Is this what you want to turn this place into?

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

If i remember correctly there were members of Saddam Husseins parliament that did just that, before they were promptly removed and 'dissapeared'.

So the moderators - who, I think, other than Pecker, all have less than a year's tenure -have returned to being labeled ruthless oppressors?

 

[798686]

So the moderators - who, I think, other than Pecker, all have less than a year's tenure -have returned to being labeled ruthless oppressors?

It all seems a bit...conspiracy theory. :frown1:

 

[flame boy]

Obviously I am going to see this differently to other people, but I am "on the inside" and my opinion is clearly going to be different, but I feel for the sake of a fair argument I am going to post my thoughts. No bullshit.

No one will get banned without good reason. I am not saying that mods always make the right decision as that is not so, but people who get banned do not get banned on a whim because the mods feel like it. There is a process in place and this is followed every time - a heads up (informal warning), warning, temp ban and ban.

The idea that people cannot post things through fear of being banned is preposterous - you can post what you like as long as it is within the rules of the Terms of Service. Further to this if you have (for example) been specifically told by the moderating team not to do something and then you do it anyway - you will have to take accountability and face the repercussions.

This place is not turning in to anything terrible, in my opinion - the mods are continuing to do their jobs (which at times involve truly shitty decisions) for the love of the site. By all means criticise the decision making, you are entitled to it, but stop acting like kids with chocolate around their faces claiming they didn't eat the candy bar.

There are things the mods cannot talk about too - as much as we want to (and it would make a lot of our reasoning easier to digest) we cannot do it. I am often sent PMs from people asking for further clarification on another members issue and I am frustrated with myself because I know my reply of "I can't talk about that" just seems blunt and unhelpful. However, that's the way it is. There is no conspiracy, no underhand discussions or any cloak and dagger - sadly it's nowhere near that interesting or exciting.

You can disagree with every point i've said, just because I'm a mod it doesn't mean that I am always right.

 

[798686]

...just because I'm a mod, it doesn't mean that I am always right.

Doesn't mean that you're always wrong either.

Altho ppl seem to think so...

 

[mitchymo]

So the moderators - who, I think, other than Pecker, all have less than a year's tenure -have returned to being labeled ruthless oppressors?

I would love to elaborate on this but i cannot because i'd be banned again suffice to say that my comment is not directed at the mod team rather than the rules that bind them.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

Uh huh. Which factors a bit into my post, if the moderating staff has been completely turned over - and they have - yet, the same issues remain, perhaps, the moderators aren't necessarily the problem. :shrug:

 

[DiscoBoy]

Uh huh. Which factors a bit into my post, if the moderating staff has been completely turned over - and they have - yet, the same issues remain, perhaps, the moderators aren't necessarily the problem. :shrug:

S'what I'm sayin', kitty kat.

 

[Kotchanski]

Uh huh. Which factors a bit into my post, if the moderating staff has been completely turned over - and they have - yet, the same issues remain, perhaps, the moderators aren't necessarily the problem. :shrug:

Small point while I compose my thoughts for a further post...

Somel members of the team have been on the team for quite some time, far longer than the "less than a year" you mention in a previous post, though you are correct that Pecker is the longest standing, followed by myself I believe (though I could be wrong, I took a short break and can't quite remember the order)

Sod it, I'll post now and just make a little less sense than if I'd gone off and worked out what I wanted to say first... (No longer directed to quoted poster)

Biggest problem from my point of view, speaking as someone who was once a member (twice) a mod and admin is the lack of transparency.

As a member I would spend endless hours wondering why some member I'd spent time and effort getting to know, someone I enjoyed spending time with had suddenly been banned. I'd search and search to try and work it out, but for the life of me I couldn't. It pissed me off to no end, and eventually I had enough and applied to become a mod so that firstly, I'd actually know if I should be continuing these friendships or the mods knew something so terrible that they really weren't the type of person I needed in my life and secondly in the hopes of getting further transparency as it was clear I wasn't the only one feeling like that. In that respect things have improved, but again in my personal opinion, not enough.

As Flamey said, we do make mistakes, anyone who claims otherwise is a fucking liar, but when we do, we try to look at how things are done to see if it can be avoided in future, and we always do what we can to put things right. Obviously we aren't always going to agree with the membership, we aren't always going to agree with each other, but we try to take into account everything in front of us. The problem comes with expecting the members to accept that we've considered everything, which often includes things they can't see. I'm not going to say "well if you knew what I knew, you'd think differently" because I don't know that for sure, I do however know that in many cases this would more than likely be true.

How much transparency does it take to better the situation to an acceptable point?

