Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Moderators Are People Too. (and they have opinions)

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrmonsoon I will admit to all-I have a serious issue with authority-not just ATS-authority in general-my personal demon
You hit the nail on the head, and is the root of many problems. You (and other members) see our staff as "authority figures" when in fact they are unpaid volunteers attempting to maintain order on the largest conspiracy-theme discussion board on the Internet. They are moderators because they were once highly-valued contributing members with strong opinions and a desire to see ATS grow. You have been a problem for us with your anti-authority attitude. You (and members like you) have a knee-jerk reaction to anything that smells a little bit like "the man" coming down. This is not the place for disorder or anarchy... if you engage in it, we will "come down" on you even in chat. We are not "authority", and to many of us, classification as such is distasteful and perhaps even a borderline insult. Remember, all staff are VOLUNTEER former members who are attempting to keep the Internet's largest conspiracy discussion board running smoothly. Not "authority".




posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid The very essence of moderating is to help steer the debate fairly.
That is the description of a debate "moderator" who keeps such a thing moving smoothly. Throughout the long evolution of digital communities from BBS's in the early 1980's, "moderators" in this context are not tasked as you describe. In the context of digital communities, "moderators" are more akin to police, watching the riff-raff to keep crime rates low. When such people are off-duty, they still go to bars, watch TV, have opinions, get into arguments, and even fart occasionally.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord When such people are off-duty, they still go to bars, watch TV, have opinions, get into arguments, and even fart occasionally.






J/K!!

Sanc'.
edit:quote context

[edit on 30-10-2004 by sanctum]

[edit on 30-10-2004 by sanctum]



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 10:32 AM
link   
I have no problem with mods sharing their views and wading into the debate. I, myself have mixed it up with more than a few and that's cool. Even when we disagree. However, mods should be above the tit-for-tat mentality that I've seen in a FEW of them. It doesn't do ATS any good when that behavior is on display. I've seen one in particular kill a thread b/c they simply couldn't abide the subject and author. This is just my opinion. And, as I said before, most of the mods are very helpful and professional. I appreciate that.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 10:34 AM
link   
SO/mods-no insult was intended at all.

A point was brought up-which I perceived as "some" mods being "very passionate" yet not being understanding of other members being so also.

I am man enough to admit one of my issues-authority in general.

I gave a personal example of how a mod wanted to be treated like any other member but when push came to shove, he went to hide behind his "modship"-posts or chat.

Most of the mods on this board are very reasonable people and act as such.

I guess my point was if "regular" members are held to a certain code of conduct-so should "mod" members, even more so because they are supposed to set the example that we follow-so I think( please correct me if that is wrong).

If we as "regular" members should calmly listen to issues brought up to us, the same should be true of "mod" members (imo).

I do have one question-I fully respect someone not wanting to been seen as an "authority" figure-I really do-but how else would you describe these hard working volunteers of the board-seriously-what term would you use to describe those who keep relative calm and control to this board?

Thank you for the opportunity to present my views and opinions in a calm unthreatening, non-insulting manner.


* edited to deal with issue of "authority" figure and to apologize to those who were or might be insulted by this term-as it was not intended to be an insult at all.

* reedited to show thoughts were my interpertation as to whatI think is or should be happening-not statements of fact as to what does/must happen.

[edit on 10/30/2004 by mrmonsoon]

[edit on 10/30/2004 by mrmonsoon]



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Of course they are also members but they are members with the power to silence me. I have seen people get banned that were quality posters simply because they got into a disagreement or challenged moderator's power/status.

I WANT the mods to participate in discussion.
I WANT them to be passionate.
I WANT them to be human.
I DON'T want them to succumb to Political Correctness.

and

I DON'T want them to act hypocritically and break the T&C and get away with it despite being a repeat offender.

I'm speaking as someone who has recently been on the receiving end of a certain SuperMod's attack on my intelligence and my contributions to ATS. I was blindsided by this member who, by his own admission, does not know me. I have seen this person attack other members repeatedly in the same manner yet nothing happens.

