OK, so is it not allowed to even question how decisions are made, and by whom? I see my latest attempt to find out who was responsible for my warning, and why, was removed.
All I want to know is if it was one person's decision, or a consensus of the mods, or a vote by the mods, or what. I think I deserve at least that much.
This is a forum paid by someone other than yourself. As such, you deserve nothing. I'm only replying because your constant demands for political correctness are clogging up the "recent post" queue at the bottom of the page.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 23, 2015, 08:33:47 PM
This is a forum paid by someone other than yourself. As such, you deserve nothing. I'm only replying because your constant demands for political correctness are clogging up the "recent post" queue at the bottom of the page.
:-D
Me demanding political correctness? You've obviously been asleep or don't know me very well. Political correctness is the last thing I want, here or anywhere. All I'm asking for is some transparency regarding decisions made by management that affect me and others.
HB, although I took a long hiatus from the online roadgeek community, I do remember you from my first time around. I don't know what happened between then and now, but I wouldn't have guessed that you would have been someone that would fly off the handle so greatly over just being modded on an online forum.
Besides, what punishment came your way, anyway? You seem to still be free to post on here like you want.
There's more to life out there and if getting that e-mail makes you this upset, it may actually be an indication that your perspective on life is a little out of whack -- get outside and get some real face-to-face social interaction!
H.B. You know full well what your actions are. I do not believe that the moderators need to repeat to you what you are aware of. Nonetheless, personal attacks and toxic behavior are not tolerated. Please end it.
May I respectfully suggest that we bite our collective tongues on this matter and move on? Muchas gracias.
SCH-I545
Quote from: Dougtone on September 24, 2015, 12:06:57 PM
May I respectfully suggest that we bite our collective tongues on this matter and move on? Muchas gracias.
I concur. This shit is getting old and fast.
Certainly. I can understand and even support HB's position on the matter, but I think in this case, there has to be a different approach to take , since his pleas aren't going anywhere when brought up publicly, and quite frankly, many people don't have the patience to hear it.
SCH-I545
Just because you move on does not mean you agree with the person you are at odds with. Many of us let our egos get in the way and we argue till the end. The one who swallows his pride is usually the bigger person, not saying the one you are arguing with is wrong, but it takes a lot of courage to overcome our own pride.
Quote from: Rothman on September 23, 2015, 11:50:16 PM
HB, although I took a long hiatus from the online roadgeek community, I do remember you from my first time around. I don't know what happened between then and now, but I wouldn't have guessed that you would have been someone that would fly off the handle so greatly over just being modded on an online forum.
Besides, what punishment came your way, anyway? You seem to still be free to post on here like you want.
There's more to life out there and if getting that e-mail makes you this upset, it may actually be an indication that your perspective on life is a little out of whack -- get outside and get some real face-to-face social interaction!
Never thought I'd agree with Rothman. ;-)
Be patient and let it pass :P
Quote from: NE2 on September 24, 2015, 10:25:27 PM
Be patient and let it pass :P
Are you talking about arguing or suffering from constipation? Or both? :bigass:
Revisiting this topic after staying away from it for a few days...
So, this has been probably the crappiest year of my 53-plus orbits around the sun on this earth and things aren't going well in my life at all. Some of you know the details, some don't.
I may have taken some of those frustrations out on someone who was advocating for dangerous and reckless behavior, and who was doing so in an arrogant and abrasive manner. I'm not going to apologize for defending my position, but I will admit that some may have felt I was a bit overzealous in doing so.
But I still think it would be beneficial to know how reprimands and other decisions are made. Are moderators empowered to unilaterally hand out warnings or bans, or remove posts or entire threads? Or are these decisions made by consensus or by majority vote of the mods?
At least one moderator dislikes me personally. I'm not sure how much of a hand he had, if any, in the decisions that were made concerning issuing a warning or deleting my original thread asking about management decisions.
I merely think that it would be beneficial to know who makes such decisions and how decisions are made. Thread locks apparently can be done unilaterally by the mods.
Transparency is all I'm seeking. I'd think most everyone would want that as well.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 28, 2015, 03:36:37 PM
Transparency is all I'm seeking. I'd think most everyone would want that as well.
I've been pretty quiet up to this point on how moderation is handled, but I also agree that some transparency would be nice. Website management whereby each individual moderator has his or her own set of rules is not okay. I'm not saying that
is the case here, but sometimes it does feel that way.
I'll answer the 'ban' question right now.
No, nobody gets banned instantly for any amount of time by anybody unless we have a discussion on it first. The only exceptions to that rule are as follows:
1) Spam bots that get past us and start spamming in the forums.
2) People posting porn. (We might let them back in after a talk unless it's a spam bot.)
Sometimes it is. As with one particular moderator, who once scolded me for being political because I suggested naming the Hugh Carey Tunnel in NYC after the 9/11 victims. In addition I expressed my haste in naming the Triborough Bridge after one of the Kennedy's, and he got again political like I was campaigning for the Republican Party because I used the term "a Kennedy."
I of course was not and everyplace I have been in my life most people were totally against the big political family for decades whether elderly, young, middle aged, liberal, or conservative or all other categories of people I did not include thought that the Kennedy Family were all too up there with themselves, and even those who liked JFK even thought that the family and what they all stood for and all was not right. Most of all this moderator was the first person I have ever met in my life who thought that the Kennedy's were not overrated. Even people who agree on the name JFK for New York's International Airport would even say stuff like "a Kennedy" in regular discussions!
Anyway, I was not campaigning nor am I a Republican nor Democrat. To me my opinion on politics is to not take a side and stereotype myself. I do vote when the time comes, but base my opinions on the character of the candidate and not the party he or she belongs to.
However, you are right you have some moderators on here who have their own set of rules with some being prejudiced against you for who your are, or in the case of the said moderator, who they think you are. Then some take a dislike toward you if you say something bad about one of the many trolls on here who happen to find favor with that particular moderator.
Bottom line you may be right on that one.
Moderation pertaining to users is a group consensus involving applicable staff members which is discussed in private. Due to the fact that personal relationships are relatively common on tbis forum, especially with staff members, any staff member may choose to not be a part of the decision making process.
If you feel like someone is bypassing the discussion part entirely then please let an administrator know so that it can be handled properly.
Actually I got over it along time ago. I learned from others on here that tempers flair quite easily in most cases the user forgets the day after. The moderator who declared war on me for personal reasons is no longer a staff member, and even if he was I learned a long time ago how to deal with the situations that arise from our differences.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 28, 2015, 03:36:37 PM
Revisiting this topic after staying away from it for a few days...
So, this has been probably the crappiest year of my 53-plus orbits around the sun on this earth and things aren't going well in my life at all. Some of you know the details, some don't.
I may have taken some of those frustrations out on someone who was advocating for dangerous and reckless behavior, and who was doing so in an arrogant and abrasive manner. I'm not going to apologize for defending my position, but I will admit that some may have felt I was a bit overzealous in doing so.
But I still think it would be beneficial to know how reprimands and other decisions are made. Are moderators empowered to unilaterally hand out warnings or bans, or remove posts or entire threads? Or are these decisions made by consensus or by majority vote of the mods?
At least one moderator dislikes me personally. I'm not sure how much of a hand he had, if any, in the decisions that were made concerning issuing a warning or deleting my original thread asking about management decisions.
I merely think that it would be beneficial to know who makes such decisions and how decisions are made. Thread locks apparently can be done unilaterally by the mods.
Transparency is all I'm seeking. I'd think most everyone would want that as well.
Will you just STOP it already? I never advocated for dangerous or reckless behavior. What I do here in California is legal, accepted, and safe. Cease and desist your personal attacks. I've had enough. STOP!
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on September 28, 2015, 03:50:40 PM
I'll answer the 'ban' question right now.
No, nobody gets banned instantly for any amount of time by anybody unless we have a discussion on it first. The only exceptions to that rule are as follows:
1) Spam bots that get past us and start spamming in the forums.
2) People posting porn. (We might let them back in after a talk unless it's a spam bot.)
What about signs that just happen to have pr0n in front of them? :spin:
Quote from: sdmichael on September 28, 2015, 04:49:10 PM
Will you just STOP it already? I never advocated for dangerous or reckless behavior. What I do here in California is legal, accepted, and safe. Cease and desist your personal attacks. I've had enough. STOP!
Just knock it off. HB didn't bring up the topic, didn't even discuss who it was by name, and didn't even suggest bringing back the topic just to "insult" you. Knock it the fuck off as this shit is getting old.
YOU brought it back, YOU mentioned it, and YOU are exceedingly defensive about it.
Quote from: Brandon on September 28, 2015, 04:56:07 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on September 28, 2015, 03:50:40 PM
I'll answer the 'ban' question right now.
No, nobody gets banned instantly for any amount of time by anybody unless we have a discussion on it first. The only exceptions to that rule are as follows:
1) Spam bots that get past us and start spamming in the forums.
2) People posting porn. (We might let them back in after a talk unless it's a spam bot.)
What about signs that just happen to have pr0n in front of them? :spin:
Or in the background.
I can hear Barney Stinson now: "Challenge accepted!" :)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.itil.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F12%2Fflogging_dead_horse_what.jpg&hash=075d2a70533d2277fc8a6e490187051d3de1b5a0)
Quote from: sdmichael on September 28, 2015, 04:49:10 PM
Will you just STOP it already? I never advocated for dangerous or reckless behavior. What I do here in California is legal, accepted, and safe. Cease and desist your personal attacks. I've had enough. STOP!
You sure post about it a lot for someone who's had enough.
Anybody got popcorn?
Quote from: roadman65 on September 28, 2015, 07:45:09 PM
Anybody got popcorn?
Buttered, salted, caramel or cheese?
Quote from: vdeane on September 28, 2015, 06:44:30 PM
Quote from: sdmichael on September 28, 2015, 04:49:10 PM
Will you just STOP it already? I never advocated for dangerous or reckless behavior. What I do here in California is legal, accepted, and safe. Cease and desist your personal attacks. I've had enough. STOP!
You sure post about it a lot for someone who's had enough.
No, I've had enough of being called an profane names, wrongfully accused of promoting dangerous/reckless behavior, and the personal attacks. Simple enough? If his last post wasn't an attack upon me, then who was it, exactly? It saddens me to see that this sort of abusive and profane behavior is acceptable here. I thought this was a highway forum. Yet, when I ask for it to stop, I'm called out at the "bad guy". Huh.
Quote from: sdmichael on September 28, 2015, 09:28:35 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 28, 2015, 06:44:30 PM
Quote from: sdmichael on September 28, 2015, 04:49:10 PM
Will you just STOP it already? I never advocated for dangerous or reckless behavior. What I do here in California is legal, accepted, and safe. Cease and desist your personal attacks. I've had enough. STOP!
You sure post about it a lot for someone who's had enough.
No, I've had enough of being called an profane names, wrongfully accused of promoting dangerous/reckless behavior, and the personal attacks. Simple enough? If his last post wasn't an attack upon me, then who was it, exactly? It saddens me to see that this sort of abusive and profane behavior is acceptable here. I thought this was a highway forum. Yet, when I ask for it to stop, I'm called out at the "bad guy". Huh.
Funny, I don't see your name actually being mentioned. Of course, some of the posts are probably written in a way to get a reaction from you, which you have done. So, +1 for allowing yourself to be trolled.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on September 28, 2015, 03:50:40 PM
I'll answer the 'ban' question right now.
No, nobody gets banned instantly for any amount of time by anybody unless we have a discussion on it first. The only exceptions to that rule are as follows:
1) Spam bots that get past us and start spamming in the forums.
2) People posting porn. (We might let them back in after a talk unless it's a spam bot.)
Thanks, James. This is a good start and is an answer to one of my questions.
Thank you for actually answering the question that was posed without going off on a tangent like some others have done.
Quote from: US71 on September 28, 2015, 06:12:24 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.itil.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F12%2Fflogging_dead_horse_what.jpg&hash=075d2a70533d2277fc8a6e490187051d3de1b5a0)
Is there a particular reason you don't want these questions about forum management answered openly?
There's a specific set of forum guidelines publicly posted. Why can't there be a specific procedure for enforcement also made public? James' clarification on bans is a good start.
Quote from: Zeffy on September 28, 2015, 04:10:37 PM
Moderation pertaining to users is a group consensus involving applicable staff members which is discussed in private. Due to the fact that personal relationships are relatively common on tbis forum, especially with staff members, any staff member may choose to not be a part of the decision making process.
If you feel like someone is bypassing the discussion part entirely then please let an administrator know so that it can be handled properly.
This is helpful, too. Thanks.
Hay Burt: I've attempted to explain it, but since you think I hate you, you don't seem to be paying attention.
Quote from: US71 on September 29, 2015, 10:01:31 PM
Hay Burt: I've attempted to explain it, but since you think I hate you, you don't seem to be paying attention.
With all due respect, you haven't explained anything. You have offered your opinion on my responses to sdmichael. And that's fine. You, he and apparently some others share that opinion.
But that still doesn't explain if one person is responsible for issuing reprimands, or if they are done by group decision or consensus.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 30, 2015, 02:07:57 PM
But that still doesn't explain if one person is responsible for issuing reprimands, or if they are done by group decision or consensus.
Admins, global mods and regional mods may issue reprimands as they see fit. Whether or not they issue a general SMF based warning, or give a reason in the message is up to them. This does not mean that some discussion does not arise from potential bans, or after one was made however.
The moving of threads or removal of posts falling under the categories of personal insults, political, religious, flame war back and forth, pure trolling, etc. is generally up to the individual moderator or admin. However stating that, some consensus/discussion does occur before this as well. The same can be said for thread locking.
As rickmastfan67 already wrote, bans indeed need a consensus with the two exceptions noted.
Also as mentioned previously, the majority of us know many of the members on the board personally. This leads to a lot of abstaining or not taking a side when it comes to decisions on parties involved. When this happens, whatever the rest of the admin/mods decide generally goes forward.
How much longer do y'all think it'll be until this thread is locked? I'm betting at least 3 days.
Quote from: Alex on September 30, 2015, 03:45:13 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 30, 2015, 02:07:57 PM
But that still doesn't explain if one person is responsible for issuing reprimands, or if they are done by group decision or consensus.
Admins, global mods and regional mods may issue reprimands as they see fit. Whether or not they issue a general SMF based warning, or give a reason in the message is up to them. This does not mean that some discussion does not arise from potential bans, or after one was made however.
The moving of threads or removal of posts falling under the categories of personal insults, political, religious, flame war back and forth, pure trolling, etc. is generally up to the individual moderator or admin. However stating that, some consensus/discussion does occur before this as well. The same can be said for thread locking.
I'll add to this and say that we're mostly all on the same page as to generalities dealing with when someone should theoretically be moderated. When something that needs to be moderated happens, whoever sees it first is generally the one who deals with it. The only time discussion happens ahead of time is if the moderator is unsure of whether/what action needs to be taken. If the action is taken and it is called into question afterward, then discussion will take place at that time.
That being said, I wasn't involved in this particular decision and am not really familiar with the details of it. I do think that the moderator was justified in their actions, though I think in the future we should be more specific than "you know what you did", even if the moderator feels like you know what you did.
On the other hand, if you have been moderated or warned, repeatedly posting publicly about it is the wrong way of going about getting more information. You should contact the moderator directly through PM, and if you don't know who that is or don't agree with their response, contact any admin and we can either direct you to the correct person or start a group discussion as to whether the appropriate action was taken. Taking it public only serves to gin up mob justice and generally causes more work for the moderators (which is the reason why those threads were removed).
If you have any questions about a moderation event I am happy to look into the matter and get back to you on what was done and why.
Quote from: freebrickproductions on September 30, 2015, 06:04:57 PM
How much longer do y'all think it'll be until this thread is locked? I'm betting at least 3 days.
HB's thread about lane splitting in Georgia will be locked before this one.
