Moderator Performance, v.3 Options

[fixtatik]

Same could go for Thomas. Just sayin'.

sure, thomas could handle your reactions a little differently

just sayin'.

i'm not a "back in the day" member, so i guess i'll take what i have coming to me for speaking out. just seems a bit immature that everyone here (including thomas) is resorting to internet bashing. it's the whole, "u b glad idk u irl cuz i beat ur face in!"

[hi-C]

^ No one's attacking you...

[fixtatik]

^ i'm not saying they are. but i have noticed around the cB forums that every time someone speaks their mind, there's always someone else who comes in and starts in with some nonsense.

mostly-teen website or not, can't we act like adults? take ideas or thoughts in the feedback forum seriously (that's what feedback is, right), instead of outright saying, "no you're wrong." i'm not pointing fingers; it's just what i've seen.

[hi-C]

It doesn't happen every time someone speaks their minds. And in this case, the one who started the "nonsense," as you called it, was in fact, Thomas. So while I do understand your call for maturity, and indeed, your instinct to defend Thomas, this time, it's better to leave well enough alone.

[fixtatik]

i'm not at all defending thomas. as i said, he could have handled the responses differently. but yes, it is a call for maturity. not to sound insulting, but "he started it" is not a step in that direction.

whomever starts the crap in any thread should be the last person to be a part of it. as moderators and administrators, if someone is being extremely distasteful, issue a warning. starting in with sarcastic remarks only heightens the situation. it might do everyone some good to re-read the community guidelines.

[sixfive]

nigger

[brooklyneast05]

it might do everyone some good to re-read the community guidelines.

i don't get how re-reading the community guidelines would change the outcome. i don't think there's anything in there that says we can't disagree with someone when they are misinformed. which is what thomas is when he calls out people who have legitimate reasons for being gone and have already informed the staff of their reasons. on the other hand, i'm sure the community guidelines have something to say about thomas' bashing and racial comments


duno, i get what you're saying and i'd agree if it was anyone else fixtatik. i just don't agree when it comes to thomas becuase he's so irrational, flips out to such extremes and insults people personally when people disagree with him here. any provoking i did was after he'd already called me a douchebag so i don't feel that badly about it really, not to mention it wasn't even on the same level as his reactions to me.

n****er

[superstitious]

i'm not at all defending thomas. as i said, he could have handled the responses differently. but yes, it is a call for maturity. not to sound insulting, but "he started it" is not a step in that direction.

whomever starts the crap in any thread should be the last person to be a part of it. as moderators and administrators, if someone is being extremely distasteful, issue a warning. starting in with sarcastic remarks only heightens the situation. it might do everyone some good to re-read the community guidelines.

Ok, first I'd like to say that I think it's great that you are trying to look at things from a go by the rules perspective and being the bigger "man", so to speak. However, when someone like Thomas (who I still believe needs a psychological evaluation) insults you on such a personal level, the game changes some... even if for a few posts. It's natural and understandable to defend yourself. Sarcasm is often the first weapon of defense. I think that for the most part, this situation was handled maturely and the counter posting stopped (especially after Dee posted, requesting that everyone move on).

I've made no secret that I refuse to read anything Thomas posts, unless he decides to use a different account to respond to me or someone quotes him, at which point, I can't help but see it. He insulted my child and myself (for having a disabled child), for no reason other than he couldn't come up with something logical or intelligent to counteract whatever drama he had cooked up for himself. As a mentor (and someone who helps out administratively), I shouldn't put people on ignore. However, staff understands and I am without doubt, that Jusun would also understand. That being said, I refuse to entertain such a blatent attention seeker. That's my style though. I intentionally did not respond in this topic because I felt that a) I don't have objectivity where he is concerned after his personal remark and b) why give him what he wants? (attention).

[rnicron]

thomas sucks.

just sayin.

also, thomas took a huge leave of absence. who else remembers his sig saying he wouldn't be back to the first of the year? is that different? i don't think so. thomas, you did it, too, so go suck on a lemon.

[brooklyneast05]

also, thomas took a huge leave of absence. who else remembers his sig saying he wouldn't be back to the first of the year? is that different? i don't think so. thomas, you did it, too, so go suck on a lemon.

[rnicron]

actualllllllllllllllllllllllllly, you were because you came back randomly out of nowhere and removed my sig.


see VVVVVV

[LittleMissSunshi...]

Other's don't have a problem turning it around on me. My IP still is valid. Those people should post more often, or just step down. They're staff members to make it better here. Not go absent when they feel something so urgent has come up in their lives where they only post backstage.

thomas just let it go, your suggestion of staff members triggered nothing but fire. not everyone spends their lives on Cb like you do. like everyone said we have other things in our mind than cb, way more important. staff members are to make it better, yes, but cb doesn't need "fixing" or staff members EVERYDAY. i do agree with you however, but you can not remove them for their job if something else is important. maybe to you it seems like there are no staff members to make your vision of cb better, but there is enough for the cb we see is fine. you should less-stalk the mods on cb, cause it seems like your doing that a lot. plus thomas, we have many mods now.. i don't understand why your bringing up the people who can't be on cb, when there are ones here. i'm not against you or anything but some points i agree with you and some i'm far from it.

^ i'm not saying they are. but i have noticed around the cB forums that every time someone speaks their mind, there's always someone else who comes in and starts in with some nonsense.

mostly-teen website or not, can't we act like adults? take ideas or thoughts in the feedback forum seriously (that's what feedback is, right), instead of outright saying, "no you're wrong." i'm not pointing fingers; it's just what i've seen.

we have our right to speak our mind, but not the way Thomas does it. you've never been a situation where someone has insulted you personally on this site, not saying I have, but just from experience wise (what everyone is explaining about from their point of view). speaking our minds, is actually what the forums are all about, if we couldn't speak our minds, you wouldn't be giving your explanation on to telling us to act mature. i do agree with you on pointing fingers and maturity, but really this isn't something new, we all know how to act mature, it's just there's fights. not everyone can get along with the same people.

i'm not at all defending thomas. as i said, he could have handled the responses differently. but yes, it is a call for maturity. not to sound insulting, but "he started it" is not a step in that direction.

whomever starts the crap in any thread should be the last person to be a part of it. as moderators and administrators, if someone is being extremely distasteful, issue a warning. starting in with sarcastic remarks only heightens the situation. it might do everyone some good to re-read the community guidelines.

re-reading the community guidelines is pointless, just like what Jc said, all the members know the rules. we know our limits, somehow some of us like to disobey the rules every now and then, it's like school basically. we all have our flaws, and there isn't anything wrong with that.

[Mikeplyts]

Wow Shannon.

[illriginal]

I'm still tryin to figure out the math in this whole lowering of "warning percentage". You see.. you moderators made it clear that each week the warning level should drop 10%. Yet... it's taken 5 almost 6 weeks to drop from 40% to 10% (yes... I'm still on 20% for almost two weeks now, just like I was on 30% for two weeks, and I was on 40% for two weeks). I think it's time to implement an automatic system. Either mods are abusing their powers, someone(s) simply don't know their math, or finally... someone(s) just isn't doing there moderating job. But then again... it could simply be discrimination.

Pick your poison... because it's 1 of those 4 options at hand and it's an embarrassment.

[hi-C]

^ No, warnings stay in place for two weeks, so it should drop every two weeks. I see that it's been two weeks since your last lowering, so I'll go ahead and do that for you.

And no, we're not discriminating against you.

[superstitious]

I'm still tryin to figure out the math in this whole lowering of "warning percentage". You see.. you moderators made it clear that each week the warning level should drop 10%. Yet... it's taken 5 almost 6 weeks to drop from 40% to 10% (yes... I'm still on 20% for almost two weeks now, just like I was on 30% for two weeks, and I was on 40% for two weeks). I think it's time to implement an automatic system. Either mods are abusing their powers, someone(s) simply don't know their math, or finally... someone(s) just isn't doing there moderating job. But then again... it could simply be discrimination.

Pick your poison... because it's 1 of those 4 options at hand and it's an embarrassment.

WARNING SYSTEM

A member is warned when they violate the Community Guidelines or the Terms of Use for this site. When warning a member, post a reply in the topic of Warned/Suspended Users. Make sure that you check back to that topic to make sure that an users warn level is decreased when two weeks pass.

http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=167152

It's a notch every two weeks, depending on whether or not you have been warned in between warning decreases. I can't speak for anyone else, but I have no personal grudge against you at all. Sure, I don't agree with many things that you post, but that doesn't stop me from lowering warn levels. I honestly don't know of anyone who has a personal grudge against you on staff as well, but I'm not a mind reader. haha

In fact, in looking at your warn log, Dee lowered a warning 5 days early at one point. It's an imperfect system (since it is not automated and automation would have to be added/implemented by the site owner) executed by imperfect people. :) It also looks like she moved a warn level more than the typical 10% notch once.

[illriginal]

It also looks like she moved a warn level more than the typical 10% notch once.

Ya when I came back to the states and back onto CB... it was like a good 6-7 month gap and she was kind enough to kill off the warning level since it was there for a long time.

I see that it's been two weeks since your last lowering, so I'll go ahead and do that for you.

And no, we're not discriminating against you.

You go girl!

[Just_Dream]

i'm pretty sure he means you need to be an active poster to be on staff, but you don't need to be on staff to be an active poster.

Nope, as this was/is not always the case. I got on staff with a very few amount of posts, and there were other past staff members who didn't have a shitload of posts nor would I say there were "actively posting" but still became staff members. But to remain on staff, "actively posting" isn't really important if the staff member is still contributing, such as helping out with the queue, answering questions (less or more), etc.

what other type of leave besides personal is there? someone can't leave if they die

What does this have to do with anything? Are you directing this towards me? Because personal leave is obviously an encompassing term. So the sarcasm just sounds out of place. Thomas doesn't really bother me because I'm not even on staff. I just felt like replying with my opinions, that's all. I want no trubbo, NU TRUBBO!


Juna, you wish you got paid for being a photographer broYe.

[fixtatik]

...we have our right to speak our mind, but not the way Thomas does it. you've never been a situation where someone has insulted you personally on this site...

re-reading the community guidelines is pointless...we know our limits, somehow some of us like to disobey the rules every now and then

if he's wrong in the way he's speaking his mind, then warnings should be in place. and with all the negativity i see in his direction (meaning examples i've been given of him acting out of place), it should be a pretty high level by now. and yes, i have been insulted personally, though it was nearly a year ago and i don't hold grudges, so there's no point bringing it up.

however you may think, re-reading the guidelines is not pointless.

PERSONAL ATTACKS
Flaming, trolling, member bashing-you name it-will not be tolerated here. If you're making an argument, it's always better to retort with reason and composure. Personal attacks are childish and have no place in these forums.

"not tolerated" means not tolerated. it just feels to me that it's a rule that isn't enforced very well.

edit: hell, re-reading the guidelines i've realized should be warned too, as the banners i have in my signature aren't for a "personal" site. it's commercial. =\

[Gigi]

^ tbh we've always been very lax on warnings so it's no surprise that Thomas didn't get any warnings for his crass behaviour. I think on a certain level the mods/other members think that it would be unfair to warn Thomas and not other people as well for giving him a taste of his douchebaggery.

And anyway, for the most part people HAVE been retorting with "reason and composure". It's only JC who really bashed Thomas, but only after he said "black douchebag name" (so in this case the bashing back, although not entirely necessary, was provoked and understandable). It's Thomas who has resorted to the personal attacks time and time again when he realizes that no one is on his side. So you're right on one thing, it's that Thomas need some more f*ckin' warnings.

But to keep quoting the Community Guidelines in a situation where many liberties were taken is silly. When the guidelines were written up and agreed upon, there was an understanding that we would judge any incidents on a case-by-case basis, not just blindly following the guidelines.

[rnicron]

that still doesnt make it right to attack someones son because you dont get your way ***hole. if you cant fight fairly stfu and go cry. that is unfair to resort to insults of that nature. now move along. you took leaves of absences just as they are so dont bitch about something you once did. besides its not even that big of a deal you just have a sour taste still because they kicked your ass off staff and you act as if they cant function without you but theyve made it this far so you dont seem like too much of a huge asset. besides who wants some ocd ridden fool running the forum? no one. this is over.

[shoryuken]

wur alll da thrad 4 da attakk n shiett..

[Tung]

wtf u was being mean to cheyenne? wtf dude? okay now i'm pissed.

[Harp]

chances are, i was mean to him first.

[Simba]

Juna, you wish you got paid for being a photographer broYe.

yessum