Moderators are impotent? (Apparently not, but they are bad communicators.)

[johndoughnut]

You need not worry, I will not post this again nor use this account.

I've been a long time paid subscriber to Anandtech. Tonight I posted to a thread that "moderators are Omnipotent." Not impotent, mind you.

Voila, I'm suspended. No email, no PM, nuttin.

You'd think in consideration for me being a paid subscriber you'd be social enough to explain a revocation. You don't even return emails.

That's fine, I need not support a site that doesn't support its users.

This is also being sent in e-mail.

Mark:

I read your post at http://subscriber.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=42&threadid=982368, and to say the least, found it convincing. Being a member who rarely, if ever, makes a one-liner posts (occasionally offensive, often seemingly worthless) in multiple threads and never comes back, I simply didn't realize that you did not receive our previous warning. That being said, consider this your warning, instead of your banning. On a daily basis, we have to deal with hundreds of worthless posts (especially in the Off-Topic forum, where a number of members complain about the decline of the forum to us), and have to make judgment calls. Context aside, saying that you slept with someone's wife in a thread about an unrelated topic put you over the line, and got you banned. Not all mods can send emails, and only mods with the proper passwords can send PMs.

I guess what I'm saying is this: you are no longer banned from AnandTech. Please try, in the future, to have a bit of decorum while posting; it isn't required in the rules, but being as moderation is a constant judgment call, it makes it easier for us to decide if you are a worthless troll or a helpful member who likes to make snide remarks every now and then. Though in your mind the discretionary call may be easier to make, you only have to make it for one user, not thousands.

AnandTech Moderator

 

[Aves]

Link to thread?




Edit: NM, found it myself.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=38&threadid=982127

 

[johndoughnut]

Here.

Mind you I'm guessing as to the reason, maybe it was something else I said, but really. If someone subscribes have the courtesy of telling them, you know?

 

[Aves]

Originally posted by: johndoughnut
Here.

Mind you I'm guessing as to the reason, maybe it ws something else I said, but really. If someone subscribes have the courtesy of telling them, you know?

I can agree with that.

 

[johndoughnut]

Interesting...

 

[Wolfsraider]

if this is you you got an answer here
sleep with your wife while you're at work.

That's one in a long series of comments that you've been warned about. Bye.

AnandTech Moderator

 

[johndoughnut]

Ah. Well thanks for finding it, although I wasn't warned.

I thought it was funny, although in context I guess they didn't. It was directed at someone in the thread and had to do with a comment they previously made at me. Moderation is apparently biased at best.

G'night.

 

[Aves]

There is also this: http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=38&threadid=981206

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
I give her a 6.

A few more posts like this, and you'll be going shoeless elsewhere.

AnandTech Moderator

 

[johndoughnut]

Well I'd of certainly refrained if I was aware of the issue. Apparently they don't PM or email you, so unless you're rereading all the threads you miss out. I never returned to reread those threads and I lost my psychic abilities early on. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it...

There's a number of "borderline" posts in which the moderators themselves mock/laugh at my posts. Maybe they could refine the user agreement to say "sexual topics are inappropriate, sometimes, but stories about moderators that smoke weed and assault others is ok." Moderators are also not privy to relationships between others and the context of some posts because of it.

I don't deny some of my posts were frisky, but come on, take a moment to let me know it through a proper channel and I'll wise up. It's not like I sit around wanting to cause members or moderators grief. :disgust:

What's funny is that fine, I can rejoin and they'll never be the wiser, it's not like I have a static IP or belong to a blockable range. So I rejoin, lose my "status" (Whoopadedoo) but bad for them, they lose revenue because I stop paying for my subscription. Nice business model.

moderators, admit your protocol is flawed, reinstate my account and let's be friends. We both screwed up, and in hindsight I apologize for those posts.

 

Originally posted by: johndoughnut
Well I'd of certainly refrained if I was aware of the issue. Apparently they don't PM or email you, so unless you're rereading all the threads you miss out. I never returned to reread those threads and I lost my psychic abilities early on. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it...

There's a number of "borderline" posts in which the moderators themselves mock/laugh at my posts. Maybe they could refine the user agreement to say "sexual topics are inappropriate, sometimes, but stories about moderators that smoke weed and assault others is ok." Moderators are also not privy to relationships between others and the context of some posts because of it.

I don't deny some of my posts were frisky, but come on, take a moment to let me know it through a proper channel and I'll wise up. It's not like I sit around wanting to cause members or moderators grief. :disgust:

What's funny is that fine, I can rejoin and they'll never be the wiser, it's not like I have a static IP or belong to a blockable range. So I rejoin, lose my "status" (Whoopadedoo) but bad for them, they lose revenue because I stop paying for my subscription. Nice business model.

moderators, admit your protocol is flawed, reinstate my account and let's be friends. We both screwed up, and in hindsight I apologize for those posts.

making threats like this isnt the wisest course of action. They might just take an active hunt in tracking you down everytime you join. In fact, because you "rejoined" while suspended, and have openly admitted it, your account will now be banned (more than likely.) you should have just taken the suspension like a man and kept your mouth shut.

