Moderator rules and Guidelines..

I think there should be rules for the Moderators, over and above the fact they should abide by the regular website rules.

The fact that they have Moderator abilities which give them power over the regular website users means that there must be extra restrictions and guidelines to prevent any abuses in power and make sure everyone knows their rights and responsibilities.

There needs to be discussion of course about this, and I'd welcome imput from the Moderator team especially.

Some ideas I think should be included in the Moderator rules, in no order of importance...: )

1. Before a post is deleted the user should be warned they are crossing a line, and have the reasons why explained to them. This is hinted at in the Moderator Faq but is rarely put into practice. Unless of course they are so hurtfully offensive it is obvious they mean only to harm and abuse.

2. Deleting of a post should only occur if the whole post is offensive, racially for example, if not then a simple edit of the offending section with a warning. This takes into account the ease with which text based communication can be a poor indicator of intent sometimes.

3. If a member is banned or is given penalty points and they appeal, it should not be the Mod who gave them the points who evaluates their appeal, and this should be coded into the website if at all possible. The reasons for this are obvious but at the moment anyone can deny the appeal.

4. A list of offensive words should be drawn up so that website users know exactly what all the Mods find unacceptable in terms of language. At the moment it seems to be randomly up to individual Moderator discretion and that is not a fair and balanced system.

5. Moderators should not be dismissive of members who challenge their actions, nor should such discussion necessarily take place in a private. If a Moderator writes something in a public forum thread which a member finds to be unfair or offensive then the Moderator should expect to be challenged in public and be able to explain themselves without threat or aggression. After all this is what Moderators do with members in public threads so it should work both ways.

6. If a member feels that a Moderator has stepped out of line and has not been able to get a satisfactory response or explanation within the thread or PM then they should be able to pass on their concerns, along with a copy of the offending post to another Mod and there should be a rule that it will be reposted within the Moderator forum for discussion, with feedback and an explanation for the decision.

That should do to get us started. I don't want to turn this into a Mod flaming event with stories of he said she said....this is about creating fair and logical rules so that both website users and the Moderators know their rights and responsibilities, which should prevent any confusion on both sides...

In theory.

I agree with all of that Kevin, except maybe for number 4 as I dont think a full list could be drawn up, and people would have the right to use words not included in that list and technically be able to get away with it - there could never be a FULL list of unacceptable words drawn up... but I think everyone would know what they mean but "acceptable" and "unacceptable"... and if its a word that is in the grey area (like ass or something), then their penalty points could be appealed.

I dont think any mod should just cruise through the threads deleting as they see fit without any chance for rectification by the offender beforehand.

Blah blah

Ok Kevin... Your answers are posted under each question.

1. Before a post is deleted the user should be warned they are crossing a line, and have the reasons why explained to them. This is hinted at in the Moderator Faq but is rarely put into practice. Unless of course they are so hurtfully offensive it is obvious they mean only to harm and abuse.

^^This is normally the case; however, when it appears as an attack or as though it has crossed the line then we are forced to delete it
*******************************

2. Deleting of a post should only occur if the whole post is offensive, racially for example, if not then a simple edit of the offending section with a warning. This takes into account the ease with which text based communication can be a poor indicator of intent sometimes.

^^^As you know it is not possible at this time for us to edit out a portion of the post and give penalties. Until we have that option then we must either edit or penalize. Sadly, only Janis or Dianz can make that change.
*********************

3. If a member is banned or is given penalty points and they appeal, it should not be the Mod who gave them the points who evaluates their appeal, and this should be coded into the website if at all possible. The reasons for this are obvious but at the moment anyone can deny the appeal.

^^^^^We bring the appeals before every mod to be voted on as to whether or not we grant amnesty. No mod is to deny amnesty without a vote from all mods.
********************
4. A list of offensive words should be drawn up so that website users know exactly what all the Mods find unacceptable in terms of language. At the moment it seems to be randomly up to individual Moderator discretion and that is not a fair and balanced system.

^^^^^^^It is not logical for us to draw up a list of every word that is or is not allowed. Here is where you are expected to use common sense and show respect. We do the best we can; however, it is up to the moderator discression to judge whether or not the text is innapropriate.
****************

5. Moderators should not be dismissive of members who challenge their actions, nor should such discussion necessarily take place in a private. If a Moderator writes something in a public forum thread which a member finds to be unfair or offensive then the Moderator should expect to be challenged in public and be able to explain themselves without threat or aggression. After all this is what Moderators do with members in public threads so it should work both ways.

^^^Being asked our opion and to explain them is one thing. We welcome that; however, threatning or show disregaurd to a mod is not tolerated in any situation or from anyone.
********************
6. If a member feels that a Moderator has stepped out of line and has not been able to get a satisfactory response or explanation within the thread or PM then they should be able to pass on their concerns, along with a copy of the offending post to another Mod and there should be a rule that it will be reposted within the Moderator forum for discussion, with feedback and an explanation for the decision.

