you think a bait thread is? The powers that be don't seem interested in clarifying it, what do you think?

I saw both of those threads and was in disbelief as well as to what actions were taken on your thread while the other was allowed to stay.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Teddy B

[GandD 5,966]

Oh I have.

So last week I posted an article about an Israeli conscientious objector who was thinking of burning their passport because she didn't agree with what Israel are doing in Gaza. There was no editorialising of the article, it was posted verbatim, and no editorialising in the subject title. It was deemed to be a bait thread and locked.

A different poster on the same day started the thread about Sweden being the world's rape capital because muslims have moved there and "how long until the US is like this". I reported it as a bait thread but no action was taken.

So what do you think a bait thread is? The powers that be don't seem interested in clarifying it, what do you think?

Almost every thread is a bait thread. Some are just less "bait" than others. Its always someone posting something so they can be like, "SEE!!!"

If people are going to attack the poster or others and that gets reported, the mod should warn them and delete their post. If it continues, then thread ban them. If they do it in multiple threads, suspend them. I think the biggest and most justified complaint here is suspension without what the complainer would consider "due process" If they are warned, thread banned, then suspended (effectively three steps) and they still want to complain, they can probably get over it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think we need to go the other way and have the mods stay out of the day to day stuff in CEHST unless it's really called for. It used to be better when stuff was left up, rather than deleted as if it never happened. Some people have posted some atrocious things and removing them doesn't really serve any purpose except to hide the fact that they wrote something offensive.

I can't see who's best interest that whole thread moving thing was in. Since it's just ended up p!ssing a lot of people off unnecessarily and (ruining their enjoyment of the service). Totally unnecessary.

Very few other sites have this level of moderation. It wouldn't be so bad if the mods were actually 'moderating' the discussions to keep things on track. Popping in to randomly delete posts for TOS violations while leaving others untouched isn't moderation, it's vandalism.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Hail Ming!

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Quite simply, none of the male mods here appear to have the ability to use common sense in any of their decisions and they are most inconsistent with the decisions they make. I have seen both Kathryn and Krikit admit they had made a mistake at one time or another and then work to fix those mistakes. The men just attempt to dazzle you with bs and go about their way. Except for Ryan, he just disappears and doesn't answer for any of his decisions.

+2 on that. He never responds to PMs about his decisions, and his decisions are often not as rational as Kathryn's nor Krikit's. He would be the next one I would let go, were I in charge of the site. He certainly earns his pay.

Charles! does a good job, IMHO, I have never gotten in trouble from him that it wasn't warranted. He also didn't ban me, he just let me know I was out of line, and I stopped. Simple. Not overbearing at all.

I know being a mod can be challenging, and it takes away from personal time. Considering what they get paid, most of them do a great job.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Several more unprovoked personal attacks made in the miami flooding thread, yet Tbone has seen fit (again) to just remove them. Where is the consistency?

[Peikko 1,575]

Several more unprovoked personal attacks made in the miami flooding thread, yet Tbone has seen fit (again) to just remove them. Where is the consistency?

The excuse Charles used to give was that mods have more to do with their time than sift through the website looking for wrongdoing and will simply react to specific reports. I would have thought that once a thread was highlighted as being one that was 'contentious' above the ordinary ####### for tat bickering that goes on, a mod would be required to monitor that thread but, I think it's quite clear that that does not happen. Only reported posts will be assessed for 'insulting language'. The tone of the thread? Who starts the flaming? Really doesn't matter, if it's not reported, it will go unquestioned.

Oh goody, the 'websensor' thinks that ####### for tat is sexually explicit. Epic!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think the punishments are inconsistent. I got suspended for writing "I bet it took a lot of wit and intelligence to come up with that".

Other posters wrote several direct personal attacks and so far, despite several mod warnings, those posts were just deleted with no further action.

Something is clearly rotten in Denmark

Edited July 19, 2014 by Hail Ming!

[JohnR! 5,495]

I likes Harpa. Where she be anyway?

I have seen her in the upper forums. Perhaps she's been to busy to get down here... I likes her too, and as most here, I believe she would make a great mod.

[JohnR! 5,495]

I think the punishments are inconsistent. I got suspended for writing "I bet it took a lot of wit and intelligence to come up with that".

Other posters wrote several direct personal attacks and so far, despite several mod warnings, those posts were just deleted with no further action.

Something is clearly rotten in Denmark

You got suspended for speaking the truth and striking a nerve or two along the way...

[Peikko 1,575]

I think the punishments are inconsistent. I got suspended for writing "I bet it took a lot of wit and intelligence to come up with that".

Other posters wrote several direct personal attacks and so far, despite several mod warnings, those posts were just deleted with no further action.

Something is clearly rotten in Denmark

With the moderating policy of increasing penalties you get suspended for minor infractions if you have been suspended previously. Such suspensions are within the moderators remit even if such actions make little to no sense unless applied specifically to posters who simply will not heed any form or request to stop. Thread warnings should always be issued in OT before anyone is banned from a thread and a suspension should only be imposed if the poster ignores the thread ban otherwise the moderation is just personal prejudice. I do not believe that the prejudice has one specific ideological leaning however, as some people seem to (that's just more nuttiness from the people who have been herded into the pens of right is right and left is crazy and unAmerican), it's just personal, who moderators like and who they do not. The only exception is of course AJ, they are all happy to suspend him for persistently failing to be impressed by VJ moderation, however they will never actually ban him, because although they don't like him criticising the moderation and will give him time outs for doing so, they like his contributions that are not directed towards them, as do we all

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Unfortunately that degree of latitude actually encourages personal prejudices.

Especially as the poster who made the personal attack against me, which was deleted, then came back again afterwards and said the exact same thing again. As I say, something is clearly very off with the decision making.

And I still haven't had any response on why my Israeli passport thread was baiting but the thread about Sweden being ruined by Muslim rapists was not.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Hail Ming!

[Pooky 3,761]

With the moderating policy of increasing penalties you get suspended for minor infractions if you have been suspended previously. Such suspensions are within the moderators remit even if such actions make little to no sense unless applied specifically to posters who simply will not heed any form or request to stop. Thread warnings should always be issued in OT before anyone is banned from a thread and a suspension should only be imposed if the poster ignores the thread ban otherwise the moderation is just personal prejudice. I do not believe that the prejudice has one specific ideological leaning however, as some people seem to (that's just more nuttiness from the people who have been herded into the pens of right is right and left is crazy and unAmerican), it's just personal, who moderators like and who they do not. The only exception is of course AJ, they are all happy to suspend him for persistently failing to be impressed by VJ moderation, however they will never actually ban him, because although they don't like him criticising the moderation and will give him time outs for doing so, they like his contributions that are not directed towards them, as do we all

Maybe they should just change the forum name from VJ to AJ?