Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[seicer]

In a reply to a thread on NYC Roads, Steve has once again started with callous and obtuse comments about other forum posters (this time, myself): "This seems to be more of a troll about someone who believes in bicycles instead of cars"

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16368.msg2517963#msg2517963

I replied to the comment civilly, and reported his remark to a moderator for review, in which I received from Steve: "don't believe that responding with my own points is callous disregard. Way to report a moderator's post to the moderators. You've ensured that no action will be taken."

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16368.msg2517981#msg2517981

That seems to be a complete disregard for how AA Roads operates, for other moderator's considerations, and for comments by those whose viewpoints differ from Steve's. Considering that Steve has been nipping at my heels for literally years with similar comments, and has been told before to knock it off (specifically, if there was an issue with me, to ask another moderator to intervene). Can a moderator or administrator please tell him to knock it off already? Or at the least, for Steve to take any issues that he has with me to another moderator?

[Ketchup99]

Looking it over I don't see much wrong with the original post he made, but the response to being reported seems way out of line. Reminds me of a cop who thinks he's above the law.

[Tonytone]

Ive noticed an issue with certain mods & cliques of people making snark remarks to others.

At this point, I’ve just learned to ignore some people & steer away from certain threads.

But trust me AA roads is ran better then Skyscrapers forum.


iPhone

[Scott5114]

The problem with using the report function to report a problem with a moderator is that the report function just sends a message to...all of the moderators. Since we're all more or less equal to each other—I'm marked as "administrator" because I have access to a few more buttons than the others, but I'm not anyone's "boss" or anything—we really don't have the authority to sanction each other, unless we all feel like someone unquestionably screwed up, to the point we unanimously agree someone shouldn't be a moderator anymore.

If you have a problem with a moderator, I would suggest PMing or emailing Alex. As site owner he has more authority to decide what to do about a moderator than anyone else does.

[seicer]

Thanks - it was really just to get another set of eyeballs on it. I had reported Steve's comments before seeing his reply that reporting a moderator's comment does nothing.

[webny99]

Doesn't seem that problematic to me. I've been subject to worse, but I learned over time to just take things in stride (I was no good at that when I first joined). You always have the choice of whether to turn something into a Big Deal™, and 99% of the time, it's better not to, unless something is blatantly against forum rules.

[hbelkins]

Doesn't seem that problematic to me. I've been subject to worse, but I learned over time to just take things in stride (I was no good at that when I first joined). You always have the choice of whether to turn something into a Big Deal™, and 99% of the time, it's better not to, unless something is blatantly against forum rules.

It's always seemed to me that there are different rules for different users, and those views are directly proportional to the differences in social or political ideology.

It's probably also one of the reasons that my overtures to be a moderator have been met with silence. I know that my political and moral views are in opposition to at least three of the moderators' views -- plus the fact that I tend to take a more hands-off approach to regulating speech because of my journalism background and my days on MTR when the only moderation was your own informed use of killfiles and subject filters (and I know those options aren't available in the forum software). Heavy-handed moderation has already chased one longtime veteran of this interest -- a retired DOT employee who still maintains a website and has extensive knowledge of his area -- off the forum.

[1]

Doesn't seem that problematic to me. I've been subject to worse, but I learned over time to just take things in stride (I was no good at that when I first joined). You always have the choice of whether to turn something into a Big Deal™, and 99% of the time, it's better not to, unless something is blatantly against forum rules.

It's always seemed to me that there are different rules for different users, and those views are directly proportional to the differences in social or political ideology.

It's probably also one of the reasons that my overtures to be a moderator have been met with silence. I know that my political and moral views are in opposition to at least three of the moderators' views -- plus the fact that I tend to take a more hands-off approach to regulating speech because of my journalism background and my days on MTR when the only moderation was your own informed use of killfiles and subject filters (and I know those options aren't available in the forum software). Heavy-handed moderation has already chased one longtime veteran of this interest -- a retired DOT employee who still maintains a website and has extensive knowledge of his area -- off the forum.

