Proposal: Simplify Moderation, Accept it or Vote on it

Meta
43

I see…I think I know what you mean. So there is something somewhere (a post?) demonstrating @janitor is fully aware and comprehends that farming rewards are not affected? I’m not being tricky, just asking, because evidence of this would substantiate your claims and I’d have to re-assess my position.
The suggestion is that the questioning is dis-ingenuous and tantamount to trolling - I can see how that could be construed as trolling - certainly. This would have to be quite clear cut though I think.

Yes, I’ve noticed this behaviour and he’s receives a warning previously I believe. I agree with you on all this and that it was warranted. I just don’t see how the contentious post continued this behaviour - however you have given an explanation for this now - which only really needs the quotes to back up.[quote=“happybeing, post:38, topic:6049”]
[Note: the post was not removed]
[/quote]
Noted… :smile:[quote=“happybeing, post:38, topic:6049”]
don’t post stuff that is misleading or otherwise problematic often
people respond to requests to change their approach and improve what they post when asked
[/quote]
Agreed…to an extent…: :smile:
A) If the person doing the requesting has reasonable grounds ((according to agreed guidelines) to request the behavioural changes.
B) The person doing the requesting is recognised as having legitiacy to hold the position they do.
This is where it all starts to break down for me personally - I just see un- democratically selected badge wearers… this leads me to have no respect for their authority to do anything whatsoever - certainly not sit in judgement of their peers. This is why mods get a lot of “stick” from me. Mods have no more right to sit in judgement of me, than I do them. This is why I operate as a moderator for moderators really - to even up the score. If you wear a badge, then in my view you have to have earned it in some way - if not then it’s a red flag to a bull…actually more like bulls to a matador…lol :smiley:

OK, well the community’s alerted to this ongoing issue now, so can keep an eye out for any further trolling of this nature and flag for mod’s attention. - i

44

Just noticed this quote from another thread…

Sounds remarkably like the argument I make against the current modding system…why do you appear to support/promote democratic processes in some organisational structures and not others? How can you argue both ways? :smiley:
Edit:
I just also noticed that the title of this thread does not appear to reflect any proposal made by me. Unless there is something I’ve missed, could I request it be changed to:

“Proposal: Introduce a more democratic system of mod recruitment.”

So the community can properly understand what is being proposed.

thanks

45

Where did @happybeing state that he didn’t support a democratic process on the forum?

We’ve (most of the moderators) constantly said that we’re open for any community input and asked you to start doing something instead of repeatedly discussing the same subject and points with us. Don’t you think we’ve now discussed it all a few times already or do you have to add any new/other points?

We now know your ideas on how you think you can improve the forum but how are we going to find out if your proposal is wanted/works/is possible? What are you going to do with the proposal?

46

Clearly states a preference for the current less democratic process and clearly states elections wouldn’t improve the system.[quote=“Melvin, post:45, topic:6049”]
and asked you to start doing something instead of repeatedly discussing the same subject and points with us
[/quote]
This is where you go wrong really…what I’m doing is discussing it on the forum and having the arguments. What none of the mods seem to get (despite me saying it many times) is that I’m not really interested in discussing anything with mods, rather the community. Your opinions on whether I have said enough already (in this now off the front page even category) means very little to me and does not serve you well in my own opinion.[quote=“Melvin, post:45, topic:6049”]
We now know your ideas on how you(?) think you can improve the forum
[/quote]
No…lol…I didn’t even make a proposal to be fair - . I didn’t even start the thread…lol - It’s also a suggestion to democratise the modding recruitment process by having elections…what more do you need to know?[quote=“Melvin, post:45, topic:6049”]
how are we going to find out if your proposal is wanted/works/is possible?
[/quote]
We discuss openly on the forum - once firm ideas of how best to implement the changes have been formed, a proposal can be made. Do you have any suggestions yourself as to how modding recruitment could be democratised further to provide more accountability/transparency etc or are you in agreement with @happybeing that the current less democratic (un-elected) system is optimum…democratically/accountability etc speaking? :smiley:

47

I only want to say that I’m satisfied with the way we’re adding new moderators to the team right now. It are the current mods that need to work with the new mods and that’s why I don’t think it’s a good idea to decentralize the ‘election’ of new moderators towards all 1700 community members.

I’ve also not seen that much people who want to support you and your ideas, maybe 2 or 3 (not sure to be honest).

But like I said, we’ve discussed this over and over and over. I don’t feel there’s much to add from my side of the story and I also don’t see any progress from your side to be honest. I’m really interested in seeing this progress and will join the discussion again if there’s any.