We now include bans in a thread with vague detail (unless the situation leads to the bannee requesting it be made more specific for the sake of those reading it) Would adding heads ups/warnings to the list be enough? Would you want access to the content of the reports? Obviously adding heads ups/warnings couldn't be back-dated (It would simply take too long) but it would in future help the membership see that steps have been taken, and that we're not just running around banning people because one of us happened to be having a bad day... I don't have all the answers, but rather than sitting there complaining that you don't like how things are done, try telling us what you'd like to see done about it.

We always try to make allowances for general disagreements and the odd bitch fest (since this is largely what prompted this thread it seems) but where do you draw the line? You don't want us to babysit you and fear posting in case you get banned, but what about those who demand babysitting (and believe me some clearly want that) or those who on the other end of the scale avoid posting or chatting for fear of the constant attacks and abuse they might get? How do we keep all sides happy? As far as I can see, we can't. So which side should we concentrate on trying to keep happy? We can't base it on post count, length of time on the site, gold membership or anything else I can think of because the two groups span all of the above.

As it stands at this moment, we take each one case by case, and most complaints of personal attacks or harassment turn out (in our collective opinion) to be nothing but silly disagreements, and no action is taken. A slightly smaller section of them will get heads ups because of the nature of the comments. Leaving us with only a handful of reports that need anything more harsh.

That handful however includes general assholes who like to post homophobic comments anywhere they find fits their criteria, people (individual or group) who've taken a dislike to someone else and simply won't let it go making their time here unbearable, two groups of people who persistently try to push the other into going one step further in the hopes that they end up leaving us (either by their own choice, or by twisting things and getting the mods to do the work for them) If both sides are reporting things and others not connected to the situation are complaining that it is causing issues for themselves or others and affecting their enjoyment of the site, then clearly we'll reach a point where something has to be done and it will usually take the form of a heads up or warning telling both sides to knock it off because 1. It isn't just them it's pissing off 2. It's six of one, half a dozen of the other 3. It's bloody childish and 4. No one wants it to escalate to the point where one really does cross the line and gets themselves a perm ban.

We all get into "spats" and that isn't a problem as long as we're not running around using terms that I think most would agree are unacceptable. Dragging things from chat to the forum, from one thread to another, PMs getting your friends to back you up and carry on because you think you've gotten a little too close to the line but don't want to drop your issues with x member however do nothing to help the site, and do even less to promote a situation where we can say "and I should give a shit why exactly?"

Speaking personally, not as a mod...

HG, you know I'm very fond of you and I'm pretty sure you won't mind me using you as an example (crossing my fingers that I'm right) but your avatar choice is childish and ridiculous. Do I feel it is something that should be changed by the mods? No I don't, I see it as a somewhat amusing (to some) attempt to display your discontent at the mentality of another member. If said member however reported it and we did nothing, and he ran off to make his own representation of yourself, started attacking you in chat because of it, getting his friends to do the same, following you around the site throwing up things that happened months ago that weren't reported at the time, editing texts to report these things now in such a way as to make it look like something it wasn't (none of which he's done by the way, I'm combining bits from all over the place to give an example) posting things on the site specifically to try and bully you into lashing back and push us into taking action because we wouldn't when it was reported, spreading some pretty vile lies about you in chat to anyone who'll listen, and eventually the whole thing gets sent to one of us in a 5 PM long complaint because less than a handful of people decided to stand up and tell him to back the fuck off causing it to become what can only be described as two school yard gangs fighting every chance they got with the whole initially involved having now backed off to an acceptable degree because they've no need to fight the fight themselves anymore, running around ruining it for everyone because they just can't let it drop and insist that you either side with them or be included in the "attacks" on the other side, then as much as I don't think we should be holding hands, babysitting or getting involved in "spats" in general, I'd have to say it was warranted in this case.

As I said, the above is a compilation of issues we've had over the past six months or so, put them in any combination you like and I feel pretty confident in saying there is a mod thread somewhere with a report that fits the bill.

It is always going to be impossible to keep everyone happy, we're all very different people with different ways of dealing with things, different takes on any given event, and different abilities to walk away.

 

[Patchos]

Interesting, the fear, I guess, escapes me, but if others feel that way, they should express it as openly as possible. That’s the best way to empower the minority voice, that is, people like Mem and HG, who take the initiative to introduce the question into the open forum instead of keeping it private.

If no one else speaks up, their concerns will seem isolated and less powerful.

Just saying. :shrug:
Now back to writing similar dreck for institutions that reward me with gold stars. Ooooh, sparkly!

I spoke up about something to do with the site and it was deemed disruption and/or harassment. Because I'd had a prior warning, I was banned for a period of time. That's why I generally don't give my opinion here anymore.

Not that anything I say is very important. :amish::cool3:resent:opworm:

 

[798686]

I spoke up about something to do with the site and it was deemed disruption and/or harassment.

Was that the one about adding peep-holes to the LPSG bogs? :biggrin1:

 

[luka82]

I would like to thank Acon for a digested version in stalking!:biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1:
It made me a pro!:smile:
I don`t think the above mentioned member has a problem with my mentality, I think my existance on this site bothers him.
But that is his problem!:tongue:
Btw, I love his avi, makes me laugh....
I just hope PETA doesn`t see it!!!!

 

[798686]

I just hope PETA doesn`t see it!!!!

I'd rather wear fur than go naked. :biggrin1:

 

[luka82]

I'd rather wear fur than go naked. :biggrin1:

Why??? your ass is FAB! Fab I tell you!!!!:biggrin1:

 

[mitchymo]

Small point while I compose my thoughts for a further post...

Somel members of the team have been on the team for quite some time, far longer than the "less than a year" you mention in a previous post, though you are correct that Pecker is the longest standing, followed by myself I believe (though I could be wrong, I took a short break and can't quite remember the order)

Sod it, I'll post now and just make a little less sense than if I'd gone off and worked out what I wanted to say first... (No longer directed to quoted poster)

Biggest problem from my point of view, speaking as someone who was once a member (twice) a mod and admin is the lack of transparency.

As a member I would spend endless hours wondering why some member I'd spent time and effort getting to know, someone I enjoyed spending time with had suddenly been banned. I'd search and search to try and work it out, but for the life of me I couldn't. It pissed me off to no end, and eventually I had enough and applied to become a mod so that firstly, I'd actually know if I should be continuing these friendships or the mods knew something so terrible that they really weren't the type of person I needed in my life and secondly in the hopes of getting further transparency as it was clear I wasn't the only one feeling like that. In that respect things have improved, but again in my personal opinion, not enough.

As Flamey said, we do make mistakes, anyone who claims otherwise is a fucking liar, but when we do, we try to look at how things are done to see if it can be avoided in future, and we always do what we can to put things right. Obviously we aren't always going to agree with the membership, we aren't always going to agree with each other, but we try to take into account everything in front of us. The problem comes with expecting the members to accept that we've considered everything, which often includes things they can't see. I'm not going to say "well if you knew what I knew, you'd think differently" because I don't know that for sure, I do however know that in many cases this would more than likely be true.

How much transparency does it take to better the situation to an acceptable point?

We now include bans in a thread with vague detail (unless the situation leads to the bannee requesting it be made more specific for the sake of those reading it) Would adding heads ups/warnings to the list be enough? Would you want access to the content of the reports? Obviously adding heads ups/warnings couldn't be back-dated (It would simply take too long) but it would in future help the membership see that steps have been taken, and that we're not just running around banning people because one of us happened to be having a bad day... I don't have all the answers, but rather than sitting there complaining that you don't like how things are done, try telling us what you'd like to see done about it.

We always try to make allowances for general disagreements and the odd bitch fest (since this is largely what prompted this thread it seems) but where do you draw the line? You don't want us to babysit you and fear posting in case you get banned, but what about those who demand babysitting (and believe me some clearly want that) or those who on the other end of the scale avoid posting or chatting for fear of the constant attacks and abuse they might get? How do we keep all sides happy? As far as I can see, we can't. So which side should we concentrate on trying to keep happy? We can't base it on post count, length of time on the site, gold membership or anything else I can think of because the two groups span all of the above.

As it stands at this moment, we take each one case by case, and most complaints of personal attacks or harassment turn out (in our collective opinion) to be nothing but silly disagreements, and no action is taken. A slightly smaller section of them will get heads ups because of the nature of the comments. Leaving us with only a handful of reports that need anything more harsh.

That handful however includes general assholes who like to post homophobic comments anywhere they find fits their criteria, people (individual or group) who've taken a dislike to someone else and simply won't let it go making their time here unbearable, two groups of people who persistently try to push the other into going one step further in the hopes that they end up leaving us (either by their own choice, or by twisting things and getting the mods to do the work for them) If both sides are reporting things and others not connected to the situation are complaining that it is causing issues for themselves or others and affecting their enjoyment of the site, then clearly we'll reach a point where something has to be done and it will usually take the form of a heads up or warning telling both sides to knock it off because 1. It isn't just them it's pissing off 2. It's six of one, half a dozen of the other 3. It's bloody childish and 4. No one wants it to escalate to the point where one really does cross the line and gets themselves a perm ban.

We all get into "spats" and that isn't a problem as long as we're not running around using terms that I think most would agree are unacceptable. Dragging things from chat to the forum, from one thread to another, PMs getting your friends to back you up and carry on because you think you've gotten a little too close to the line but don't want to drop your issues with x member however do nothing to help the site, and do even less to promote a situation where we can say "and I should give a shit why exactly?"

Speaking personally, not as a mod...

HG, you know I'm very fond of you and I'm pretty sure you won't mind me using you as an example (crossing my fingers that I'm right) but your avatar choice is childish and ridiculous. Do I feel it is something that should be changed by the mods? No I don't, I see it as a somewhat amusing (to some) attempt to display your discontent at the mentality of another member. If said member however reported it and we did nothing, and he ran off to make his own representation of yourself, started attacking you in chat because of it, getting his friends to do the same, following you around the site throwing up things that happened months ago that weren't reported at the time, editing texts to report these things now in such a way as to make it look like something it wasn't (none of which he's done by the way, I'm combining bits from all over the place to give an example) posting things on the site specifically to try and bully you into lashing back and push us into taking action because we wouldn't when it was reported, spreading some pretty vile lies about you in chat to anyone who'll listen, and eventually the whole thing gets sent to one of us in a 5 PM long complaint because less than a handful of people decided to stand up and tell him to back the fuck off causing it to become what can only be described as two school yard gangs fighting every chance they got with the whole initially involved having now backed off to an acceptable degree because they've no need to fight the fight themselves anymore, running around ruining it for everyone because they just can't let it drop and insist that you either side with them or be included in the "attacks" on the other side, then as much as I don't think we should be holding hands, babysitting or getting involved in "spats" in general, I'd have to say it was warranted in this case.

As I said, the above is a compilation of issues we've had over the past six months or so, put them in any combination you like and I feel pretty confident in saying there is a mod thread somewhere with a report that fits the bill.

It is always going to be impossible to keep everyone happy, we're all very different people with different ways of dealing with things, different takes on any given event, and different abilities to walk away.

This is a good post and most members will or already understand the difficulties that exist.

I would like to suggest some things which might help cut the slack.

a) You could involve the membership in choosing the mod team. Not the ones already in place but future members. If you are looking for 3 new mods for example then the admin can select 5 perhaps they might approve of and then allow in a poll (not public) members to have a say so at least the connection between the members and mod team is strengthened and more trust installed.

b) In high profile bannings where the reasoning is board disruption/trolling etc perhaps you could involve the membership again and see in a poll whether the bannee is actually causing a real problem or maybe it seems that way because of constant complaints by a small group.

c) I think it would be good never to get involved in a situation where a member is being harassed by another unless the harassed member reports it as this makes pointless any complaint by a 3rd party who whilst maybe having the harassed members feelings at heart may also be serving their own interests. We know HG's opinion of me sunk that little bit further after he assumed i must have reported him when i did'nt so its important i think never to take action without the involvement of harasser and harassee.

These are just suggestions and may or may not be good ones but it does feel good trying to do something for the betterment of the site.

 

[Kotchanski]

This is a good post and most members will or already understand the difficulties that exist.

I would like to suggest some things which might help cut the slack.

a) You could involve the membership in choosing the mod team. Not the ones already in place but future members. If you are looking for 3 new mods for example then the admin can select 5 perhaps they might approve of and then allow in a poll (not public) members to have a say so at least the connection between the members and mod team is strengthened and more trust installed.

b) In high profile bannings where the reasoning is board disruption/trolling etc perhaps you could involve the membership again and see in a poll whether the bannee is actually causing a real problem or maybe it seems that way because of constant complaints by a small group.

c) I think it would be good never to get involved in a situation where a member is being harassed by another unless the harassed member reports it as this makes pointless any complaint by a 3rd party who whilst maybe having the harassed members feelings at heart may also be serving their own interests. We know HG's opinion of me sunk that little bit further after he assumed i must have reported him when i did'nt so its important i think never to take action without the involvement of harasser and harassee.

These are just suggestions and may or may not be good ones but it does feel good trying to do something for the betterment of the site.

Well bugger me, we have some actual suggestions for once!! :hug:

Your first suggestion has been made a few times, and is essentially something for Rob to make the call on (though we'd get to voice our opinions, he doesn't have to listen to us ofc) I think the over all issue is that we all have our own interactions with people both public and private and while it could potentially throw up some reasons why we really shouldn't be considering "Bob" for the position, it would also turn into a huge popularity contest. I'd personally hate to think that while x may be better suited and has shown an overall level headedness not shown by y, y has a bigger penis and better pics so got the votes. A hit and miss situation indeed, and maybe something that could be run as a test at some point just to see how it goes...