Moderation is pretty light on this forum (if you exclude minor things like fixing quote tags).

[ozarkman417]

Doesn't seem that problematic to me. I've been subject to worse, but I learned over time to just take things in stride (I was no good at that when I first joined). You always have the choice of whether to turn something into a Big Deal™, and 99% of the time, it's better not to, unless something is blatantly against forum rules.

It's always seemed to me that there are different rules for different users, and those views are directly proportional to the differences in social or political ideology.

It's probably also one of the reasons that my overtures to be a moderator have been met with silence. I know that my political and moral views are in opposition to at least three of the moderators' views -- plus the fact that I tend to take a more hands-off approach to regulating speech because of my journalism background and my days on MTR when the only moderation was your own informed use of killfiles and subject filters (and I know those options aren't available in the forum software). Heavy-handed moderation has already chased one longtime veteran of this interest -- a retired DOT employee who still maintains a website and has extensive knowledge of his area -- off the forum.

Moderation is pretty light on this forum (if you exclude minor things like fixing quote tags).

or anything remotely related to DST.

[Alps]

Doesn't seem that problematic to me. I've been subject to worse, but I learned over time to just take things in stride (I was no good at that when I first joined). You always have the choice of whether to turn something into a Big Deal™, and 99% of the time, it's better not to, unless something is blatantly against forum rules.

It's always seemed to me that there are different rules for different users, and those views are directly proportional to the differences in social or political ideology.

Yeahno, it has nothing to do with that and everything to do with actually invoking political discussion.

Moderation is pretty light on this forum (if you exclude minor things like fixing quote tags).

That's the goal. That's why reporting a moderator for being snarky is being meaningless. We're not "held to a higher standard." We're not magical wizards. We're people who do the dirty work of vetting applicants, fixing posting errors, and snuffing out flame wars. If you don't like something we say, too bad, deal with it. Reporting a moderator's post does nothing because, AFAIK, none of us are actively starting trouble. We may be snarky within our rights, as may you.

[SectorZ]

Moderation is pretty light on this forum (if you exclude minor things like fixing quote tags).

That's the goal. That's why reporting a moderator for being snarky is being meaningless. We're not "held to a higher standard." We're not magical wizards. We're people who do the dirty work of vetting applicants, fixing posting errors, and snuffing out flame wars. If you don't like something we say, too bad, deal with it. Reporting a moderator's post does nothing because, AFAIK, none of us are actively starting trouble. We may be snarky within our rights, as may you.

"Way to report a moderator's post to the moderators. You've ensured that no action will be taken."

That is a little heavy handed. It calls into question your objectivity as a moderator. You also called someone out for complaining who (unless I missed it prior) had not publicly stated that they did. A report to a moderator should not be public knowledge unless the complainant brings it up.

I don't think your first comment deserved to be moderated, but your reaction calls into question how fairly you play the role as moderator. That statement indicates that a moderator is immune from being moderated, and that is a problem because it suggest (in your own words) that you are above the law.

[1]

Moderation is pretty light on this forum (if you exclude minor things like fixing quote tags).

That's the goal. That's why reporting a moderator for being snarky is being meaningless. We're not "held to a higher standard." We're not magical wizards. We're people who do the dirty work of vetting applicants, fixing posting errors, and snuffing out flame wars. If you don't like something we say, too bad, deal with it. Reporting a moderator's post does nothing because, AFAIK, none of us are actively starting trouble. We may be snarky within our rights, as may you.

"Way to report a moderator's post to the moderators. You've ensured that no action will be taken."

That is a little heavy handed. It calls into question your objectivity as a moderator. You also called someone out for complaining who (unless I missed it prior) had not publicly stated that they did. A report to a moderator should not be public knowledge unless the complainant brings it up.

I don't think your first comment deserved to be moderated, but your reaction calls into question how fairly you play the role as moderator. That statement indicates that a moderator is immune from being moderated, and that is a problem because it suggest (in your own words) that you are above the law.

I agree with this. However, it seems that removing moderator status ultimately comes down to moderator/admin consensus; if moderator status couldn't be removed except by request or inactivity, US 71 would still be one.

[Alps]

Moderation is pretty light on this forum (if you exclude minor things like fixing quote tags).

That's the goal. That's why reporting a moderator for being snarky is being meaningless. We're not "held to a higher standard." We're not magical wizards. We're people who do the dirty work of vetting applicants, fixing posting errors, and snuffing out flame wars. If you don't like something we say, too bad, deal with it. Reporting a moderator's post does nothing because, AFAIK, none of us are actively starting trouble. We may be snarky within our rights, as may you.

"Way to report a moderator's post to the moderators. You've ensured that no action will be taken."

That is a little heavy handed. It calls into question your objectivity as a moderator. You also called someone out for complaining who (unless I missed it prior) had not publicly stated that they did. A report to a moderator should not be public knowledge unless the complainant brings it up.

I don't think your first comment deserved to be moderated, but your reaction calls into question how fairly you play the role as moderator. That statement indicates that a moderator is immune from being moderated, and that is a problem because it suggest (in your own words) that you are above the law.

I agree with this. However, it seems that removing moderator status ultimately comes down to moderator/admin consensus; if moderator status couldn't be removed except by request or inactivity, US 71 would still be one.

If another moderator chooses to moderate my post, that is within their rights. I'll remove that last bit because it's clearly not conducive to the conversation.

[Scott5114]

If you don't like something we say, too bad, deal with it.

I don't think this is a particularly helpful tack to take, nor an accurate one—we have removed moderators precisely because they said something nobody liked.

[NE2]

Congrats. You found one of Steve's blind spots.

[webny99]

^ You attributed both the first and second quotes to Alps, but the first one is from Alex.

[kphoger]

^ You attributed both the first and second quotes to Alps, but the first one is from Alex.

Post removed.  Thank you for catching that.

[seicer]

If you don't like something we say, too bad, deal with it.

I don't think this is a particularly helpful tack to take, nor an accurate one—we have removed moderators precisely because they said something nobody liked.

I think with Steve's acknowledgement that his comments may be in poor taste, and at least the acknowledgment that his snarkiness was perhaps unwarranted, I think that this overall issue can be marked as resolved. I do would like at least confirmation that by reporting a moderator's comment that at the least it doesn't get dismissed by the person the report is about. (This is more of a generalized comment and nothing against Steve.)

[1]

Keep in mind that seicer used to be a Wikipedia admin. He knows what he's talking about.

[Alps]

If you don't like something we say, too bad, deal with it.

I don't think this is a particularly helpful tack to take, nor an accurate one—we have removed moderators precisely because they said something nobody liked.

I think with Steve's acknowledgement that his comments may be in poor taste, and at least the acknowledgment that his snarkiness was perhaps unwarranted, I think that this overall issue can be marked as resolved. I do would like at least confirmation that by reporting a moderator's comment that at the least it doesn't get dismissed by the person the report is about. (This is more of a generalized comment and nothing against Steve.)

If it's something substantive, it would be considered. We don't want moderators to go unchecked. I feel like you reported my comment just because I was snarky at you. Snark is not grounds for removal. But yes, I acknowledge I went too far.

[seicer]

Keep in mind that seicer used to be a Wikipedia admin. He knows what he's talking about.

I haven't been an administrator on Wikipedia in years and voluntarily left through inactivity.

If it's something substantive, it would be considered. We don't want moderators to go unchecked. I feel like you reported my comment just because I was snarky at you. Snark is not grounds for removal. But yes, I acknowledge I went too far.

I apologize for perhaps being a little crotchety with my comments, but my intentions were not bad. I consider all is well and hope there is no hard feelings. We can agree to disagree on a lot of topics (which we do a lot)

[thspfc]

Normal members post that kind of stuff all the time. I don't see why mods need to be held to a higher standard. Everyone follows the same rules, period. No issues then.