Usually the two go hand in hand. The members most reported about get the most attention.
I am one of the most sexually harassed people here
- Thread starter Varda
- Start date
- Status
Usually the two go hand in hand. The members most reported about get the most attention.
Well if you don't care, how can you complain about the moderators not doing anything to stop it?
If you did care, contacted the mods and they didn't do anything, that would be a situation.
ahem.....im sorry my friend, i disagree. about 80 percent of "moderation" here is completely arbitrary and selective... reports or not.
I GOT WARNED FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT
I'm asking for less moderation, not more moderation
Hit the report button. :shrug:
Not really. If I get a report or a PM I'll take a look at a thread to see what the problem is, usually I might let it go, but if its becoming an issue, I'll delete stuff and close threads.
Most members have more stricter notions of moderation than moderators themselves.
Last edited:
I GOT WARNED FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT
I'm asking for less moderation, not more moderation
Right. I agree with you. Should have read the whole thread.
The mods deleted that thread The Devil Inside started the other day, no warnings, they didn't even lock it. Seriously, wth?
Mods?
I GOT WARNED FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT
I'm asking for less moderation, not more moderation
But now that you've complained, everyone who harasses you will be moderated.
Really? How come? Does what a member say really have such impact on moderators?
Of course.
For example, I'm reading a thread in Biology, I'm familiar with most members' styles so I usually moderate based on what I know of them. Then I come across for example, a troll post or a flame that I know will throw the thread off track. I delete the post. Now if there is a complaint of bias (why did you leave that thread with "fuck" etc) I don't want to be bothered having the same fight ad nauseum, I go back and delete all posts which resemble the troll post. Or I close the thread. I could of course, say redarmy is not spud is not nick is not TDI is not varda is not shorty. But I'm only going to do it once or twice.
i got pm's from a mod at that time, but we were discussing the "iron man movie".
that tells you that each mod does his/her job according to whim, and not any sort of rules.... if one mod had no problem with the thread, why would another?
ill tell you why:
bias based on personal likes or dislikes.
the thread in question went on for like 6 or 7 pages before i went to bed. i doubt it went much further after i left, so where is the noble "mod on a white horse checking complaints"? if there were no complaints, why was it deleted?
the word of the day: whim.
Mods don't usually moderate outside their own forum. Plus, being a moderator does not turn you into an all knowing entity with no personal opinion.
I moderate Biology, but even there, James, Stryder and Plazma can decide that I let stuff slide and moderate what they consider I should have. Just because one moderator does not see anything wrong with the picture is no criteria for what the other moderators should think. Sometimes we argue over it, but ultimately, the more argument there is over moderation, the more moderation there will be. Its only natural that no one wants to be considered biased. So at the end of the day if someone thinks they have the right to insult members or be racist because they cannot comprehend the content of posts like those of Lounatic or gendanken or Satyr, guess what the end result will be?
the point is that moderation is about whim, and there shouldnt be any high-brow notions put forth to the contrary. site rules be damned if moderators dont care about enforcing them.
moderation shouldnt be about members complaining or moderators not being able to find every offensive post..it should be about enforcing site rules.
if a moderator cannot moderate his/her entire forum, there is a different problem. get more moderators to enforce site rules in an even handed fashion. the very fact that you say james or plazma would come and override your moderation shows that it is based on whim on one side or the other.
surely you understand what im saying.
Its not based on whim. Its called difference of opinion. And its not arbitrary. e.g. if Spud makes a few jokes in a Biology thread, I'll let it pass, because his jokes are usually on the topic or a twisted version of it. If he makes fifteen, I'll move them all to a separate thread. Now Spud is a smart guy, but even he's human and to expect him to conform to my idea of whats appropriate in Biology should be flexible, not enforced with an iron hand. He should be able to have his say while at the same time I should be able to allow some latitude in enforcing the rules. Putting in five more moderators is going to make it more complex not less. But its not going to change the situation much.
Now James or Plazma could come along and read one of the jokes and think, whats this doing in Biology? and delete it. (they don't, its just an example). They would not be wrong, but neither would I.
expectation is whim.
lol, i think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. not often, eh?
lol, i think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. not often, eh?
Yeah I guess.
I think we cannot avoid expectation. If I let some jokes slide and not others, its because I have different expectations of outcome from the members. When redarmy makes fun of a member its not the same as when shorty does it, for instance. That can't be avoided, I think.
- Status