Kath-H wrote:

So now we have a pretty bolshy group of people who are sitting about, kicking their heels, hoping against hope that someone will sort out this buggy, defective software. Many have made very detailed, constructive suggestions and requests, others have gone to the trouble of making work-arounds. In the meantime they are chatting amongst themselves, which is normal behaviour for bored people in a waiting room who are still hoping for something to happen.

Normal or not, there are places where lounging is appropriate, and places where it isn't.

However, moderating a group such as the one gathered here is not easy. To be successful, it is necessary to show good humour, a sense of humour, a willingness to explain actions, and a degree of courtesy and respect, even to those who are not behaving particularly well at the time.

 

 

 

 

But all of that needs to be balanced against the goal of the moderation. It is counterproductive if threads about topic X end up with posts about other topics, only to have those posts edited, and then an explanation of the edit being posted.

So if you want to know about why moderators make certain decisions, ask away. Just don't do it in the thread were it occured. Nor by private message, but just in a thread like this one. And without the name-calling.

To suddenly begin mass deletions, without showing any of these qualities, may well be counter-productive.

It probably is. That is one of the reasons why moderators have so far restrained from purging the archives and are focussing only on new messages.

Now we need a better balance between discouragement of excessive pointless and snarky posts, information about what progress is being made / might be made / won't be made on forum fixes and improvements, individual help like JC has always provided for people who have weird stuff going on with their account, and a degree of visible humanity - please - to gain the consent of those being moderated.

Gaining consent is not a purpose of moderation. In some cases it may be a means to an end, an end being for instance a reduction in the number of off-topic messages and thread highjacks.

Seriously, I don't understand what the big deal is. Let's see what happened in the first 48 hours of me being a moderator:

1. I moved a thread with explanation to the right forum.

2. I locked a thread moving off-topic with explanation.

3. I locked a thread moving off-topic with explanation.

4. I locked a new off-topic thread with explanation.

5. I deleted a thread in which the originator of thread 4 started name-calling.

Everything after that is people swooping in, calling me heavy handed, hijacking threads about other topics etc. I fail to see why this chain of events would surprise anybody. And while I am willing to entertain it, I even fail to see why this chain of events would be reason to start a thread about moderation

JayJhabrix wrote:

In any event, you could well have remedied the situation by spelling out the name and asking me to kindly use the correct name in future.

I could have. I didn't. I will continue not to do so in the future. I am after all a poor, heavy handed host.

Kath-H wrote:

 

 

But Dave knows it doesn't work that way anymore. So I am concluding he

is knowingly sending someone the wrong way and being very vocal about

how 'helpful' he is, and would like to know why.

See, comments like that (from Jochem) send off all kinds of fireworks - dave's been around the forums since Adam was a lad and the notion that he would behave that way is quite breathtakingly insulting to one of the most helpful and good-hearted people around here.

If Dave and JC first have a vocal discussion about how the support procedures for login retrieval have changed, and Dave subsequently sends somebody along the old procedure that no longer works, conclusing that he does so knowingly is the only sensible conclusion. So I ask why. And while I do realize the inflammatory nature of that question, I still consider the conclusion I reached valid.

dave milbut wrote:

 

deep breaths everyone. let it go. in the big scheme, it's not important.

That's perhaps the most sensible comment I've seen in this thread.

Everybody needs to take several steps back and calm down. It's also a good idea to take another look at the Forum etiquette and best practices. They have some things to say that should be taken on board by everyone - moderators and non-moderators alike:

Do:

• Respect others
• Assume good faith
• Be kind to newbies — we were all new once

Respect is a two-way street. Someone who has been a member of the community for a long time, and made a lot of contributions, deserves respect. But there are some long-term members (not necessarily people who have participated in this thread), who have been extremely disruptive and discourteous to others. Long-term membership alone doesn't command respect. It's the way that person acts within the community towards all comers, not just a select clique, that matters.

Assume good faith. I have seen lots of accusations leveled at Zeno Bokor and Jochem van Dieten as "bad moderators". Both are new at the job, and may have done things you don't like, but did they do it in bad faith? I have never met Zeno, but I do know Jochem. He's an honest and dedicated guy. Among all the people with moderator status in the new forums, he has probably done more than anyone else to try to get technical improvements implemented. Zeno, by the way, has also been very active behind the scenes, among other things removing a torrent of spam.

Don't:

• Personally attack people, their edits (including spelling or grammar), or their comments
• Rant or otherwise harass, abuse, or intimidate other

I have been deeply shocked the the level of personal abuse in some forums. Some people seem to think it's OK to be rude because you're not meeting face to face. It's not OK. If you don't like what someone writes, take a deep breath, and walk away from the keyboard.