danot Posted January 4, 2011 Author Share Posted January 4, 2011 (edited) I can imagine people feeling upset if they've been banned if they weren't given warning or felt the banning was unjust. I don't have the power to ban so can't really comment on what goes on in this department. I expect if someone has put a lot of thought into a post only to have it deleted as part of a cull of a range of posts which quote or refer to an unsuitable post they'd be upset. I must admit feeling bad for some members when I've removed their posts for this reason. It's also human nature to feel envy or annoyance towards someone who has powers that they don't have and in a world where we're all very steered and controlled by a ruling power in our lives it's expected that there will be some criticism of decisions made. As I wrote above, we can only ever do our best to keep a fair balance. What I've noticed on numerous occasions is threads discussing passionate interests such as religion or football are usually closed due to what moderaters consider to be constant bickering and name calling. I've noticed that any member of SF can participate in this bickering and name calling when expressing their disdain for either passionate interest which usually results in thread closure due to other members who take offence to these remarks defending their passionate interest. However, any member that attemps to show disdain on; lets say- the pet group section, will undubtedly(in order to avoid thread closure)have their post and any additional posts deleted and if they attempt to question this they are abused by the users on the pet group. So why does there appear to be two sets of rules being applied here? Edited January 4, 2011 by danot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rad Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 I don't really read the pet group so can't comment on that, but the groups section is moderated by Moonbird and the Group Leaders. The rest of us 'regular mods' don't have anything to to with groups. The religion and football threads tend to get into tit for tat, personal insult territory very quickly, usually between a small, recurring group of posters. Of course those threads are going to be passionate and heated, it's when that spills over into name-calling, insults and bad language that we are likely to step in. EDIT: And, of course, we mod on reports that come into us (and believe me, the pet group spawns plenty of reports for Moonbird to look over!) - the regular football and religion thread users are quick to report posts, whereas users on some other threads might not be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chimay Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 (edited) What I've noticed on numerous occasions is threads discussing passionate interests such as religion or football are usually closed due to what moderaters consider to be constant bickering and name calling. I've noticed that any member of SF can participate in this bickering and name calling when expressing their disdain for either passionate interest which usually results in thread closure due to other members who take offence to these remarks defending their passionate interest. However, any member that attemps to show disdain on; lets say- the pet group section, will undubtedly(in order to avoid thread closure)have their post and any additional posts deleted and if they attempt to question this they are abused by the users on the pet group. So why does there appear to be two sets of rules being applied here? I mentioned something similar to a mod about 'chat' being allowed on certain threads whilst threads on I'm bored were being closed for 'chatting'. A mod told me to report threads I considered to have been taken over by 'chatting'. I haven't done that as my opinion of chatting is obviously different to the opinion of the mods who have been closing threads on I'm bored. Edited January 4, 2011 by medusa fixed tags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 So why does there appear to be two sets of rules being applied here? Probably because the groups are Special Interest Groups run by the members where contributors are expected to have an interest not simply the usual mickey taking.trolling etc. Opinions are valid but mockery etc are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 One to one chat used to be clamped down on far more than it is now as it often spoils a thread completely imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 4, 2011 Author Share Posted January 4, 2011 I don't really read the pet group so can't comment on that, but the groups section is moderated by Moonbird and the Group Leaders. The rest of us 'regular mods' don't have anything to to with groups. The religion and football threads tend to get into tit for tat, personal insult territory very quickly, usually between a small, recurring group of posters. Of course those threads are going to be passionate and heated, it's when that spills over into name-calling, insults and bad language that we are likely to step in. EDIT: And, of course, we mod on reports that come into us (and believe me, the pet group spawns plenty of reports for Moonbird to look over!) - the regular football and religion thread users are quick to report posts, whereas users on some other threads might not be. Maybe it's time group leaders were appointed to moderate the 'passionate interest' section. It could then be self governed as the pet group appears to be. This would enable the remaining moderaters who feel they are over stretched to attend to other areas of the forum. Just an idea. I'm not voluteering though, I'm not mod material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Maybe it's time group leaders were appointed to moderate the 'passionate interest' section. It could then be self governed as the pet group appears to be. This would enable the remaining moderaters who feel they are over stretched to attend to other areas of the forum. Just an idea. I'm not voluteering though, I'm not mod material. It's been tried believe me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanl Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 But how do you draw the line between chatting and replying to a comment from someone else. If theres only two posters online at that time...it does become a conversation between those two people.....I wouldn't want anyone to think I was being rude by not answering them but if theres no one else there, then I feel that I have to. Why then, does it become "chat" in some people's eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 4, 2011 Author Share Posted January 4, 2011 Probably because the groups are Special Interest Groups run by the members where contributors are expected to have an interest not simply the usual mickey taking.trolling etc. Opinions are valid but mockery etc are not. So criticism of a special interest group isn't allowed then? Why are users of special interest groups allowed to criticise someone's passionate interests then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 So criticism of a special interest group isn't allowed then? Why are users of special interest groups allowed to criticise someone's passionate interests then? I never said criticism wasn't allowed - but the point of say Badminton group is to discuss badminton not to mock the sport,for instance. The point of the pet section isn't to ridicule or to make jokes at the expense of peoples interests in the groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts