Moderator Performance, V.2, Suggestions/Complaints/Compliments Options

[*kryogenix*]

I have no problem clarifying, it's easy when you don't close every topic.

I meant update me on the status of all the verbal warnings you need to hand out.

[*kryogenix*]

Thanks, if I see anymore, I'll let you know so you can give the real warnings out.

[misoshiru]

To tell the truth, I was slightly surprised when Robbi, Diana, and I can't remember who became people staff. I'm not surprised at the people who were chosen, but at the comment that I think Suzette made about how

Like the amount of People Staff we have now is great, and it could even stand to be a little bit smaller.

I was just wondering why appoint so many back on to people staff when the amount could be smaller.

[*kryogenix*]

They needed three people to fill my shoes.

[*Azarel*]

To tell the truth, I was slightly surprised when Robbi, Diana, and I can't remember who became people staff.

There were only two appointments to people staff. The other two were Kristina and me to design staff (and a third--Suzzette to head staff). But really, that's only one new person added to the staff team.. and I think Suzzette made that comment because there are some members who have taken a temporary leave of absence so they haven't been performing as many mod actions as would be preferred--especially since there's only so much that can be done in the community center.

[*disco infiltrator*]

She means a smaller, more consolidated group of people that do a really good job instead of an expansive group of a couple of people who do a really good job and a couple of people that are dead weight.

[misoshiru]

Okay. I get, because it just sounded slightly contradictory.

[*kryogenix*]

duchessofdork is deleting my images because they are violent, but I'd like to know what rule it breaks, even though holding a gun isn't really violence when he's not shooting it.

[*Monochrome.*]

Not this again...

[*kryogenix*]

If you're not going to help, please refrain from posting.

[*Duchess of Dork*]

duchessofdork is deleting my images because they are violent, but I'd like to know what rule it breaks, even though holding a gun isn't really violence when he's not shooting it.

CONTROVERSY
Think before you post. Everyone is different and everyone has different stances on certain issues. A little tact is never a bad thing. When you have an argument, it's better to post with reasoning justifying your views. Avoid saying things that creates or has the potential of creating controversy.

People have been complaining, I don't have to reveal their names. Also, people have been complaining in-thread.

You want to post pictures of Africans, fine. But you are now ONLY posting pictures of them depicting violent stances (holding a gun).

Stop and think before you post. I think I and many others have been entirely patient regarding this.

[*Monochrome.*]

Well really it be best for you to take it up with rebecca in PM.

[*kryogenix*]

People have been complaining, I don't have to reveal their names. Also, people have been complaining in-thread.

You want to post pictures of Africans, fine. But you are now ONLY posting pictures of them depicting violent stances (holding a gun).

Stop and think before you post. I think I and many others have been entirely patient regarding this.

Wow. Just wow.

What are you saying about Africans holding guns? Are you saying Blood Diamond is wrong?

Holding a gun is not violent. You see these pictures all the time in newspapers, and there is nothing wrong with that. You can't see anyone getting shot. I would even understand more if they were executing someone (even though that's been allowed in the past). But they're just holding a gun!

[*Duchess of Dork*]

James, please. I am asking you to please step outside yourself, and see that you are offending people by posting those images. Why is it so important for you to continue? I told you why. I've repeated the Controversy rule.

Look, I'm not paid to sit there and close threads, edit posts, etc. I don't like having to do ANY of that. I don't like arguing with people. I do this voluntarily. I take time to help out this site. I'm not here at 11:30 PM when I have to wake up in less than 5 hours for work just so that I can terrorize your threads. I'm here because people are really upset about that thread.

But I tried to be objective, the thread isn't (in its seemingly original intent) violating any rule here. Then you had to keep posting pictures of Africans in violent stances, holding guns and such.

Why? Honestly, why? I asked you not to anymore. I even kept the ones you had posted prior to that because I didn't think it was fair to remove those when you hadn't been asked not to post those yet. And you continue doing it? Even when asked not to? Why?

I'm sorry, but that line of Controversy has been crossed. I know that you may (and probably will) continue complaining about here. You might make another Feedback thread or post around making comments about how the Staff here is going to be the cause of the end of world. But none of us are here with the intent of making you upset or frustrated. However, we have to do what we were asked to do when accepting the positions here that we were offered, which was, in part, to uphold the rules.

I don't think I need to quote the rule you are going to break if you keep posting those pictures needlessly.

[HakunaMatata]

We did not say Blood Diamonds is wrong, we said that showing ONLY pictures of Africans holding guns is controversial. It is. Even on mute, the Cho Seung-Hui video is controversial. Blood Diamonds was controversial. James, we are not saying that they are explicitly, wholly, and completely wrong, we are saying that they are controversial, thus breaking the Controversy rule.

