Moderators

Currently reading:
Moderators

poggy

It was broken, honest
Joined
Sep 24, 2003
Messages
3,156
Points
502
Location
United Kingdom.
This was posted by Steve in "Who moderates the moderators" and I have just read it.

"The end. Ultimately it's Ben's site. If he's unhappy with the way we run it he'll let us know. You seem to have mistaken this for a democracy"

What sort of answer is this and then locking the thread, it doesn't reflect well on the site in my opinion and is not welcoming to others.

What's the story Steve.
 
Last edited:
the question i would like answering is why was luke banned?

im not having a go, just seems quite heavy handed recently.
 
ian stilo 1.6 said:
would you question your managing directors?
the moderators are not exactly strict are the

Difference you would work for your managing directors,therefore they are the boss.

Moderators are the same as us users of the forum therefore liable to be questioned.

Steve
 
ben said:
I see no questions here?

I don't really know what sparked the original question, but to put an answer such as Steve did does not reflect well on the site or make it welcoming to others, so I asked what the story was behind the response by Steve.
Obviously somebody had broken the rules of the forum and somebody was asking what the reason was for them to be banned.

But to reply with "You seem to have mistaken this for a democracy", is a bit like saying you have no right to ask a question and comes across as arrogant.
 
The person who started the thread has been contacted about it and an explanation given of the question they asked IN PRIVATE. If you have a problem with the way it has been dealt with, please feel free to use the 'report post' button. It isn't welcoming for others to come onto a forum where certain members are pretending to be other members and making lewd and rude comments.
 
Well yes, it was kinda blunt.... :D

As for why someone is banned, generally there is no need to let this be publically known (just as if someone at your work was fired, your manager usually wouldn't tell you why) - suffice to say, a lot of thought and discussion goes into banning someone.

Posts must be reported, then a pm/email will be sent to the user. If they fail to adhere to the warnings, then ultimately they are shooting themselves in the foot.

And no you can't say what the hell you like as it is the leisure lounge, posts that stir up trouble or attack other members are not wanted here. If your attitude on the forums stinks, we would really rather not have you here....

Play nice and all is good.....
 
Helz said:
The person who started the thread has been contacted about it and an explanation given of the question they asked IN PRIVATE. If you have a problem with the way it has been dealt with, please feel free to use the 'report post' button. It isn't welcoming for others to come onto a forum where certain members are pretending to be other members and making lewd and rude comments.

Surely that is the biggest problem everything being decided in Private?

Steve
 
Helz said:
The person who started the thread has been contacted about it and an explanation given of the question they asked IN PRIVATE. If you have a problem with the way it has been dealt with, please feel free to use the 'report post' button. It isn't welcoming for others to come onto a forum where certain members are pretending to be other members and making lewd and rude comments.

I have no problem with this at all and I fully agree that poor behaviour should not be tolerated, but I found the comment by Steve is not a good representation of how the forum is really moderated.

All I am saying is that "You seem to have mistaken this for a democracy", makes it seem like things are done by the moderators when they feel like it and nobody can question them. I know this is not the case, which is why I don't think it reflects well on the forum.

Perhaps an explanation of how the moderators work would have been more appropriate and been a true reflection on how fairly the forum is really run. If I was a new member and I saw this, it would put me off to be honest
 
Last edited:
I have no problem with people being banned, I am comfortable under most circumstances that people are being banned for a real reason... like that kn0b the other week who was saying stuff about jumping traffic lights being good and then making comment about Koa's kids... not cool very ban worthy.

My problem is the "I am God" attitude that was exhibited by Steve. I have full confidence in Ben, he has proven to be a fair person, not seen any (to quote pantera) vulgar displays of power... and it is his site... Comments like "this isn't a democracy" by moderators, in my opinion makes me think that certain mods might abuse the power they've been granted.

and of course that leads to, if i say something they don't agree with, am i gonna get banned... here lets take on the roll of a battered house-husband and just agreee with everything said :)
 
ian stilo 1.6 said:
would you question your managing directors?
the moderators are not exactly strict are the


I do this every day, and as a result of this challenging mentality they see fit to put me in a senior position within the company. The last thing the CEO needs is a bunch of yes men.

My reply is isolated to the above statement. It has no reflection on the responses by or about the moderators.
 
Steve1219, I have yet to see a forum where the moderating team discuss goings on in public. However, a banning is a serious thing, no-one takes it lightly and it is not up to any one member of the team to do so. In order for it to happen, all warnings and PMs must be reviewed and a significant majority of the team must decide it is the right course of action.
 
Helz said:
Steve1219, I have yet to see a forum where the moderating team discuss goings on in public. However, a banning is a serious thing, no-one takes it lightly and it is not up to any one member of the team to do so. In order for it to happen, all warnings and PMs must be reviewed and a significant majority of the team must decide it is the right course of action.

That would have been a good answer to the question raised originally :)

By the way I wasn't trying to start a fight, I just wanted an explanation.
 
Last edited:
Helz said:
Steve1219, I have yet to see a forum where the moderating team discuss goings on in public. However, a banning is a serious thing, no-one takes it lightly and it is not up to any one member of the team to do so. In order for it to happen, all warnings and PMs must be reviewed and a significant majority of the team must decide it is the right course of action.

This is what I mean by everything being done in private, it is only by someone questioning the proceedure that it is becoming public that no one mod can make a decision on his/her own, and that decisions are made on a majority vote.

Steve
 
poggy said:
That would have been a good answer to the question raised originally :)

Helz, you are a diplomat, that would have definately been the first thing that should have been said. There should have been no "the word is the word" style response...
 
Back
Top