^^^^^^Mods have ways to access the violation and what was said. If you PM or email us and ask for a copy we will be happy to send it to you. We access this when we bring something before the other mods.
******************

The Mod Team

Hey Sherry,

ah so good of one of you to get involved, seeing as you are the stars of the show.

Let me comment on your comments, point by point. This is important to me so it's gonna be a long one, strap in.

1. The problem with not warning people, even if they cross a line from the Moderator point of view is that we all have different lines, and the opportunity to calm oneself down or write in a more level way should always be given, and then if not taken no one can complain. This is just common sense. if you don't do this and just delete posts because you percieve an attack has been made or someone has crossed the line, especially when that person is attempting to discuss sensitive issues then you have complaints of unfairness and Moderator overkill. This would not happen if you gave people a chance. For this reason you cannot say you are forced to delete a whole post, because there are always better options. Bottom line is that when you take away someones words without warning you do nothing but create anti Mod sentiment and inspire the person to write even more on the same subject. I say again, this would not happen if they had a chance to change their wording.

2. It's good you acknowledge the problem with not being able to partially edit a post and also give that post a penalty point. Might I suggest though that editing out the offending section of a post, in the first instance, coupled with a warning would be a far wiser response than to just delete a whole message and then, as if that wasn't enough, to give penalty points as well? That to me and many others seems a little over the top without a warning. You know which instance I'm referring too.

3. I have no issue with this, that sounds fair and balanced. I will say this though. I remember what it was like being a Mod, and particularly how supportive we all were of each others decisions. The unofficial motto of presenting a united front in the face of challenges sounds all grand and honourable. But what it can lead to is potential bias towards moderator ideas and decisions. You all know this happens, it happened on several occasions when I was a Mod and it's no surprise given the amount of troubles you all have to deal with. We all give favour to our friends and the groups we share roles with. The problem with this being the case with you Moderators is that I believe it effects your judgement in cases of dispute, or when someone challenges the status quo. 2 or 3 Mods swoop in and work together, sometimes rather forcefully to silence the dissenters. No one can deny this happens, perhaps it's the best way to keep the peace in a website so full of characters, perhaps not. But it's something that needs to be brought to everyones awarenss and regulated and kept in check.

4. I do not think a list of words is logical either, but the alternative, as it stands now is just plain unfair. You have all hinted that saying swear words not aimed at anyone is kinda ok, but kinda is a very loose term and if people are going to potentially have posts deleted or worse, because the misinterpret the "kinda ok" words and say something that one of you, and it takes only one to have a low threshold for profanity, takes as offensive enough to punish, then something needs to change.

As long as the rules are as vague and completely up to each Mod as they are now, you will always have problems.

5. If a Moderator is percieved to have stepped over the line by a website user in a public discussion thread then it should be perfectly acceptable for anyone to challenge them, in the exactly the same way as Moderator would. If this is not the case then you have a system which is biased in favour of Moderators saying and doing things which could be abusive and escaping explanation and justifying themselves publically. In other words, the system is set up to protect the Mods and make it very difficult to any website user to challenge their attitudes and manner of speaking. I am not talking about people commenting on decisions they have made privately, I am talking about Mods being held accountable for their words to other people on the public forums. For example, when a Mod says something like this in a thread discussing the rules of this website;

""Please quit complaining about the rules and their logic or lack thereof and if you don't like them, find another site."

Sending that Mod a private message is innapropriate, because they have made it a public matter by saying it to everyone. What other way then, except in context and publically should this kind of attitude be challenged? It is not standard Moderator practice to PM anyone who says something out of order, they warn them [sometimes] where it counts in the thread and in front of everyone and offer the person the chance to respond, say sorry or leave the thread. Why then should we do any different with a Mod, even if that warning sounds aggressive? Every time a Mod tells anyone to tone it down or have their post deleted, there is aggressive and force there, but we accept it because Mods are meant to do that, that is their role...but who Mods the Mods? Everyone makes mistakes, we all go over the line sometimes...I've never seen a Mod warn another Mod on the boards, where it counts...so sometimes the users must, it is that simple.

I know there is alot here, but I feel I've gone to great lengths to explain myself and this is really important stuff that many people feel strongly about, as i've recieved several messages from website users who are not confident enough to speak up about these things, but they agree there needs to be open discussion.

I'd like to see all the Mods comment individually, if at all possible.

Kevin.

ps, britt, no I didn't follow all these ideas, because, funnily enough, they didn't exist...which is kinda the point of this whole thread!

Actually, Kevin, Sherry's post represents all the mods available for comment (3), that is why she signed it "The Mods".

Britt, my final act before I resigned my Moderator role was to help Ann create the User and mod guide that you all see stickied at the top of each forum....I helped write that because even as a mod I could see the problems website users were having on a daily basis understanding the rules and also interacting with the Mods. I thought it would be enough, but I believe now more needs to be done.

Now that I'm no longer a Mod I have a new perspective on things, being on the other side of the fence so to speak but also having the intimate knowledge of how it feels to be a Mod, and additionally how the Mod team functions. Recently I disagreed with a Mods ideas and attitude and got myself some Penalty points. This experience made me painfully aware of the gaping holes in the rules of this website regarding how Mods function in their roles and also the relationship between them and the website users. You might say I am only doing all this because I am upset about those 2 points, well that would be rather insulting, especially given the efforts i went too before I quit being a Mod to increase the peace of this issue before this happened.

I can see you are fairly defensive of the Moderators, that is clear. Keep in mind I was one for a long time, so you don't have to back them up against me, I know their position in this situation better than you do my dear, having been in their place many times against people who unlike me, wanted only to hurt and destroy the fabric of this website.

As for people being wary of coming forward, I am at a loss as to why you can't see the reason for it. I'll spell it out though. I challenged a Mod, a bit directly perhaps, but certainly not in an intentionally spiteful way, and I got punished for it without warning. I'm not debating that decision here, but it serves as a scary example to anyone else who thinks along the same lines. Can you undestand now?

Ps, Ann, fair play about Sherry speaking for those 3 mods, but what do you think about my response above?....it's rather important stuff I think.

Sherry didn't speak for us, she may have posted for us, but we all agreed on what was said, and we are now currently working on a response to your response.

Wow, you are all working on a response.....that sounds kinda creepy don't you think?, no offence. I preferred the days of old Bobby boy calling it like he saw it, as a Mod but also as a person with his own opinions, it was honest and refreshing and you knew you were dealing with an individual who you could individually respond too. I did the same when i was a Mod and it perplexes me that you all seem to be discussing this important matter in private and then issuing statements.

It only furthers the gap between the mods and the website members, I think at least.....but any response is better than nothing.

I guess I hoped for more varied imput from you guys.

Ps, Britt, you are right, we are debating with maturity and tact. But if I told you to stop talking to me about my ideas and if you didn like them, to leave this thread and/or website.....would you be ok with that?

Kev, I completely agree with that last post (as with the majority of your others). Mods, you are not an individual, you are individuals...as are we individuals, and should not be judged as an individual. Please treat this discussion as such. It's degrading that you are avoiding any personal opinions. Surely you are not robots with the same exact ideas on everything. You cannot agree completely with each other, every one of you...that is ridiculous! Do you have the same minds? If so, maybe the Mod staff could use some changing.

How interesting, Britt.

I feel as though the "debate" at this time is getting no one anywhere.

Kevin, we will be posting the answers that you have requested. In the meantime I am asking that everyone please keep their cool and just patiently wait.

--Sher

Kevin, wasn't it you that got on Sherry's case for posting something without bringing it before us all when you were a mod?

Yes, we all have our own opinions. And if it was something in the Poetry forum or any of the others, asking what we thought about this poetic form or that new movie or whatnot, then that is a personal matter and should be answered individually.

But when it comes to the moderation of this website that Janis has entrusted to us, we feel it is necesssary to come to an agreement amongst ourselves first.

Ok, Kevin... here you go....

1. The problem with not warning people, even if they cross a line from the Moderator point of view is that we all have different lines, and the opportunity to calm oneself down or write in a more level way should always be given, and then if not taken no one can complain. This is just common sense. if you don't do this and just delete posts because you percieve an attack has been made or someone has crossed the line, especially when that person is attempting to discuss sensitive issues then you have complaints of unfairness and Moderator overkill. This would not happen if you gave people a chance. For this reason you cannot say you are forced to delete a whole post, because there are always better options. Bottom line is that when you take away someones words without warning you do nothing but create anti Mod sentiment and inspire the person to write even more on the same subject. I say again, this would not happen if they had a chance to change their wording.
^^^^
The first rule in the Forum rules and guidelines is: "The first and most important rule is to be respectful to all members. Being disrespectful to other members will not be tolerated." We even posted links to these rules and stickied them in EVERY forum. If a member didn't read it, then it is their own fault.

There is a very wide range of disrespectful that everyone, no matter how conservative or liberal they may be, can agree on as being worthy of penalty. In those cases, the mods need to be able to get rid of said post without having to wait for all mods to come online and vote on it.

2. It's good you acknowledge the problem with not being able to partially edit a post and also give that post a penalty point. Might I suggest though that editing out the offending section of a post, in the first instance, coupled with a warning would be a far wiser response than to just delete a whole message and then, as if that wasn't enough, to give penalty points as well? That to me and many others seems a little over the top without a warning. You know which instance I'm referring too.
^^^^
Again, depending on the severity of the offense, penalty points are absolutely necessary. If we just delete or edit out the offending part with no penalty they are getting away with it and think they can say anything and a mod will just edit it.

3. I have no issue with this, that sounds fair and balanced. I will say this though. I remember what it was like being a Mod, and particularly how supportive we all were of each others decisions. The unofficial motto of presenting a united front in the face of challenges sounds all grand and honourable. But what it can lead to is potential bias towards moderator ideas and decisions. You all know this happens, it happened on several occasions when I was a Mod and it's no surprise given the amount of troubles you all have to deal with. We all give favour to our friends and the groups we share roles with. The problem with this being the case with you Moderators is that I believe it effects your judgement in cases of dispute, or when someone challenges the status quo. 2 or 3 Mods swoop in and work together, sometimes rather forcefully to silence the dissenters. No one can deny this happens, perhaps it's the best way to keep the peace in a website so full of characters, perhaps not. But it's something that needs to be brought to everyones awarenss and regulated and kept in check.
^^^^
We, as mods, are here to uphold the rules and regulations. We do not make it a point to "swoop" in and attack anyone, nor do we make it a point to favorite another. There have been plenty of times where each of us have had to reprimand another member that we socialize online with.

4. I do not think a list of words is logical either, but the alternative, as it stands now is just plain unfair. You have all hinted that saying swear words not aimed at anyone is kinda ok, but kinda is a very loose term and if people are going to potentially have posts deleted or worse, because the misinterpret the "kinda ok" words and say something that one of you, and it takes only one to have a low threshold for profanity, takes as offensive enough to punish, then something needs to change.

As long as the rules are as vague and completely up to each Mod as they are now, you will always have problems.
^^^
If you don't think a list is logical, then why ask for one? We could go back to saying no swears at all no matter how they are used. But then we have the problem of words that are swears or offensive in one country and not another.

Can we all agree that ANYTHING (swear or not) said in a derrogatory manner and aimed at a member or group of people is considered disrespectful and is not acceptable? If so, then we will work on a list of what may or may not be acceptable and how best to present that.

5. If a Moderator is percieved to have stepped over the line by a website user in a public discussion thread then it should be perfectly acceptable for anyone to challenge them, in the exactly the same way as Moderator would. If this is not the case then you have a system which is biased in favour of Moderators saying and doing things which could be abusive and escaping explanation and justifying themselves publically. In other words, the system is set up to protect the Mods and make it very difficult to any website user to challenge their attitudes and manner of speaking. I am not talking about people commenting on decisions they have made privately, I am talking about Mods being held accountable for their words to other people on the public forums. For example, when a Mod says something like this in a thread discussing the rules of this website;

""Please quit complaining about the rules and their logic or lack thereof and if you don't like them, find another site."

Sending that Mod a private message is innapropriate, because they have made it a public matter by saying it to everyone. What other way then, except in context and publically should this kind of attitude be challenged? It is not standard Moderator practice to PM anyone who says something out of order, they warn them [sometimes] where it counts in the thread and in front of everyone and offer the person the chance to respond, say sorry or leave the thread. Why then should we do any different with a Mod, even if that warning sounds aggressive? Every time a Mod tells anyone to tone it down or have their post deleted, there is aggressive and force there, but we accept it because Mods are meant to do that, that is their role...but who Mods the Mods? Everyone makes mistakes, we all go over the line sometimes...I've never seen a Mod warn another Mod on the boards, where it counts...so sometimes the users must, it is that simple.

^^^^
Politely warning a mod is one thing; however, when something appears as a direct threat or attack it must be dealt with quickly and swiftly. There have been times where one mod warned another mod on the public forums. I remeber at one point Sherry was told not to worry about or try to keep the peace between two mods on the main forums.

The Mod Team

You won't like me saying this, but what I feared would happen with a group Moderator consensus response to my ideas, has happened.

I've been given the generic official line reply. You don't seem very interested at all in moving forward, all I see is you guys defending your positions whilst trying to cover my ideas and opinions in massively generalized conclusions that dont really address my points at all.

And you know Ann, I didn't want to bring this up, but since you mentioned the rule about not being disrespectful, what happens whan a Mod is viewed as being disrespectful? How does a member make sure they do not step over the line again, just like a Mod would with a Member? PM them away from the eye of the users who have been disrespected? That doesn't seem right somehow. How about tell them the admin team will be contacted in the future?

Kevin,

I feel as though we have went out of our way to answer your questions, both on the forum and in private.

I see at this point there appears to be no resolution and in my opinion this "well" so to say has run dry.

--Sher

Well Sherry, if you don't mind me saying, in my opinion the effort ratio in terms of ideas and reasoned argument in this debate does not sit in the favour of the Mods, but if you all feel you don't have anything more to offer in response to my ideas, then don't. I will be very dissapointed in you all, but I doubt you'll lose any sleep there.

