[mister]

They should never be the final word on any subject in this forum. They should have to consult with an independant source before making any decision regarding a member of the forum or a posting.

I have seen mods in bt who have consulted with other people in the chatroom to determine what should be done about a situation. That is just flat WRONG and should never be the case..

A mediator is needed here for disputes that might be seen in various ways by different people. Arbitrary dismissals by mods isn't helpful, isn't right and isn't always based on facts but preconceived opinions of the moderator. For that reason they need to have oversight to protect the innocent and deal with the offends in a fair and proper manner. I know of incidents in the past that have been handled very poorly and instead of being dealt with in a private and confidential manner they were dealt with in the room before the other members in the room. That is not the proper way of dealing with an incident.

Putting a dismissal of a member or a posting to the vote of the members of the forum isn't the job of the moderators and isn't the proper way to handle things in a professionally run site that values its reputation and cares to provide a service to the members of the site

In the event of a dismissal it is no ones business what went on or why and doesn't need to be discussed by either the members of the forum or the moderator. I wish that were the case here but I have been in and out of this forum for over a year and have seen many incidents where the moderators were completely out of line and I have seen members too who have been completely out of line.

Bring on the moderators and independant outside oversite

[Curious]

Originally Posted by mister

They should never be the final word on any subject in this forum. They should have to consult with an independant source before making any decision regarding a member of the forum or a posting.

I have seen mods in bt who have consulted with other people in the chatroom to determine what should be done about a situation. That is just flat WRONG and should never be the case..

A mediator is needed here for disputes that might be seen in various ways by different people. Arbitrary dismissals by mods isn't helpful, isn't right and isn't always based on facts but preconceived opinions of the moderator. For that reason they need to have oversight to protect the innocent and deal with the offends in a fair and proper manner. I know of incidents in the past that have been handled very poorly and instead of being dealt with in a private and confidential manner they were dealt with in the room before the other members in the room. That is not the proper way of dealing with an incident.

Putting a dismissal of a member or a posting to the vote of the members of the forum isn't the job of the moderators and isn't the proper way to handle things in a professionally run site that values its reputation and cares to provide a service to the members of the site

In the event of a dismissal it is no ones business what went on or why and doesn't need to be discussed by either the members of the forum or the moderator. I wish that were the case here but I have been in and out of this forum for over a year and have seen many incidents where the moderators were completely out of line and I have seen members too who have been completely out of line.

Bring on the moderators and independant outside oversite

goodmorning mister.

here is a link to docjohn's post about mods. it was on page 3, so i'm not sure if you had seen it. it explains a lot.

http://forums.braintalk2.org/showthread.php?t=1299

i hope it answers any questions you may have. if not ask. pm's are welcome to all the mods also.

[bettertoser]

Maybe you should be the Mod? Since you have such a wonderful history of running the last BT forum telling John how to do his job? If you don't remember, many do.

Anything you don't like you go after the one you disagree with and try to make them the bad guys. You were concerned about the Mod being too close then you say you are not? See your quote below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Originally Posted by DiMarie
Perhaps that is why the moderators have to be anonymous. If we see a person editing our post that is too close to the family, one could get upset at them. Then if we don't see their name edit the post we think they did not care....

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
I sent the issue to the Mod who quickly took action. My issue was that another Mod who is friends with this poster replied to the post and never mentioned the subject in the post. I have contacted both Mods in PM and expressed my opinion and UNLIKE you they were very open to letting me do so, and we understand the issues.

But, many others that have PM'd me and I have spoken too feel the same way, and we will see how things go.

Also, many here are intelligent people, for the most part, not gullible, & they also have very good eye sight. Some posts, and explanation of posts that were made, are very transparent.


My opinion, and this is a free space where I can make it. I will not answer to any more of your posts concerning this matter as you always come back complaing of what others say, others are not able to voice opinions, but you are. Thank goodness there's the first BT, at least John is "familiar" with those that have issues with posters. He knows much of the history of posters from the past and won't put up with it.

Have a great day!!

Originally Posted by DiMarie

What about a Liason, a member as we have, trust, then a moderator makes the action with anonymity.

I am not concerned of the moderator being too close, in this case the moderator was quick to know there was something not right,
All turned out to be fine for the person's health, but their user name was hyjacked. Our moderators are fine, it is the trouble makers perceptions.

Because in the particular post, the poster admitted it was their perception of favortisim...
Di

This was the response the poster made; "NOT ME"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>
I also made that reference to one mod because of the fact that one of the mods posted a reply to TS and didn't say anything about her post. Most of us know that they know TS and if this is the reason why nothing was said, then maybe your comment about "being to close to the family, one could get upset at them", maybe Mods should not be friends with anyone that posts here, unless they do their jobs without playing favorites?

This is MY OPINION and I have a right to it.

[DocJohn]

Moderators being known members of the community presents far more transparency and far less hassle than moderators being "anonymous" (and when I say "anonymous," they really aren't -- members talk amongst themselves and figure out who the mods are eventually, as had largely happened on OBT).

Remember, if your core value is to create a supportive, caring environment for folks to come and discuss issues of importance to them, then a lot of this should largely be moot. We're all adults here, are all responsible, and most of us know when we "cross the line."

I feel that your community should be run with accountability and responsibility as well, and that really helps guide us with decisions like having transparent moderators. I think that's one of the biggest and most important differences between us and some other online communities.

John

[bettertoser]

I agree John. Thank you.

[Doody]

It's true, there are people here who know each other (obviously) from other forums and some people carry baggage with them from interactions with others from other forums.

Though John Lester knows a lot of the history, I don't think he's familiar with the recent year which many here have addressed so far. (It's really tiring to read posts IN ALL CAPS, from leaders telling you that YOU WILL DO AND ABIDE BY what the mods tell you.)

In any case, I thought it was made pretty clear here already that if someone had issues with moderating they should address them to Doc John or Kimmydawn. So far (I keep saying so far, I should just relax, heh) I trust that if I wrote to them they would pay attention to that. At BT1, I had no clue what mod to trust to address an issue (but I can say I did know of 1 I couldn't).

Anyway, can't we just say to get in touch with Doc or Kimmy and let it go at that rather than keep rehashing it here???

[Doody]

Oh sorry, didn't see Doc's post.

[mister]

The open window fresh air policy is generally the best one. If we all know the mods and feel that they can be trusted to be impartial in all matters brought before them it would be ideal but that has proven not to be the case from the experiences I have observed

In cases of dispute a mediator to solve disputes needs to be consulted because there have been incidents in the past that clearly show that some in chat and in forum can do no wrong in the eyes of the moderator and others can do or say no right in the eyes of the mods. Those situation clearly need to be addressed to prevent problems

[redjpwranglergirl]

Originally Posted by DocJohn

Moderators being known members of the community presents far more transparency and far less hassle than moderators being "anonymous" (and when I say "anonymous," they really aren't -- members talk amongst themselves and figure out who the mods are eventually, as had largely happened on OBT).

Remember, if your core value is to create a supportive, caring environment for folks to come and discuss issues of importance to them, then a lot of this should largely be moot. We're all adults here, are all responsible, and most of us know when we "cross the line."

I feel that your community should be run with accountability and responsibility as well, and that really helps guide us with decisions like having transparent moderators. I think that's one of the biggest and most important differences between us and some other online communities.

John

Doc John is right- concerning OBT, the identity of mods was discussed privately among the members- and I'm sure that most/many had figured out who the mods were....And whether certain people were mods or not, their behaviour and/or posts (posting under their forum names) had other members convinced that they were one of the "anonymous" mods and they knew it would do no good to complain about certain people on their particular forums because they "knew" that nothing would be done to them. It appeared that certain people thought they were "bulletproof" because of their friendships with certain other people. And I'm sure that some people were way off base as to who the mods were but I doubt that you'd ever be able to convince them that they were wrong- and that's because of the "history" of interchanges between certain people on there and the way that bannings were handed out or more telling, the way they WEREN'T handed out when they should've been (not saying that I agree with bannings or not- but talking about the way bannings were handled there, with bannings being the norm there). When you saw interchanges between certain "friends" on there, and saw certain people get by with "murder" while others who had done nothing but maybe question one of the so-called "forum proctors" get banned for life, this kind of thing did nothing to dispel the assumptions of who the mods were. And while it's possible (and probable in many people's minds) that those kinds of mod/poster "friendships" are continuing here, at least the mods are out in the open and hopefully they'll realize that people from OBT, rightly or wrongly, are watching to see if they will be unbiased toward their "friends" on this forum.

[mister]

WE are supposed to be here to help each other with matters in our lives that can sometimes be helped with a clear exchange of ideas. I have seen incidents in the prior bt where mods were clearly telling members of the forum to shut up. I have seen it happen to others and I know I was told the same on several occasion.

Abusing or obscene language clearly isn't the way to deal with a matter in in an adult and considerate way. Sad to say that it should be easy to be considerate of others but it is sadly no the case sometimes. there are clearly people in charge in some instances who have lost their prospective and need to decide if being a moderator is what they really want to be. If they can't deal with the fire of the position they owe it to al of us to let others deal with it and hopefully it will improve the exchange of ideas and information.