Two is a blatant popularity contest waiting to happen. Take the politics forum for example where members are most often called out and reported for trolling. We're a heavily left biased site, and if we put it to the vote, we're going to end up with every "right wing troll" voted off the island when in reality, he's probably not done anything other than try to put across his point of view against some very unfavourable odds.

Third is a lot easier said than done, I mean where do you draw the line? Do we only include the members the harassment pertains to when considering who the reports come from, or do we include anyone who actually got involved in it? We already dismiss a large percent of the reports that come in about people being rude, offensive and making personal attacks because the person they were aimed at clearly didn't give a shit...

I'm not being dismissive, far from it, I'm trying to talk through all these things from both points of view. Who knows, we might come up with something we all agree on!

 

[mitchymo]

I think the over all issue is that we all have our own interactions with people both public and private and while it could potentially throw up some reasons why we really shouldn't be considering "Bob" for the position, it would also turn into a huge popularity contest. I'd personally hate to think that while x may be better suited and has shown an overall level headedness not shown by y, y has a bigger penis and better pics so got the votes. A hit and miss situation indeed, and maybe something that could be run as a test at some point just to see how it goes...

It WOULD indeed be unfair for y to miss out because he/she has a smaller dick/breasts or whatever. I do think its worth a shot tho cos we're not all so shallow and after all the admins don't always make the perfect choice do they? :redface:

Two is a blatant popularity contest waiting to happen. Take the politics forum for example where members are most often called out and reported for trolling. We're a heavily left biased site, and if we put it to the vote, we're going to end up with every "right wing troll" voted off the island when in reality, he's probably not done anything other than try to put across his point of view against some very unfavourable odds.

Indeed again very tricky. This is only involving members who have already been banned so it will have already have transcended the level of right/left personas where the members could have a say and allows the mods instant opportunity to see if they as a collective have acted rightly by seeing poll result and actually stops anyone from creating a 'why has x been banned thread' as the team will have already created a civilised discussion thread. This would'nt need to be done every time a member is banned but only if they are banned permanently which is what generally creates the long drawn out threads. A thread such as We have banned (insert name) for....and then in the post the reasons. Include a poll for members to have their poll opinion on action right or action wrong. It would provide that opportunity to see if there is support in favour or need to rethink actions.

Third is a lot easier said than done, I mean where do you draw the line? Do we only include the members the harassment pertains to when considering who the reports come from, or do we include anyone who actually got involved in it? We already dismiss a large percent of the reports that come in about people being rude, offensive and making personal attacks because the person they were aimed at clearly didn't give a shit...

This is a simple case of get involved or don't and if neither party attacking each other cares enough to make a report then let it slide. I accept thats just my personal take on it and its not so black and white.

I'm not being dismissive, far from it, I'm trying to talk through all these things from both points of view. Who knows, we might come up with something we all agree on!

I know :smile:

 

[prepstudinsc]

I have heard that PMs are being read, but as far as I know, it's not happened to me. However, from me posting this, it could happen.
The rumor I was told is that Admins can read PMs but Mods can't.
I know that from when I served as a Mod here, we couldn't read PMs and neither could the Admins. However, this is a police state now, so I would be careful about what I put in PM as well as public forums.

LPSG is not anything like it used to be.

I agree, this site is not post worthy most of the time. One person did tell me that they were afraid to post via PM, and a few hinted at it in other threads.

Seems the only time this place gets interesting is when someone is banned.

 

[prepstudinsc]

As far as suggestions, clear out all the current administration and start from scratch.
There needs to be a bigger cross section of the membership. Right now, most are men, and everyone is either from England or the US.

 

[Lex]

As I have said, the less emotional investment I have here, the less aggravated I get over things that happen here.

 

[Kotchanski]

To the best of my knowledge neither Mods nor Admins have ever been able to read PMs, they certainly haven't been able to in my time as Admin. That isn't to say that they aren't being forwarded to us by the recipient or by others to whom the recipient has sent them on to.

I don't see how the ability to read PMs would help either the mods or the membership, it would lead to nothing but drama imo. Certainly a case could be made that it would do away with a lot of the "he said, she said" crap, but if it isn't forwarded to us then clearly no one felt it required our assistance so any benefit that could possibly come out of it is vastly out weighed by the detriment it would do in the long run.