[*kryogenix*]

I think people are just picking on me. If they are offended, then I hope they're writing their newspapers and writing Warner Bros Pictures, because you see the same exact thing there too!

Can you explain to me why these pictures are offensive? Is there a rational reason to be offended by them?

Close all the debate topics then, because they're all controversial.

[*AngelicEyz00*]

Wow... do you guys need help taking the big sticks out of your asses?

[*kryogenix*]

Able was I ere I saw Elba.

What I'm getting at here is guys, what you're saying is, if I got a bunch of people to join this site and say stuff was offensive, would you ban that stuff from being discussed? Cause that's what's happening now.

INTERNET: SERIOUS BUSINESS!

[*I Viddy Horrorshow*]

Wow... do you guys need help taking the big sticks out of your asses?

The mods, James, or both?

[*Duchess of Dork*]

What I'm getting at here is guys, what you're saying is, if I got a bunch of people to join this site and say stuff was offensive, would you ban that stuff from being discussed? Cause that's what's happening now.

I'm short on time, so I'm just going to cross post this:

Controversy and debate could very well be considered brother and sister. They are so similar that the line between the two can easily be muddled.

The difference in those two, from what I've been seeing lately is unnecessary controversy versus controversy that can fuel a debate. It's goes along with what I said before, it's in the intent of the person or persons bringing up the subject. None of us can read minds (I think I've been watching Heroes too much the past few days), but unless someone gives a clear reason as to what they are trying to do, we have no choice but to come up with a reasoning behind these actions, especially when nothing but images are posted. No discussion, no commentary, just images of the same manner being posted repeatedly.

In this case, if James were to have made a topic in Debate entitled something like, "Controversial images of Africans carrying weapons", and proceeded to have a discussion about a recurring theme surrounding that subject, that is absolutely acceptable. It can open people's minds, educate them and provide for a strong background that could inspire a really good debate.

Creating a topic for the sole purpose of posting pictures of "Africans" was a little offbeat, but didn't hurt anything. People were already a little put off by it, but the thread itself wasn't breaking any rules. However, when James started to only post pictures of Africans in violent poses (I guess violent is a subjective term, but for some reason it has been embedded in my mind that guns are violent), it crossed the line from being a harmless thread, to be an unnecessary means of controversy and conflict. Why, for example, would one continue to post only those images. I would have done the same for any race, for any religion, for any age group with repeated like-images posted. And I would have gone through the same process, regardless of the member posting.

As I mentioned in The Lounge thread, I don't have a lot of time. I just wanted to be respectful enough to take a few minutes and respond here and try my best to give my perspective on this.

[*AngelicEyz00*]

The mods, James, or both?

Some of the mods.

[*relaxdontrelapse*]

hi elba

[*I Viddy Horrorshow*]

Some of the mods.

Ah, ok.

just thought you were being a little bit ambiguous, is all

[*kryogenix*]

I'm short on time, so I'm just going to cross post this:

Controversy and debate could very well be considered brother and sister. They are so similar that the line between the two can easily be muddled.

The difference in those two, from what I've been seeing lately is unnecessary controversy versus controversy that can fuel a debate. It's goes along with what I said before, it's in the intent of the person or persons bringing up the subject. None of us can read minds (I think I've been watching Heroes too much the past few days), but unless someone gives a clear reason as to what they are trying to do, we have no choice but to come up with a reasoning behind these actions, especially when nothing but images are posted. No discussion, no commentary, just images of the same manner being posted repeatedly.

In this case, if James were to have made a topic in Debate entitled something like, "Controversial images of Africans carrying weapons", and proceeded to have a discussion about a recurring theme surrounding that subject, that is absolutely acceptable. It can open people's minds, educate them and provide for a strong background that could inspire a really good debate.

Creating a topic for the sole purpose of posting pictures of "Africans" was a little offbeat, but didn't hurt anything. People were already a little put off by it, but the thread itself wasn't breaking any rules. However, when James started to only post pictures of Africans in violent poses (I guess violent is a subjective term, but for some reason it has been embedded in my mind that guns are violent), it crossed the line from being a harmless thread, to be an unnecessary means of controversy and conflict. Why, for example, would one continue to post only those images. I would have done the same for any race, for any religion, for any age group with repeated like-images posted. And I would have gone through the same process, regardless of the member posting.

As I mentioned in The Lounge thread, I don't have a lot of time. I just wanted to be respectful enough to take a few minutes and respond here and try my best to give my perspective on this.

What do you consider a violent pose? Why is it that you assumed that I'm not going to post "non violent" poses later on? Law of large numbers FTW.

[*Duchess of Dork*]

Violent pose? Well, I would consider someone holding a gun, in a menacing stance a violent pose. Now of course things like, "menacing stance" is something of an arguable point. I'll agree with that.

Really though, I think that you (or someone) should make a Debate topic about this. I think it could be a really good debate.