1 Like
48

I only want to say I’m not…[quote=“Melvin, post:47, topic:6049”]
It are the current mods that need to work with the new mods and that’s why I don’t think it’s a good idea to decentralize the ‘election’ of new moderators towards all 1700 community members.
[/quote]
Not really following you…can you elaborate? If what I think you mean, then this would appear to be a reason to post-pone elections, not a reason to not democratise to 1700 users?[quote=“Melvin, post:47, topic:6049”]
I’ve also not seen that much people who want to support you and your ideas, maybe 2 or 3 (not sure to be honest).
[/quote]
Haven’t you?..well not surprising really, considering where we’re talking…are you suggesting that there would be no interest in democratising the modding and that all except 2 or 3 people believe and agree with the mods that we already have the most democratic and accountable system possible?..seriously? This is just poo-pooing - exactly what they said about Jeremy Corbyn… :smiley:

OK…bye…thanks for the input… :smile:

49

Here is what I actually “proposed”

Here are the questions/responses left unanswered by @Melvin:[quote=“Melvin, post:45, topic:6049”]
Where did @happybeing state that he didn’t support a democratic process on the forum?
[/quote]
answer:

No response…[quote=“Al_Kafir, post:46, topic:6049”]
Do you have any suggestions yourself as to how modding recruitment could be democratised further to provide more accountability/transparency etc or are you in agreement with @happybeing that the current less democratic (un-elected) system is optimum…democratically/accountability etc speaking? :smiley:

[/quote]
evaded the question… :smile:

50

I said I didn’t want to continue to be involved in this discussion but now your making it personal by saying I’m evading your question. This was my entire quote which immediately shows my answer to your question:

Please don’t misquote (copy half of my post) again.

51

No, yet again, it is the mods taking things personally. My question was very straightforward and I’ve already asked you to “elaborate” on this very quote, as I was not following you. OK, please just clearly explain how:

Please clarify the quote when requested - it would appear to serve me no purpose to cull your quote deliberately…not sure what the ill intent is supposed to be?
Either clearly explain how it answers the question or accept that it is fair conclusion to say the question was evaded. Once again, not personal, but sick to the back teeth of explaining that I address the arguments, not the person.

52

Misquoting me is personal because you make it seem as if I answered different than I actually did. You’re now also generalizing ‘mods’ as a group of people who ‘take’ things personal. So these are two ‘personal’ approaches here. Like I said I’m done with this because we’re not getting anywhere, it has become you testing our integrity instead of trying to improve what we have.

53

OK…well first it still isn’t personal, second I didn’t misquote you, and thirdly I’ve asked 3 times for you to clarify the quote. If you are accusing me of using straw men to “win” arguments, then this is both wrong and hard to stomach really,especially as I’ve already denied and explained. You are now calling my integrity into question?
Even if I were to have misquoted you deliberately, it still wouldn’t be personal - it would be a dishonest argumentative device - not a personal attack - this is an area that many mods appear to confuse/conflate/not understand.[quote=“Melvin, post:52, topic:6049”]
So these are two ‘personal’ approaches here.
[/quote]
No…they simply aren’t.[quote=“Melvin, post:52, topic:6049”]
Like I said I’m done with this because we’re not getting anywhere,
[/quote]
I’m getting plenty thanks, though I understand why you might feel you’re not getting anywhere. :smile:[quote=“Melvin, post:52, topic:6049”]
it has become you testing our integrity instead of trying to improve what we have.
[/quote]
So now I’m being told that making suggestions to democratise modding wouldn’t improve what we have? OK - that’s personal opinion and obviously I disagree with it. Why would testing the mods integrity be an issue for you btw?
Anyway, masterclass in evading questions, not addressing the arguments, not clarifying things and making false accusations of “getting personal” . Integrity tested… :smiley:

54

I just want to clarify my very brief suggestion of doing a poll:

  • I thought it may be a good way to see what the community thinks about moderation (should be be more or less aggressive or it’s fine as is). Maybe the outcome would be that some participants are too annoying and more aggressive measures should be applied (such as kicking some from the forum).
  • The forum is owned by someone, it’s not a “community owned” forum (whatever that’s supposed to mean), so of course the owners or their representatives (mods, for example) can do whatever they want with it. I’ve consistently stated that I dislike democracy (just look at its outcomes) so the idea that the site owners should listen to “the community” has never crossed my mind. Whoever doesn’t like it here, or gets kicked out, can go elsewhere.

The idea for a poll is to give some feedback to the site owners, that’s all. They can use it to get a feel for matters related to moderation which I thought would be a good idea because the frequency of “events” has been increasing which maybe implies the level of “Discourse” has been decreasing.

55

It means Maidsafe wants to focus on building their project and have people from the community run the forum while they provide the money to run the thing. So in a way it is community "owned’. But I get your point.

I like democracy when it comes to my country. For this forum it’s different. We didn’t have any forum guidelines some months ago, so I asked the others and they agreed we should have one. So I wrote a draft, other mods made changes and wrote some more and after a few days we had what we have. That’s not a democratic process at all. And I’m fine with that. I also think that 99% of all members are fine with it. It seems to me that only a few people want big changes to how we choose mods etc. And for a vote about moderation, is it to strict, to loose? I’m fine with that.

1 Like
56

Nope, I think we’re fine. And I also think far over 99.9% of the forum is fine with how things are. And I also know that Maidsafe (the folks who pay the bills) are fine with how things are.

1 Like
57

Your quoting isn’t in the right order:

770×562 41.1 KB

You asked:

And @Melvin answered your question:

So he gave an answer to your question. But than you replied with:

So he gave you an answer to your question, while you say he didn’t (and you’re not in line with the facts while doing so). And you indeed quoted just a little part of his reply which isn’t a very nice way of having a debate IMO. Next to that you quoted your question and his answer in the wrong order which is very confusing. I’m not surprised that some folks here don’t want have a debate with you.

58

I didn’t see all moderation actions, but I’ve seen some and apart from that spammer who joined just to post FUD, about 1/3 of the moderators’ decisions lately seemed like overreactions or even wrong. Perhaps some internal benchmarking or peer review would help improve false positives.

1 Like
59

We have internal benchmarking and peer review. But it needs to be activated. You see, some mods/admins are partly focused on the URL en getting certificates right or other things for the community etc. Others are more focused on the topics itself. The moment you have a particular action from a mod which you don’t agree with, Flag! I mean, that’s the way to get the other mods focused on something as well. We can’t be expected to gather with 9 mods/admins for every decision. So 2 or 3 look at something, sometimes only one mod when no others are online. When you Flag or PM (@) Moderators we are alerted that something needs attention. Most of the time the mod who did the action will stay out and let others decide if he/she was right or not. We did set thing back, we did made apologies to people. It all happened, but it needs to be activated.

3 Likes
60

What on Earth are you on about?[quote=“anon40790172, post:57, topic:6049”]
And @Melvin answered your question:
[/quote]
He said something in response to it, but certainly didn’t give an answer to the question. Is this the clear answer bit, that I missed off apparently for nefarious reasons:

I asked for clarity on this 3 times to no avail - if I don’t understand it and no clarification is given, then how on Earth can it constitute an answer to anything - nevrmind the question?[quote=“anon40790172, post:57, topic:6049”]
And you indeed quoted just a little part of his reply which isn’t a very nice way of having a debate IMO
[/quote]
Nice unsubstantiated opinion piece - so rather than quote salient points that I understand, I should quote everything, always? If it’s “not nice” in what way is it not nice and what exactly am I being suspected of here - why don’t you accept my claims that there was no intent to do anything?[quote=“anon40790172, post:57, topic:6049”]
Next to that you quoted your question and his answer in the wrong order
[/quote]
Again, wtf you on about?[quote=“anon40790172, post:57, topic:6049”]
I’m not surprised that some folks here don’t want have a debate with you.
[/quote]
Neither am I - it’s only mods on here… :smiley:

Edit:
Ah……I get it – you’re suggesting I omitted the “answer” part – well, no I didn’t as I didn’t recognise it as an answer, nor did I understand it. None of it was an answer to my questions in any case. I basically asked 2 questions –

“Any ideas on how to further democratise modding recruitment?”

Apparent answer:

“I only want to say that I’m satisfied with the way we’re adding new moderators to the team right now”

which appears to be an answer to something like:

“How well do you think the current system of mod recruitment is working?”

And, the other thing I asked was basically:

“Are you in agreement with Happybeing that the present un-elected system is the optimum model in democratic/accountability terms.

Answer:

“It are the current mods that need to work with the new mods and that’s why I don’t think it’s a good idea to decentralize the ‘election’ of new moderators towards all 1700 community members.”

As I said I don’t understand this and suspect that even if I did, it would be an answer to something like:

“What would be your argument for not de-centralising/democratising the recruitment process?”

As I correctly said the answers did not address the questions…conclusion imo - Evaded :smile:

2nd Edit:

Lol……just “got” the meaning of the “answer£”. The old mods are the ones that have to work with the new mods, so they should choose them……brilliant argument….
It’s like asking:
“Should the individual members of society choose it’s own politicians”
Answer:
No!.. I’m the Queen and I have to work with them, so I’ll choose ‘em……brilliant…… as I said.

61

Interesting discussion anyway – it shows at least 2 or 3 current mods of a new de-centralising Network with a vision to dis assemble existing power structures and empower the 99% , (all apparently supporting these kinds of ideas in every other sphere), arguing exactly the opposite when it comes to modding….strange that.
I wonder what other community members would make of this?
Well I suppose in the main, we won’t really know now, (as due to mod actions the category is now out of the main public view). It’s good to now fully understand the reasoning of some mods.
Anyway, it’s now clear that some (all?) don’t support democratic processes when it comes to modding……from their own mouths.
What do other mods think about this – it would be interesting to find out too I think – would any others like to comment?

62

I don’t, and even if I did, it wouldn’t be good enough…I want a democratic, accountable and transparent system. Your answer only restricts itself to mod “performance” in any case and says nothing about the structure.[quote=“anon40790172, post:56, topic:6049”]
And I also think far over 99.9% of the forum is fine with how things are.
[/quote]
How have you ascertained this information? Please answer.
There have been a number of complaints about modding from a number of community members in any case - got to be a minimum of 5 (easily outvoted by mods in any event as there’s a 9 strong army). By my reckoning, that’s more like 1 in 100, not 1 in a thousand as you say - the other 99% we know nothing about as most are not even involved or know about any ongoing discussion to make their voices known - mods saw to that!.. :smiley: