My Meticulous Outline on the SB and the Behavior Part 1

SilverDeni · **Joined:** Sat Sep 10, 2005 1:58 am **Posts:** 1929

Quote:

Deni wrote:

I doubt the rules are weakly enforced, in contrary they are vaguely too strictly taken. And I also doubt that the lack of mods is the problem, a big number of ShoutBox Mods or Ordinary Forum-site mods wouldn't help at all.

In all actuality, they are inconsistently enforced. And I put it to you, and anyone else who is watching this, for whatever purpose...honorable or otherwise, that those rules are variably enforced as follows:

a) Newer mods making blunt, cold, arbitrary interpretations of the rules, rather that using a bit of common sense and humanity.

b) Mods making decisions based upon the mood they happen to be in at the time.

c) Mods making decisions based upon who is IN the shoutbox at the time (i.e., people they view as friends, and people they don't particularly care for, or perhaps feel irritated or intimidated by).

d) More experienced mods not correcting the newer mods, and even those more experienced ones who make bad calls, because they don't want to "rock the boat" or get into an argument with those other mods and their friends.

I agree with all of the three points. Mainly some of us do treat members by the mood condition. (Yes I speak from past past experiences, at least I admit but I will say that I corrected it)

I agree about the behavior toleration by mods and they should be considered in a higher level cause they got duty settled upon them, but there are some minor mistakes which people like to point them out. And turn into a torture corner. Perhaps torture is a bit too big word but the high number of not-debated threads in this section speaks from itself.

Quote:

Deni wrote:

Can't say xyz is amazing and abc is doing a bad job, however, some of them are kind of unsuitable for it.

Oh, but you really can. Members are entitled to exact criticism if they feel it is warranted. Where they are NOT entitled is when it sinks to the level of personal attacks and flames. But criticism of bad staffing and moderating is a freedom we are all entitled to, and which is not against the rules of this site. Those who don't like that are just going to have to learn to deal with it. If they do not behave in a way that draws legitimate criticism (instead of just kids who obviously broke some rule then whining about a mod doing their job), then they have nothing to worry about, now do they?

Well like I said, I don't want my post to appear offensive, or directed to anyone. Alas, they will recognize themselves in my example anyway.

BUT. I still stand up for blaming the person who chooses the moderators. (whether they're directly chosen or suggested). Because before "hiring" must be ensured that they're capable enough to handle the job they're called for. Again no offense.

Ice Cream Cone · **Posted:** Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:07 pm

I like the way you people think. Very logical indeed. Good skills in debating will surely carry you to greater expectations in life.

Ice Cream Cone · **Posted:** Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:11 pm

My main priority is to resolve this problem, Jersey. I am trying to solve it, but i pointed out the main problems of why we need to solve this unacceptable behavior. Sure, if you want to get more controversial with me, do whatever you want. But my main initiative is stop all the trouble for good. I know that it sounds hard, but having more people to support your cause may help in fighting back the main problem we're up against.

warriorcat · **Posted:** Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:24 pm

JerseyCaptain wrote:

Chemical Phantasm from the South wrote:

My main priority is to resolve this problem, Jersey. I am trying to solve it, but i pointed out the main problems of why we need to solve this unacceptable behavior. Sure, if you want to get more controversial with me, do whatever you want. But my main initiative is stop all the trouble for good. I know that it sounds hard, but having more people to support your cause may help in fighting back the main problem we're up against.

I'm not TRYING to get "controversial" with you at all. Please don't do like some other teenagers and twenty-somethings do here, and totally misinterpret what I'm trying to say. As you saw earlier, I AGREE with you. But that last post you left (before my last response) seemed like you were little more interested in the debate of it. You know there's plenty of real and unresolved frustration, amongst a growing number of members, about the rampant abuses in the shoutbox. We all want resolution, not just debate. That's all I was saying.

All i've learned is that usually people who are all debate and no dialog aren't very good listeners. they always HAVE to be right, and they usually still argue and defend thier opinions, even if they are proven dead wrong. it seems as though chem should go into law and become an attorney. :lol:

although im sure all support is appreciated. :wink:

Catadventure · **Posted:** Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:11 pm

True, members joining the site cannot just be changed. As I said before, it requires some planning or grouping to be able to have the people 'right' for you to talk with on the shoutboxes. You cannot please a group of members by not displeasing another in this matter. The democratic perspective on the range of members one just has to endure (surely every group of people here has some group of people they wish they could change or do away with).

JerseyCaptain wrote:

What is needed is for the senior staff to get off their collective derrieres and rein in not only the troublemaking n00bs, trolls and experienced members, but even staffers who are guilty of the problems in the shoutbox. That's the ONLY WAY anything's gonna change. Of course, we should remain vocal about it. VERY vocal...because the more vocal we are about the problems there, the more of a threat to that status quo they have to face and deal with...and the more likely the senior staff will eventually HEAR us and do something about it. Something RIGHT.

You see, there is quite a bias in this one. Since mod-to-mod conversations do not happen on every corner, this doesn't mean that they do not interact. More experienced mods constantly interact with newer ones, and both have the chance to get feedback from each other, and also the options to discuss things. So, in more than one way, such interaction would in fact be invisible to the the rest of the members.

However, I do agree that the more of it, the better things will become, and it can, as always, be worked on a lot. Yet, there are time differences to consider, so not all the mods will be equally communicative to each other, and one must simply accept that. However, improvements are being made constantly with mod communication as comes with time, which is very positive and has always solved a great deal of this problem.

Ice Cream Cone · **Posted:** Sat Jul 19, 2008 8:52 pm

DolphinsFriend wrote:

First of all- hey! why point out the ages? Not ALL 13-18 year olds are "stupid". Im 13, btw, though Ive made mistakes Ive learned from them. Its not like Im bound to do it again.
Second- There are some immature members here... o.O Dunno what else I can say about that.

We never said that ALL were. It's the most likely age of immaturity if you ask me.

Animation Source Forums

My Meticulous Outline on the SB and the Behavior Part 1