Of course that means most likely nothing will happen in terms of improvement, which given the nature of my ideas, might suit you guys rather well., no offence.

I stand by everything I've said, and believe me when I say, this won't go away, and that's not a threat, it's a fact. These issues will come up again and again, and if I hear about them I'll offer the same ideas again and again as long as they are suitable...I've got them all saved like a good boyscout.

Ps, nightmare, you don't seem to be in even half possession of the facts here, yet you are rather mouthy for someone so ill informed. I'd suggest you do a bit backreading and then come back with a point of view, how does that sound to you?

I'm not offended cowboy, just offering some sage advice, direct and upfront. Take it or leave it.

But really, this thread is rather important to me, so I'd prefer you knew what you were talking about before you got involved, not too much to ask is it?

There is more going on here than you perhaps know about, so, without biting anything, least of all the precious heads of the Mods, I'll say once more, by way of friendly advice....do a wee bit research before you wade into a heavy debate like this.

I appreciate you looking out for the mods, but really it's not needed, and they would tell you the same I'll wager.

But at the same time, Kevin, -all- opinions are appreciated. It would be beneficial probably for him to do some more backreading, but can't spite the fellow for offering his current outlook. That's one of the things that we've been talking about, at least.

I, too would have liked to see more direct responses from different mods, in place of these PRed ones. I hope they feel secure enough to answer clearly and honestly. The point here isn't "winning an argument," it's gathering some honest opinions from all members, and figuring out what to make of them.

For some reason, I kinda doubt penalty points were the cause of this initiation, but hey...real funny. Let's all laugh and then maybe cry...either from laughing so hard or because someone got sucker punched and all hell has broken...

Loose as a goose. Oh, I'm just getting in the way. Carry on my wayward sun.

I think the main problem with this site is inequality. If everyone got penalized for specific reasons and completely understood those reasons, everything would be dandelion. No favoring, nahm-sayin'? You can be harsh, you can be lenient, you can be anything...but make sure that you stick to whatever you decide to be (talking to you, Mods). Example: If someone breaks a rule, penalize them...no matter who breaks the rule. No bending rules, unless you know exactly to what extent you are willing to allow rules to be bent in relation to all members--which should also be a rule. Blah, I don't know what I'm talking about. The point is...sometimes Mods are strict and on everyone's butts, sometimes Mods are giddy and easy-going, letting everyone get away with more. That causes problems. No one ever seems perfectly clear as to what is allowed and what is not...or maybe that's just me, and I'm one confused DOB.

Bob, good to have you back, though I think you have not read through all the post before you responded to me otherwise you would be better informed of a few things you made mistakes on in your post. Believe it or not I do value that fact you call it like you see it...in fact trace back a few posts and you'll see I actually asked for the mods to do this. Here's the first thing you would know if you had actually read this threads posts before jumping in gun ho.

I have already explained to Britt that this whole debate is not a revenge trip because I recieved penalty points, sure it's galvanized by them, but have you forgotten how passionate and wary I was as a Mod of banning people and stepping over the line? I hope not Bob. Or how my last act as a Mod was to try and clear up the confusion that many people felt about the interpretation of some of the website rules. Maybe you have forgotten this as well. Point is, this issue, of Mods and their rights and users and their rights with Mods, has always been very important to me and I think you are being unfair saying otherwise, demeaning my whole arguement actually by trying to make it seem petty.

Again you try and make it seem like the club I belong to is some kind of Pro Kevin cult who I am using to further my aims in this thread. I mean you don't offer any proof of this, but then why bother Bobby when saying it without evidence is just sooo much easier. Sure many of the people in my club agree with me, but then the only people who don't are Mods mostly, and who else has really entered into this debate with any intelligence. You will notice that everyone from my club who has joined in has done so with well thought out opinions all their own, and they usually state they don't wholly agree with me but believe in the ideal I am aiming for, which is open discussion of the Moderator role, something you think is a waste of time because you guys police yourselves right?

yeah Bob I remember how that works and it's not a fair system in my book. As you so rightly said I have the best idea of all the members how things work with you guys, which is kinda the point.

I remember as a Mod the heavy resistance I came up against almost every time I wanted to discuss new ideas and rules and policies, from all of you...sometimes I had to drag the Mods into debate about how to deal with problems etc.....I see no difference now, you guys don't want to discuss anything new, all you are interested in, as your post clearly illustrates, is sullying my ideas and pouring scorn on myself and anyone who agrees with me.

Not one of you has really tried to discuss this without being uber defensive of your position, and how can we move forward with that kind of resistance?

I do not want this nor I am encouraging it, though of course I must be slightly critical of the rules if I want to show how they can be improved.

This whole thing is sort of fickle to me. every response from a moderator has been clearly what I thought Kevin was kidding about. trying to sweep over his ideas. You storm in without even trying to humour the situation as though suggesting things is being rebellious. He is merely giving ideas like anybody who suggests we turn this into a new facebook etc, but with a longer list and a mod background, and now he's apparently Satan. Sure, you can ignore the ones where Janis is in need, but when he clearly states that nobody is welcome to any new ideas such as fairness, it is out the door. all he wants is that if a moderator is challenged and they come out with an offensive line, we should be able to challenge them in the public eye instead of being brushed into the corner in the back and having to PM them, in which probably getting a half hearted response that doesn't really even seem like it's relevant to the situation. Why does it take you 2 days to write out a response that is so unsatisfactory and pointless? You might as well have said "We do not care, simple as that, leave it alone." You're trying to politely and quickly shove this thread out and then wipe your hands of the remainders of dust. Consider Kevin as anybody challenging his opinion in a thread. Surely you don't think that a harmless list of helpful, maybe not necessary to you, but helpful ideas, is some attack because he got a penalty point? And just because he is actually questioning some of the moderators authority, means you all come in and laugh at him?

that's really low.

I'm not pinpointing all of the moderators as useless or jokes themselves, I'm just saying if you based it off this current thread, the whole thing is pretty unjustified. anyway I don't really care for a huge response to this, was just getting my piece in.

Lol No Bob, actually that was I who wrote that segment.

Bob, why are you doing your best to turn this into an argument? You keep suggesting hidden agenda's and my secret "group" plotting and scheming, which is offensive in of itself to everyone who happens to agree with me, and we all know about rules number 1 of this site right?

I want to focus on the matters at hand, you want to spread gossip and rumour, I want to keep open discussion going on...you want us to shut up and let Janis decide. Same old story.

Don't respond if all you are going to do is sully my friends and I. There is no conspiracy and for you to keep on saying there is without any proof is insulting. It's just that the Mods are being challenged to look at themselves and none of you like it.

Can we get back to topic please.

As I said earlier, The well has run dry.

In my views, this thread has ran it's course; however, I figured I would just let everyone have their say so that hopefully we can move on put this behind us.

--Sher

^But that's never been a good reason to stop trying, has it? "Oh, bad things will happen in the world, anyway, what's the point?"

"This isn't an argument, because I refuse to argue with someone who discounts everyone else's suggestions, opinions and thoughts except those he deems intelligent enough to carry his shoes., if you're offended by my allegations then I'm sorry, but if you haven't discussed this very thing in your group at length then call me a liar, you can't....."

We have discussed to some length within the group, but it's not exactly what you'd call a team activity. Most of the people commenting here ARE from our club, but why is that? It's not because this is a fun team-building activity. Rather, the club itself was formed by people who, in a large part, happen to share certain similar "idealistic" sentiments. Despite this general similarity, however, there are people with different opinions within our group, and most members choose to embrace those contrasting opinions. We're not looking for homogeneity in our Club. So... to me it seems like we're all offering our opinions as individuals, rather than as an organized front.

For my part, I know I've had several long discussions with Kevin, where we've taken opposite sides. Despite the differences in our opinions, we've always been able to debate effectively and, I think, with good outcomes. I always learn a ton from him, and from the discussion in general. It's amazing what you can come up with when you stop playing to win, and just talk to try to get somewhere better.

If there has been this many outbursts and complaints already, it seems foolish to say that there is no problem that must be talked about. If the power of this site is not being used shakily, then we must at least try and figure out -why- so many members would feel thus.

I think we'd all profit from at least trying to talk without lowering ourselves to feignts and parries.

Bob. You have asked several times why I didn't bring up these ideas [and they are idea's, not complaints...go and read my original post...I posted ideas and asked for feedback...i did not attack anyone] back when I was a Mod.

Well let me answer with a question. Do you have all your ideas at once, say at the start of the year and then think of nothing new for 365 days? Or, like most people do thing occur to you depending on your situation and experiences? I fall into the latter group...I posted these ideas as soon as they occured to me, inspired by my situation and experiences. No conspiracy...no forward planning or discussion with anyone in my club...I just made a thread...it's that simple, seriously.

I understand why you Mods want to stop talking about this and just wait for Janis or Dainz to fly in and decide...but I haven't sent it to them because I wanted some good quality debate and opinions from all of you first....unfortunately what has happened is that this has turned into tit for tat he said she said marathon, which only dilutes the potential resolutions we might come to.

I don't want it to be us Vs you guys, it doesn't have to be that way. The Ideas I put forward weren't insults to the Mods, they were my thoughts on how we could improve this website and make everyones role more clearly set and defined....nothing more.

The backlash has been incredible...but it only seeks to make me more resolved that in the face of such resistance, something needs to be done even more.

Only Sherry has actually made any reasonable comments from the Moderator team on my ideas and I took great lengths to respond to her explaining what I thought.

This won't go away until something is resolved, and right now there aren't enough people trying to move it forward, certainly not on the Mod team....I get the impression

This is a Poetry site. People come here to read and write Poetry. I understand this is a discussion board where members can talk about a variety if issues and topics. This particular section is for ideas on how to improve the website. However, for a member who has read this entire thing (wish I hadn't now) I find this behavior to be nothing more than a whine and complain about things, temper tantrum if you will, about let's see how long we babble on, until we get our candy. I have read that if changes are made, then it's up to the site Administrators to make the changes. Members want to debate with Moderators, wow, how exciting. So, while they are in here being asked to defend themselves and how they do things, all on their own free time, there is some kid posting a thread through out the discussion board saying,

I vomited in class today and the kids made fun of me so I am going to borrow my classmates ruler and smack myself in the head because it feels better than dealing with the issue at hand. Get my point? Probably not, but as a member, I get to post my thoughts as well. Not interested in debating my views, so it's time for me to say, take care, and give it a rest people.

Thanks for the input, Awnya. It's good to get a clear voice in here, it puts things into perspective.

BrittMod: There have been repeated referrences to "this well has dried up," "this debate is pointless," it's only being dealt with "on the whims of the mods." Basically, statements that I interpreted as shurgging it off. Perhaps I'm wrong, though?

to all:

Maybe we -are- just a bunch of whiny kids, looking for a fight. I tend to not think so, but that would be a convenient way to paint us, if you didn't feel like dealing with us seriously.

to attempt to wipe the plate clean:

Members should be allowed to state their opinions and challenges, so long as it is not in a vulgar manner, without the fear of censorship or retribution.

Agree? Disagree?

"Only Sherry has actually made any reasonable comments from the Moderator team on my ideas and I took great lengths to respond to her explaining what I thought."

^^Actually Kevin, what you are talking about is false, The Moderators discussed your list, and we all had feedback within the answers that she posted, now I know you nor any other Member can tell we did that for she posted it, but really what do you want us (the mods) to do? Go and post the reply 5 times over? Think about it for a minute, why do you think it said "The Mods" at the bottom of the post? You think we put that for individual responses as well?

You are right Joe, that was out of line. I do have a problem accepting peoples opinions of anything I say if I feel they haven't really listened to me or have some kind of agenda which is influencing their response, but regardless, Ann also did go through my idea's and post her responses to them, and I should be grateful for her efforts.

A friend of mine is very fond of saying, usually about the Government, police etc;

"Who watches the watchmen Kevin?"

Bob and Sherry have both said that the Mods police themselves and they have ways of keeping themselves in check. Well I was a Mod and I know that is true in 95% of cases. However, every body of authority that has power over people needs to have an external monitoring system as a safeguard...it's just a given in our modern society, you see it everywhere from care homes to police stations. We have the mods to keep us in check but they have no one to keep them in check, Janis and Dainz don't count as they don't have enough of a regular presence here and so cannot be relied upon for this kind of role. It's not enough that the Mods say they keep each other in check, because even with the best of intentions, people are bias towards their comrades and team mates, they stick together as a group. This is a good and bad thing.

SO I suggested some rules which would act as a kind of safeguard and they weren't very well recieved, to put it mildly.

Another alternative I have thought of [just now, without any pre-planning or meetings] was that one or two members of sound mind and good judgement could be given the role of, well kind of like a Union rep. They would have access to the Moderator boards but have no Mod powers. This would mean a presence, a voice for the website users on the Moderator boards...a checking system basically to keep everyone on their toes. Of course they would have to swear to keep everything they see private or lose their account, but there are several trustworthy people on this site, people like Sibyllene and and Abby for example.

For the record, I suggest this not as an attack, but as an idea.....though who knows how it will be taken.

"I believe that what was being meant by the well being "dried" up is that what they came up with in their joint response is all they truly had to say about it, and from then, there is nothing else they could say or do. That was my interpretation of it, anyhow..

Member should and are allowed to state their opinions etc...But I think at this point, people have stated what they want, the other mods stated what they do/can do/will do/wont do/what have you, and from there on, it seems like little battles are spewing off from what has been said."

I think that may be right. : ) I'd like to clear away the little battles.

Well, I know mods can't physically change things about the site, but I hope this has at least raised some awareness, and gotten people on all sides to better consider their own thoughts. I think that would be a worthy cause, mm?

No only the rep would have access to the Mod boards, and the mods would keep the rep in check I'd wager.

Right now no one is keeping the Mods in check except the mods, which is a clear cut problem. I say this, before anyone jumps down my throat, not because I believe Mods are immoral fiends constantly abusing the system, far from it...I was a Mod remember and I know the good they do on a daily basis.

The fact still remains that at the moment there is nothing and no one, except their own group to keep them in check in those occasional instances when they need to be cautioned, and that is a problem. You must all see this surely?

Being a Mod is like being in a wee family of people who share a strong role and are united very often by the pressures of that role...i felt this sometimes when i was a Mod...the sense of achievement and teamwork...this unity brings with it bonds that mean you are more likely to favour your fellow Mods over someone not involved in that close group...an outsider who is complaining about one of your team. it's natural, I get that and understand it..totally and it happens all the time and did happen when i was a Mod.

Which is why there needs to be something in place to stop it becoming a problem. This is the crux of my argument and the reason I posted those ideas...and the more recent one.

I am trying really hard to be reasonable here....

Ah so you are the jigsaw piece then Illumi....

When you have something mature to say that isn't a feeble attempt to ruin this thread, come back and talk to me. Right now you are being very disrespectful, which isn't good tennis and is in fact against the rules.

I am not a hypocrite as I've already answered why i didn't post this as a Mod twice in this very thread...do some reading and then if you must insult me in a more informed way.

Maybe the mods will give you penalty points for being rude to me!

"and Jane if you want to see some changes on this site let start with our own selves, then try to create unity not disarray please"

Yours words....be nice if you could follow them.

Illumi, I'm surprised to see you respond to a calm, reasonable post with name-calling... I thought that's what we were trying to get away from, here?

"'I don't want it to be us Vs you guys, it doesn't have to be that way'

Is this a threat? Give yourself a shake man...lol"

I read that not as a threat, but as the opposite- an admission of humility of sorts. Maybe he literally doesn't want it to have to be so dichotic, mm?

Kevin, your idea is interesting... let's see if I understand it. You think it would be good to have someone who could post with the mods on their own turf, giving the input of an outsider, without having the penalty-giving, locking powers of a mod? That could be interesting. Sort of a bridge between the two. They wouldn't really have to be "checked" in a way other than as a normal member, would they? Since they wouldn't have any extra powers? Hmm.

On a technical level, though, there might be a problem. I don't know if there's any way to let people into the moderator boards without them actually being a mod. The gods would have to get involved, to grant the layperson entry into the elysian mysteries.

World war 3.......

"When you have something mature to say that isn't a feeble attempt to ruin this thread, come back and talk to me."

^^Whatever happened to playing fair? Letting every member have "their say" per-say?

Second of all, "...attempt to ruin this thread, come back and talk to me." This quote makes it seem like this thread is for you and you only. Is that the case Kevin? If so I think you are the one that needs some re-thinking, not the members. I mean honestly I thought this was about having everyone put in their fair share, it's not your place to say to someone come back and talk to me once you have something intellectual to say, well Kevin as far as I am concerned, everyone has something to say weather intellectual or not it is all feedback which can be used in one way or another.

Italian stallion, I think you know where I stand on everyone having their right to speak, if you don't then think back to when I was a Mod. No one debated more for freedom of speech than me, and I still do...can you hear my own trumpet in the distance!.....ha

However, Illuminati's post, which has recently been edited by Sherry Lynn, was offensive and designed not to further the debate or offer any insight or ideas...but only to insult me and cause friction, which he knew it would. When someone posts like that, they should be told to rethink they way they are posting or not bother getting involved.

This thread is too important to have name calling and points that have no evidence or backup, wouldn't you agree?

I kinda want to push the reset button on this thread you know, just have the original ideas and none of the nonsense arguments, which I know I've contributed too. It seems the focus of the ideas has been polluted by all the tit for tat....and now we have everyone explaining their words and their past actions and their moral compasses and all sorts of other mince....and we're not really talking all that much about the issue which should be at the focus of this debate.

Achte well, I'll just have to repost it again and ask the Mods to keep all the hee haws out.

"There have been several new ideas implemented this year- how were they achieved? How is the feedback handled exactly? Do mods pick the most important ones and inform the admin (as your words would carry more weight than a contact by a regular member)?"

^^^Ok, yes new ideas have been implemented this year. How were they achieved? mostly by us (the Mods) going back and forth with Janis and Dainz about new ideas we as Mods had for the site as well as the members, protesting, we even stopped doing our Mod duites for a while to show them (Janis and Dainz) what would happen if we weren't here.

"Has the admin ever advised Mods to watch their behaviour?"

^^^Yes actually they have before, although not frequently they have in the past.

"Can ANYTHING be done about improving the admin quality- vote for another Dainz or somebody? I don't understand why a mod can't be granted admin power. Is it money-related, or legally binding, or what?"

^^^There is plenty that can be done to improve the Admin quality, for example like you said "vote for another Dainz or somebody" We have mentioned that on several accounts to Janis and Dainz, But it just seems they won't do it. It is not Money-related or legally binding, etc. I for one believe it is because in order to give a Mod or another member that status they have access to the whole site, and can code, delete anything, change code, all user info, etc.