 

[SinfulWeeper]

Hmm... while I have not participated actively to test the 'ban proof' power of subsribers. I was under the impression subscribers generally can not get banned.

Ahh well. Every now and then I post something in OT, mostly when I am drinking and feeling a little obnoxious. But I mainly stick to the fs/ft, dc, and CP&OC'ing forums and generally do not have to worry about it

.

 

[Azraele]

I was under the impression subscribers generally can not get banned.

Subscribing does not mean the person is not susceptible to the rules and regulations on these boards.

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: Azraele

I was under the impression subscribers generally can not get banned.

Subscribing does not mean the person is not susceptible to the rules and regulations on these boards.

She is correct. That requires being an Elite member.

 

[iwearnosox]

I'm just going to tiptoe out of here, thank you all for your insight.

 

[Azraele]

She is correct. That requires being an Elite member.

Elites can be banned too. Dennilfloss is a example, and he is not the only one to see the back end of a Mod's boot, there have been others.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: Azraele

She is correct. That requires being an Elite member.

Elites can be banned too. Dennilfloss is a example, and he is not the only one to see the back end of a Mod's boot, there have been others.

enlighten me

 

[Azraele]

enlighten me

If I'm not mistaken, Red Dawn's been banned before, and so has ViperGTS.

 

[Aves]

Originally posted by: Azraele

enlighten me

If I'm not mistaken, Red Dawn's been banned before, and so has ViperGTS.

Windogg & Lord Evermore

 

[minendo]

Originally posted by: aves2k
Windogg & Lord Evermore

Amish was banned not to long ago also.

 

[Lord Evermore]

Banned but never replied to in any inquiries about that or anything else.

I think it's pretty damned bad management to have moderators who can't communicate with the users, or to not have one of the people that does have the ability to send emails or PMs do so in response to users (although I can't fathom why there are mods who don't have permission to send emails or PMs as the moderator; if you don't trust someone to do those things, why use them as a moderator?).

Explanations for a banning that only appear in one thread that someone may not even plan to read again aren't very useful either. Perhaps a feature should be added to automatically send an email to a user when they're banned with a link to the thread/post that caused it. If nothing else, have the banning moderator send such an email.

While subscribers obviously should follow the same rules, I do think they should be more "looked after" in regards to things like this; even a banned user is someone who paid for the subscriber services (note that I do consider there being a difference between "paying to read the forums" and "paying for subscriber features), and should be ahead of the line in terms of who moderators respond to in the time they have.

Poor moderator behavior and function is really the primary reason I don't consider the forums worth paying anything for these days.

 

[John]

Evermore, I suppose you could do a much better job moderating these forums, eh?

 

[Lord Evermore]

Probably, but only if I got to make the rules, since there aren't any right now. But I've never been asked, never volunteered, and don't particularly want to devote my time to reading every single inane thread and watching for people being potty mouths or trying to prevent the slightest taking of offense by someone.

I already mentioned some things that moderators could do better. Communication by methods other than witty comments in threads, which seem to be an escalating competition between the mods for who can be the funniest while arbitrarily banning users.

Add to that the administration drawing up a real set of guidelines and holding the mods to it. Things like consistency between the moderators -- what sense is there in having one mod who will lock certain types of topics but another mod who will let them run for hours? People having to wonder whether something they say may piss off one of the mods and being able to breathe a sigh of relief that the moderator on duty isn't a pissant on the rag.

Specific rules about what words are bannable or lockable, as well as what type of posts or links are bannable/lockable, with the list posted where users can see it, and ALL users held to the rules and all mods held to the enactment of the rules without bias. Currently there's nothing but an undocumented list of words that aren't allowed and what sort of threads are allowed, but some people are able to bypass word filters or make offensive comments without even a warning while others are told they'll be banned the next time.

Aggressive control over off-topic posting. It's really really really irritating to see one or two posts every once in awhile locked due to being posted to the wrong forum, or a post here and there moved to another, and a half dozen others not touched at all, while the ones that are locked have moderator comments berating the user, despite the fact that there's relatively so little traffic and readership in the non-GH and non-OT and non-deal-related forums that you could almost call it non-existant. If the posting were more controlled, MAYBE those other forums would get more traffic and therefore become less like black holes that you can expect to never see a response to.

A little more common sense would also be nice. Just because something mean is said doesn't automatically mean the poster needs to be banned or even warned. A lot of things that are said may not necessarily be MEANT in a cruel way, or the person reading it may be too fricking overly sensitive. Turning the forums into a whitewashed, inoffensive place results in it just being a bunch of boring posts that repeat themselves.

I can hear people already (before I post) saying "but the mods are volunteers, we shouldn't expect them to have to put all that effort into the job". Why not? Is somebody forcing them to take the work on? Volunteering means if the requirements are beyond what you're willing to do, you don't ask for the job, and if you don't do the job right, you don't keep it. Moderators are supposed to be people who want to put their effort into doing something to help keep the forum smoothly functioning and safe for the users and a nice place to be. Not someone looking to go on a power trip and only willing to put minimal effort in. If the forums can't get enough people volunteering because the rules and requirements are too heavy, does that mean they should be relaxed to the point that there's hardly any reason to have moderators?

