Views on the Moderation on this Forum (started by STMOD)

[minimoke]

Seems like this has just turned into a bitch session about the moderators... not what I really expected.

Vince

Well Vince, perhaps thats getting to the heart of the issue.

You have been given examples of where Forum Members feel aggrieved.

To use an analogy its seems to me that the Mods are there as market regulators - there to keep some semblance of order and transparency and ensure the playing field stays level.

Trouble is it seems like there are two sets of rule. The last couple of days has been interesting - seems to me Forum Members have a pretty good understanding of the rules under which they participate.

But it also seems the Mods have their own sets of rules. And perhaps each mod has a different set from another Mod. And then the Mods apply the Forum rule breach consequences to their own sets of rules.

So perhaps we don't actually need a new set of rules. Maybe its just one set for all.

And of course rules need to have consequences when they are breached. Perhaps forum members would appreciate a guideline on what they can expect to happen to them when they start infringing - but we already have that in the rules. Looking back to the Market Regulators - they dont go for a delisting straight away if say, an Annual Return isnt filed on time. There are normally warning shorts, like trading halts, and then there are fines and eventually when the real serious stuff happens the big boys get involved.

Doesn't matter the analogy - there is just one set of rules. And the application of those rules are transparent.

But hey - I've learnt something these last few days. Didn't realise there was an "Ignore" button. Must look that one up. Wouldn't use it myself, but if Forum members get a bit agitated at the way a thread is progressing perhaps they should be encouraged to make better use of this feature. Probably make the Mods jobs a bit easier if Members took responsibility for their own sense of grievance rather than let others be aggrieved on their behalf.

[winner69]

Well Vince, perhaps thats getting to the heart of the issue.

You have been given examples of where Forum Members feel aggrieved.

...........

Agree mini, that is the heart of the matter. And Vince needs to recognise that.

[Minerbarejet]

This has nothing to do with anything anyone has said so far and is merely an observation.

New Zealand appears to have a population with a bias towards knocking others just for the hell of it. Otherwise known as Tall Poppy Syndrome there is no doubt in my mind a fairly large element of this creeps into the conversations on ST.
Recipients invariably respond leading to further and deepening agitation.
It would appear that we are currently stuck with it as part of the national psyche.
Communication and Education are about the only things that can change it.

[Vince]

This has nothing to do with anything anyone has said so far and is merely an observation.

New Zealand appears to have a population with a bias towards knocking others just for the hell of it. Otherwise known as Tall Poppy Syndrome there is no doubt in my mind a fairly large element of this creeps into the conversations on ST.
Recipients invariably respond leading to further and deepening agitation.
It would appear that we are currently stuck with it as part of the national psyche.
Communication and Education are about the only things that can change it.

Best post yet!

[BlackPeter]

Seems like this has just turned into a bitch session about the moderators... not what I really expected.

Vince

Hi Vince ... first - given that we have at current a number of quite unhappy posters - and some of them (I think) some of our most valuable contributors - great that STMOD / you give us a platform to discuss some of the unease which seems to stifle our community.

I think it is great that we want to make this a still better forum, but one of my problems is, that I still don't understand how the existing system works. Before we change this system - would it be possible that either you or somebody from STMOD could clarify:

1) What exactly is your position - do you own Tarawera or are you employed by them?
2) What's in it for Tarawara to run this forum (i.e. what is its ultimate purpose)? - How does Taraware want this forum to look like?
3) Who or what is STMOD (we don't need names, but it would be good to know to understand any potential conflict of interest and whether this is one person or a number of people ... and, if they are posters on this forum as well, who are they?
4) If regular posters are part of STMOD - what was the criterium to get them there? Have they been elected by other members, have they been selected by yourself or somebody else from Tarawera - and what was the criterium to select them (like number of posts, reputation, personal contacts, other)?

Any chance to get some information on that before we proceed?

[Vince]

Hi Vince ... first - given that we have at current a number of quite unhappy posters - and some of them (I think) some of our most valuable contributors - great that STMOD / you give us a platform to discuss some of the unease which seems to stifle our community.

