[serious] Off Topic Moderation Input - Part 2

[loinburger]

Because nobody answered my question. Please inform me of a more appropriate venue if there is one.

[Dinner]

I say we fire all the mods just out of principle.

[SlowwHand]

I say we fire you and the whine bag loinburger.

[Lorizael]

This is the appropriate thread, Loin. I haven't responded because I haven't been on. Additionally, you can PM a moderator or an admin if you have a complaint about a moderator. (If you'd PMed me, btw, I would have responded much more quickly.)

As far as my conduct goes, I can see how you would believe my conduct lacks neutrality. I can assure you, however, that is not the case. I am not public about which posters I like and dislike, but if my record of moderator actions were a measure, it would give you a very incorrect impression.

What you're seeing instead is my view that nothing we do here should be too serious, because this is just a forum for mindless discussions. We're only here for fun, and if a poster isn't having fun, I believe that poster should just take a break and enjoy the real world for a little while. When I get offended by something someone has said here, my most common response is to simply roll my eyes and go do something else.

However, I understand that others don't behave that way, and I understand that I shouldn't expect them to. So, if you believe that I was insulting you (it was not my intention to), then I apologize. The moderators are here to ensure that the forum remains a good experience for the posters, and if the posters are unhappy with the conduct of the moderators, something's wrong.

If posters believe my tone lacks the neutrality or non-hostility that it should have, then I'll be happy to take on a less obtrusive attitude.

That said, while my tone may have been inappropriate, my actions were not and I'll stand behind them. Rah displaying incredulity is perhaps insensitive but not against the rules. Loin attacking rah, however, is against the rules. If you have a problem with a poster's behavior, talk to the poster in private or PM a moderator. I've said this over and over again. Do not disrupt a thread because you have a personal issue with a poster.

[Drake Tungsten]

Lori is a terrible mod. First he was riding my ass for simply stating facts about one of the worst posters here and now he's taking rah's side in insulting the memory of loin's grandfather.

[-Jrabbit]

Lori is a terrible mod.

Wait; we have mods?

[Wezil]

I'm just tired of the "take it up privately" mantra.

It doesn't work as publicly or privately the mods will take no action. This has been demonstrated in spades since the new ownership took over.

[Lorizael]

I'm just tired of the "take it up privately" mantra.

It doesn't work as publicly or privately the mods will take no action. This has been demonstrated in spades since the new ownership took over.

I guarantee that if you PM me and I'm at my computer (which I am for the vast majority of the EST day), I'll respond very quickly.

[Wezil]

It's the "response" that is weak Lori.

"Don't do that again" gets pretty ineffectual after awhile.

[Lorizael]

I don't disagree.

There aren't a lot of viable options between a reprimand and a banning, and I'd really rather not ban posters if I don't have to. That's why my strategy of late has been to move offending posts into the closed thread forum.

If you have other suggestions, let's hear them.

[Wezil]

What's wrong with banning?

BK is a classic case. Ben should have been banned years ago. Instead, as posters, we are left with no option but to abuse him at every turn in hopes he will finally go away.

You sat here not too long ago and watched as he amended his sig line with a falsified quote that made another poster look like an absolute ******* (wrongly). Your response? You threatened me with a banning for complaining and made Ben change his sig line.

[Asher]

You know it's the right thing to do when the solution to every mod squabble is to ban Ben.

[Wezil]

I wish we could agree as a forum to completely ignore Ben. If nobody ever responded to his posts, quoted him, or posted in his threads I suspect he'd move on.

The problem with this approach is that he makes such inflammatory and false (lies) statements that he is hard to ignore. He can usually provoke someone.

He needs to be banned.

[Lorizael]

What's wrong with banning?

BK is a classic case. Ben should have been banned years ago. Instead, as posters, we are left with no option but to abuse him at every turn in hopes he will finally go away.

Ben's two largest problems are (a) having opinions that the majority of the board disagrees with and (b) lying about/misrepresenting certain facts.

I strongly believe that he should be allowed to have and express his opinions, no matter how offensive they may be.

But if others want to make the case that lying should not be tolerated in serious discussions, I'd be open to that argument. The difficulty, of course, is proving that a poster is, in fact, lying. And I'd rather not see threads descend into ugly fights about which poster said what about another poster.

You sat here not too long ago and watched as he amended his sig line with a falsified quote that made another poster look like an absolute ******* (wrongly). Your response? You threatened me with a banning for complaining and made Ben change his sig line.

That's not quite what the situation was. I'd like to have an open discussion, so please don't twist issues around to suit you.

[Wezil]

That's not quite what the situation was. I'd like to have an open discussion, so please don't twist issues around to suit you.

What was the situation then? If I'm misrepresenting the case (as you accuse me of) then please set the facts straight.