That same supermod was attacked in a thread last night by another member. While it may seem unprovoked when the thread is looked at in isolation, that SuperMod is simply reaping what he sows around the board IMHO.

We all reap what we sow in the same way.

If Bill Gates started going off the deep end and endangered the future of Microsoft the Board of Directors would remove him.

Nobody should be isolated from the effects of their behaviour.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 10:44 AM
link   
If mod's didn't have opinions they wouldn't be human and they wouldn't be mod's

Mod's need to share their opinions more



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Aaah, I feel the love... I want to hug me some mod!


Being a mod on a smaller board (barely 500 posters, including about 100 regulars), I know that even on a board of that scale you're confronted with fights, having to warn people, being accused of favoritism, of being power-drunk, getting requests to review threads and referee them, etc., etc. This is why, given the sheer size of ATS, I can't imagine the workload the mods have, especially - in those election days - those in the Politics and scandals and War on terrorism forums. They do good on that level, IMO.

The only thing... I understand passion, feeling strongly about a topic, even growing impatient or stressed with a poster... however, I do wish that mods would not resort to name-calling.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   
See, that's the thing. If being a moderator actually means something, moderators should be above reproach in their interactions with members. They should not wade into mud-pit behavior. They should never use their power to silence one who disagrees - provided said member hasn't been offensive or broken rules.

In keeping with our status as a leading site, our moderators should set the standard for fairness. If they can't hang with that, strip them of their status.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Remember, all staff are VOLUNTEER former members who are attempting to keep the Internet's largest conspiracy discussion board running smoothly. Not "authority".


I disagree with this entirely SO, your point in starting this thread is that the Moderators are still members, not former members (a completely different "class" of "members"). First and foremost we are all members of this discussion board, some, through distinguished participation have been entrusted with the responsibility of "policing" (not the most appetizing term but sometimes accurate) the contributions (and associated drama) that is the norm on ATS. I think a Moderator who eschews the responsibility of being a member first, cannot possibly contribute as a Moderator... After all, that's what got them there in the first place? If I were to critique some of the moderation I've seen here at ATS it's the lack of participation, followed by the eleventh hour appearance as a thread degrades into insults and flames (my personal theory as to the origin of the Mods=Bad threads, and complaints). Perception (particularly by newer members) is a heavy handed, draconian (and government controlled
), site moderation/administration, a perception that wanes with time, but is renewed with the constant onslaught of new members. Isn't success grand?



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 11:08 AM
link   
There's a difference in being opinionated, and being abusive.

Opinionated moderators are np as long as they don't use their powers to threaten others simply because they don't agree with their position. I'll use FredT as an example; me and him have gotten into it in a few threads, but he's never used him powers as a moderator to try and persuade me (or dissuade me) into anything. He's made some smart@ss comments to me (like I'm sure I have to him), but I always take that as him being an opinionated moderator since he's never tried to assert his 'cyber authority' over me or anything. Again, that's np.

To see the difference between being opinionated and being abusive, check:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can't tell me that's simply an 'opinionated' moderator. I didn't resort to personal attacks, you can see from my first msg that it's all in the debate, I'm not personally trying to take a snipe at his character. He comes back with daring me to call him a liar again, and sends me a U2U saying I'm "cowardly" for calling him a "liar" on a msg board and not in real life. Later he goes on to tell me to "shut up."

I asked you in a U2U, but you referred me to this thread so I'll ask it here as well.

Do you condone that type of behavior from mods? Do you see that as simply being opinionated and not abusing their power? From all I can tell I wasn't warned anyway (didn't see a drop in pts that the FAQ said was supposed to have happened), so it was just threats.

I've had some regular members as well as mods U2U me and say they don't agree with what he did, but I wanted an administrator or someone higher-up to comment, but you simply referred me to this thread, so I'll ask for an answer here then, thanks.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 11:09 AM
link   
the mods are people???

i thought they were aliens...

damn, what a shock!!!





posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON There's a difference in being opinionated, and being abusive.
You called a long-time Super Moderator a liar. He simply responded in-kind through the debate involved in the thread. His response upset you... but your accusation brought it on. If you engage any member with such a comment (mod or not) you should be prepared for a response.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 11:20 AM
link   
No, I said I was not going to buy into the lies (about Bush being strong on terror when we have failed to capture many of the top names in terror since 9/11). That's the truth.