I think it is great that we want to make this a still better forum, but one of my problems is, that I still don't understand how the existing system works. Before we change this system - would it be possible that either you or somebody from STMOD could clarify:

1) What exactly is your position - do you own Tarawera or are you employed by them? Neither
2) What's in it for Tarawara to run this forum (i.e. what is its ultimate purpose)? - How does Taraware want this forum to look like? To provide a community to discuss shares
3) Who or what is STMOD (we don't need names, but it would be good to know to understand any potential conflict of interest and whether this is one person or a number of people ... and, if they are posters on this forum as well, who are they? They are people who have a pretty crappy job at times and others will also insinuate they have a conflict of interest and a hidden agenda, - this goes with the job.
4) If regular posters are part of STMOD - what was the criterium to get them there? Have they been elected by other members, have they been selected by yourself or somebody else from Tarawera - and what was the criterium to select them (like number of posts, reputation, personal contacts, other)? Selected by myself, trustworthy and have a good history.

Any chance to get some information on that before we proceed?

As above....

[Crackity]

As above....

Thanks Vince - I suspect your answer to 3 and 4 is only going to prompt a few more questions....

And I do note for the record some of my posts on this thread have been removed and not by myself - I believe these posts totally met the current site rules. I am not complaining merely noting

[Crackity]

Thanks Vince - I suspect your answer to 3 and 4 is only going to prompt a few more questions....

And I do note for the record some of my posts on this thread have been removed and not by myself - I believe these posts totally met the current site rules. I am not complaining merely noting

And tonight my reputation score was reset to zero.....hmmm interesting

[iceman]

I am starting to have a nagging doubt about the moderation of these forums. They seem on some occasions to be very heavy handed on some posters while other posters get away with just about anything and don't get reprimanded.
I do note that we have been told on some threads that we should not expect to see posters reprimanded if those offended don't complain. That is an interesting position. So posters can get away with total vitriol and personal attacks, as long as nobody complains ?

The main reason I am extremely concerned about the fairness of the moderation is that Joshuatree has a long history, many years, of personally attacking anybody that has a different view to him/her. This is particularly so on the political threads, where his gross comments have reached the lowest of low in the last few days. I suspect nobody has complained as the posters he has attacked are thick skinned and rather than complain about him/her, feel quite sorry for him and his mental state.

But I have been told by other posters, that some have complained about his personal attacks on several occasions and no reprimand has been forthcoming. So I have a couple of questions for you Vince:
1) Are you or someone close to you posting here as Joshuatree ?
2) Why do STMODs ignore complaints about his/her vitriolic comments ?
3) Would you consider naming the people that are acting as STMOD, even just their ST name if they are ST members ?
4) Do you think posters can say whatever they think as long as noone complains ?

I hope you can answer these questions as I am currently having serious doubts about the neautrality and fairness of the moderators. Hopefully my concerns are unfounded and unnecessary.

P.s. before posting this I checked the thread and posts I was referring to and it appears they have been deleted now. No idea when this happened ! Despite that, my questions and ponderings above remain unchanged and I would appreciate if Vince can respond to them publicly on here

[SilverBack]

I am starting to have a nagging doubt about the moderation of these forums. They seem on some occasions to be very heavy handed on some posters while other posters get away with just about anything and don't get reprimanded.
I do note that we have been told on some threads that we should not expect to see posters reprimanded if those offended don't complain. That is an interesting position. So posters can get away with total vitriol and personal attacks, as long as nobody complains ?

The main reason I am extremely concerned about the fairness of the moderation is that Joshuatree has a long history, many years, of personally attacking anybody that has a different view to him/her. This is particularly so on the political threads, where his gross comments have reached the lowest of low in the last few days. I suspect nobody has complained as the posters he has attacked are thick skinned and rather than complain about him/her, feel quite sorry for him and his mental state.

But I have been told by other posters, that some have complained about his personal attacks on several occasions and no reprimand has been forthcoming. So I have a couple of questions for you Vince:
1) Are you or someone close to you posting here as Joshuatree ?
2) Why do STMODs ignore complaints about his/her vitriolic comments ?
3) Would you consider naming the people that are acting as STMOD, even just their ST name if they are ST members ?
4) Do you think posters can say whatever they think as long as noone complains ?

I hope you can answer these questions as I am currently having serious doubts about the neautrality and fairness of the moderators. Hopefully my concerns are unfounded and unnecessary.

P.s. before posting this I checked the thread and posts I was referring to and it appears they have been deleted now. No idea when this happened ! Despite that, my questions and ponderings above remain unchanged and I would appreciate if Vince can respond to them publicly on here

Without entering into the discussion of the appropriateness of particular moderations, I think it works best when a moderatored post is retained but the content is replaced by a statement about why it has been moderated. Any replies to the moderated post can also have their content replaced. That way everybody understands who and why a post has been moderated.