Quote from: Alex on September 30, 2015, 03:45:13 PM
Admins, global mods and regional mods may issue reprimands as they see fit. Whether or not they issue a general SMF based warning, or give a reason in the message is up to them. This does not mean that some discussion does not arise from potential bans, or after one was made however.
The moving of threads or removal of posts falling under the categories of personal insults, political, religious, flame war back and forth, pure trolling, etc. is generally up to the individual moderator or admin. However stating that, some consensus/discussion does occur before this as well. The same can be said for thread locking.
As rickmastfan67 already wrote, bans indeed need a consensus with the two exceptions noted.
Also as mentioned previously, the majority of us know many of the members on the board personally. This leads to a lot of abstaining or not taking a side when it comes to decisions on parties involved. When this happens, whatever the rest of the admin/mods decide generally goes forward.
Thank you. Coming from you, I consider this the definitive and controlling word on the subject and I appreciate an answer to my question.
I would respectfully suggest that a version of this explanation be converted to a pinned post in this section of the forum and entitled something to the effect of "Guidelines and procedures for warnings, bans, post removal and thread locking."
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 01, 2015, 03:28:19 AMDeleted in the interests of brevity...
I'm a former newspaper editor. I believe in transparency. The more sunshine something gets, the better off it is. That's why I requested and pushed for a public discussion of not necessarily my specific situation, but of forum administration practices in general, over private correspondence. That way everybody knows what's going on.
Quote from: spooky on October 01, 2015, 07:40:14 AM
HB's thread about lane splitting in Georgia will be locked before this one.
Why? Unless something blew up over there in the last couple of days since I last visited the forum, last time I checked it was fairly peaceful and the only response had come from a moderator who pretty much agreed with me.
And you wonder why I left the staff.
Long story short: This is the goddamn Internet. If you let anything get to you on the Internet, you need to toughen the fuck up. That goes for HB, SDMichael, and JP Nasiatka. All of you. If you don't like what someone says, throw a barb back. But when you let it get to you, you get riled up, yell, call names, etc. Just try to come up with a witty retort and laugh it off. I really don't get the heartache. For the issues I have with JP (and it's nothing personal actually, it's entirely related to posting style and factual inaccuracies - I've never met you so I can't possibly have anything against you as a person), he's at least learned not to react to it. As for Backlin, I think you took things a little too personally as well. I've barely met you and have no reason to have anything against you as a person either, but you decided that our personal connection (e.g. Facebook) should be related to anything that happens on this forum. To me, this forum is the Internet, and I'm willing to offend people a little bit for that. I offend people the same amount in person, but you can see me smile when I do so. ;)
Quote from: hbelkins on October 02, 2015, 02:28:13 PM
I'm a former newspaper editor. I believe in transparency. The more sunshine something gets, the better off it is. That's why I requested and pushed for a public discussion of not necessarily my specific situation, but of forum administration practices in general, over private correspondence. That way everybody knows what's going on.
I understand and generally share the same views; however, there is a line that needs to be walked between transparency and the privacy of users involved. A good example of this is a ban–shall we announce the ban for the sake of transparency, or handle it discreetly so as to avoid undue public spectacle of the whole affair and drawing attention to the user's transgressions? Some will argue for transparency, some will say it's better to let the banned user save face and disappear quietly.
In this case it appears that the Other Scott decided to take a quiet approach, which is usually a good way to go when you have two users in conflict (public discussion often just invites the two users to escalate the matter), but he went
too quiet, to the point that the reason for the moderation action, and indeed who enacted it, was unclear to you.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2015, 05:12:47 AM
I understand and generally share the same views; however, there is a line that needs to be walked between transparency and the privacy of users involved. A good example of this is a ban–shall we announce the ban for the sake of transparency, or handle it discreetly so as to avoid undue public spectacle of the whole affair and drawing attention to the user's transgressions? Some will argue for transparency, some will say it's better to let the banned user save face and disappear quietly.
I wouldn't argue for announcement of a ban. All I want is a clarification of who can do what, and when, and how. I have those answers now.