The only other thing I can think of right now is to purge the user database of anybody that hasn't posted in 6 months or more. I want to see how many of the 100,000 plus "users" are actually users.

Thought of another thing. Anonymity of moderators contributes to bad feelings towards them I think, even though I can see the point of it. Whether they do it or not (and in some cases I think they do) moderators CAN, if they wish to do so or even don't realize they do it, be biased towards certain users, retaliating for events within the forums or without. Of course it's silly for them to do that, it's just a forum, but people aren't logical. Anonymous moderators leads to endless speculation over who is a moderator, whether someone who was "attacked" or offended by a post got back at them via a banning, editing, or locking.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Lord Evermore
Probably, but only if I got to make the rules, since there aren't any right now. But I've never been asked, never volunteered, and don't particularly want to devote my time to reading every single inane thread and watching for people being potty mouths or trying to prevent the slightest taking of offense by someone.

I already mentioned some things that moderators could do better. Communication by methods other than witty comments in threads, which seem to be an escalating competition between the mods for who can be the funniest while arbitrarily banning users.

Add to that the administration drawing up a real set of guidelines and holding the mods to it. Things like consistency between the moderators -- what sense is there in having one mod who will lock certain types of topics but another mod who will let them run for hours? People having to wonder whether something they say may piss off one of the mods and being able to breathe a sigh of relief that the moderator on duty isn't a pissant on the rag.

Specific rules about what words are bannable or lockable, as well as what type of posts or links are bannable/lockable, with the list posted where users can see it, and ALL users held to the rules and all mods held to the enactment of the rules without bias. Currently there's nothing but an undocumented list of words that aren't allowed and what sort of threads are allowed, but some people are able to bypass word filters or make offensive comments without even a warning while others are told they'll be banned the next time.

Aggressive control over off-topic posting. It's really really really irritating to see one or two posts every once in awhile locked due to being posted to the wrong forum, or a post here and there moved to another, and a half dozen others not touched at all, while the ones that are locked have moderator comments berating the user, despite the fact that there's relatively so little traffic and readership in the non-GH and non-OT and non-deal-related forums that you could almost call it non-existant. If the posting were more controlled, MAYBE those other forums would get more traffic and therefore become less like black holes that you can expect to never see a response to.

A little more common sense would also be nice. Just because something mean is said doesn't automatically mean the poster needs to be banned or even warned. A lot of things that are said may not necessarily be MEANT in a cruel way, or the person reading it may be too fricking overly sensitive. Turning the forums into a whitewashed, inoffensive place results in it just being a bunch of boring posts that repeat themselves.

I can hear people already (before I post) saying "but the mods are volunteers, we shouldn't expect them to have to put all that effort into the job". Why not? Is somebody forcing them to take the work on? Volunteering means if the requirements are beyond what you're willing to do, you don't ask for the job, and if you don't do the job right, you don't keep it. Moderators are supposed to be people who want to put their effort into doing something to help keep the forum smoothly functioning and safe for the users and a nice place to be. Not someone looking to go on a power trip and only willing to put minimal effort in. If the forums can't get enough people volunteering because the rules and requirements are too heavy, does that mean they should be relaxed to the point that there's hardly any reason to have moderators?

The only other thing I can think of right now is to purge the user database of anybody that hasn't posted in 6 months or more. I want to see how many of the 100,000 plus "users" are actually users.

Thought of another thing. Anonymity of moderators contributes to bad feelings towards them I think, even though I can see the point of it. Whether they do it or not (and in some cases I think they do) moderators CAN, if they wish to do so or even don't realize they do it, be biased towards certain users, retaliating for events within the forums or without. Of course it's silly for them to do that, it's just a forum, but people aren't logical. Anonymous moderators leads to endless speculation over who is a moderator, whether someone who was "attacked" or offended by a post got back at them via a banning, editing, or locking.

Hell I constantly get signed up for Porno Spam by the fscktards who post here, I can imagine what would happen to the Mods if they weren't anonymous.

If I'm not mistaken, Red Dawn's been banned before, and so has ViperGTS.

More than once, I just don't make a big deal out of it by whining and sniveling about it (well aside from the first time )

 

[Lord Evermore]

Hell I constantly get signed up for Porno Spam by the fscktards who post here

Ooh! Bypassing the word filter! Ban him!

There's this thing on your profile called "Email Visibility". Uncheck it and nobody can sign you up for anything (unless they already know your address). Don't complain about it if you don't take precautions against it.

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: Lord Evermore

Hell I constantly get signed up for Porno Spam by the fscktards who post here

Ooh! Bypassing the word filter! Ban him!

There's this thing on your profile called "Email Visibility". Uncheck it and nobody can sign you up for anything (unless they already know your address). Don't complain about it if you don't take precautions against it.

He trades on the FS/T fourm where a visable email is required.