If you are saying that what he did is fair game, you are saying you condone that type of behavior so I can respond right back with personal attacks without being warned, correct?

EDIT: Also, sending me a threatening U2U that has absolutely nothing with what we were discussing in that thread is not responding in-kind "thru the debate involved in the thread."

[edit on 30-10-2004 by W_HAMILTON]



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
If you engage any member with such a comment (mod or not) you should be prepared for a response.


And I will call out a lie when I see it, and have done as much. I've never been warned for it -- or threatened to be warned for it. Since this is a discussion forum, if I call them out for lying, they usually choose (or try to) defend themselves or prove that they were not lying. Not resort to abusing their moderator powers because they can't prove me wrong.

So again, you're saying I can make RL threats to that mod right back and tell him to shut up freely without having any action taken against me, since he had none taken against him, correct?


LL1

posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I believe the mods contributions here are not only intelligent,
but intellectually simulating, they leave you thinking. Along with
the other members to me it makes the board interesting.

IMO they (mods) are a select intelligent group that are diverse in
numerous areas, from computer skills to knowledge, that make the
board an intellectual community.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I would love to believe that Mods are people but with out any proof then I will tend to believe your just making this "people" thing up! For all I know your just a computer program designed to give the illusion of intellegence and opinions.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
No, I said I was not going to buy into the lies (about Bush being strong on terror when we have failed to capture many of the top names in terror since 9/11). That's the truth.


Interesting that you would link to page three of the thread, not page two, where it all began...


Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
Go lie to your fellow Bush supporters and think Bush is doing a good job, I'm not stupid. Just because you say something is true doesn't make it so.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

This amounts to nothing more than the recent airing of grievances. All of which could be handled with u2u messages, not the off topic drama that seems to be the latest ala mode.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
The very essence of moderating is to help steer the debate fairly.

Being a moderator oughtta mean something. As it is now, it really doesn't.


I agree, good moderators and facilitators steer debate fairly. At the same time, the myth of the 'objective observer' is just that - a myth. I'd rather see passion and bias out front than hidden behind manipulative spin. Maybe more important, everyone needs to grow into responsibility. Few people enter positions fully equipped for the job. Part of learning and growing is allowing other people to learn and grow too, and being patient with flaws and mistakes. I say, down with stasis. Let evolution proceed.

So I absolutely agree with SO/ATS's position - moderator's are human, and they have a right to their opinions. GO GUYS! ...and thanks for being here.

I'm a newbie - still don't have a real sense of who's who, what's what or how things really work here. Haven't seen much flaming from moderators but I'll take your word it happens. Been censored tho.

What I suspect is that news moderating for daytime North America is dominated by the right, while night news here is ruled by more liberal thinkers. ...and each camp tries to bump the last shift's headlines. Might be wrong. ...So I'm watching and learning.






posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I think the message im seeing here is that the members want the moderators to join in but at the same time do not want to see the mods cross the line by using there given powers to there own advantage.

I dont like to hear what happened to mrmonsoon where he had ago back at a mod and then the mod tried to ban him. mr monsoon did the right thing and went for a second opinion from another mod and then was told not to joke with that mod again. That in my opinion is a mod crossing the line. Hey mod you get back as good as you give if not better thats ats.

There are some great mods at ats Kinglizard, dbates, Kano, Byrd, asala, Gazrock, RANT, The Bandit and a few more. I hope none of those were mr monsoons trouble [actually i couldnt believe it of any of them]. I have noticed the recent additions to mod-dom and they have been apologetic for there mistakes, but i feel like others here, being a mod must carry a certain amount of responsibility. Fine, be passionate, flame away, criticise and be as sceptical as you like, but do not abuse your powers.

Just my 2 bob for what its worth.






top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join