I'd just like to enquire why the mods are locking problem threads without resolution or even really attempting to steer the situation to a resolution, and then even locking perfectly civil threads from notoriously friendly users questioning that ethic.

A few users have pushed the hand, no doubt about it, but do the complaints of two, or three trouble makers notorious for manipulating moderation rulebooks really merit a site staff to completely change moderation policy from laid-back to ultra-restrictive?

The warnings system is immature, dated and un-necessary. This is an archiac feature of forums from days gone by only necessary when mass moderation is required for forums of tens of thousands of threads a day. In that case, the difficulty of keeping on top of the hundreds of thousands of users means a warning system can come in handy for flagging repeat offenders in a sea of trouble makers.

Here however, we all know each other, and the warning system just seems like this silly wrist slap that doesn't resolve problems and doesn't serve any other purpose other than pushing a user closer to the point where a moderator can ban them and point to a rule book.

What about locking threads? Why jump at the gun to decide that "this thread is going no where" or "is not going to resolve anything?". Often it takes two users a breaking point which can be contained within ONE thread to resolve or understand the situation better. By locking threads willy nilly, you are enforcing without it really being needed. Sure if a thread is 30 pages of utter shit and people are calling for a lock because its very obvious it's not going anywhere then thats fine, but four pages in with no real resolution or call for it to close? Hmmm.

Banning users should be a tailored, individual desicion that looks at each unique situation and weighs up the gravity of whats going on. I really don't think any bans have been particularly necessary in the past few months, and before only blocking site pests rather than actual users who have occasional spats has been a policy that worked out well for everyone.

I'd like to remind the site staff here that the reason this entire userbase arrived at the website was to escape moderation and administration that they didnt agree with, and felt misunderstood and controlled by. Whatever moderative and administrative changes have happened in the past few months have been, in my opinion, detrimental to the way this website has been operating.

We all made this community, not just the site staff, and without the people who came here and supported the website so heavily, KJ would not be anything like what it is today, so I'd warn you guys to be careful about the heavy-handedness of which you treat your users, because clearly, this is a website full of people who do not believe in that approach to problem solving as has been very obviously demonstrated in the past.

I also would point to Maverikk's 90 threads now as my back up for why locking threads without proper reasoning is not a good idea. It usually creates nasty spillovers or the problem just bubbles up elsewhere.

Except for the non too subtle and unprovoked digs at me, which will be treated like perfectly acceptable behavior until I start doing it, I completely understand why you aren't satisfied with the job they do here. It's embarrassing to watch.

Michael

In the case of maverikk at least, what resolution? Hes displayed this behavior for years now. There is no resolution.

- Hes hates the members here
- He continues to take every opportunity to tell us how awful we are at running this website
- How everyone gangs up against him

Yet he continues to stay here for reasons I do not understand. Frankly, those threads at least in my opinion should be locked and the person banned. Hes done nothing on this site but make trouble. Look at the 3 threads hes created and the fact that hes openly said he is going to take matters into his own hands. considering he really has zero powers here, i do not know what that translates to, except him being a trouble maker again. If he has so many issues with the website, the boy should just leave. whenever someone calls him out, he changes the subject or passes some statemetn like "i'm not gonna read anymroe of what you said' because its obvious he doesn't know how to respond to it.

i'd agree. not all threads should be closed without resolution but this is one of those cases where if you're expecting some resolution with mav, i'd find it laughable.

Arsi, please don't try to talk tough behind the computer, okay? Seriously, don't go there with me, because you have no place to ever discuss another person's character when you have absolutely none at all.

Well, for what I locked today, one was a simple question which got a simple answer. And I do not wish to even acknowledge "do it or else" attitude from Maverikk. And other thread was made in jest I thought, and if not, could've easily been a pm.

I've long said Maverikk should be banned.
I think he brings nothing to the site other than problems for users and I don't think he's reasonable or useful. But then again, you guys have allowed him to manipulate the rulebook and generally cause issues for a very long time without a permenant ban, so the buck essentially stops with you guys as to why he is still here butting heads with anyone and everyone.

Banning and moderation is as much about looking at what the greater good for the users / and what they want than it is assessing an individual situation. Its a rough balance to get, no doubt, but I feel you guys have been a mile and a half off on it with frequency lately, the Getluv banning situation crops to mind.

I'd like to also point out there is a clear difference on Maverikk's point of view on the moderation (temper tantrum when you guys don't do what he wants) and my own.

This thread is not essentially just about what happened with Mav and Libs, which isn't too much of my business really, but it's just about issues i've had with the mod team lately that I know im very much not alone with.

A lot of people on this website don't want to create a ruckus and so, whilst unsatisfied with the way things are going, they don't see a benefit to voicing that disdain. I believe that its something that should be expressed and resolved. The site staff should know that the users aren't impressed.

I don't think you guys are the worst mods ever, by any means, I just feel you need to look at the way the site was being run before, and look at all of the seemingly perpetual issues that are occuring now and see what changes were made, because whatever happened, and I speak for myself here, It wasn't good.

Christian is not included in this criticism.

Nebs, I have no idea how old you are. I always assumed you were in your 20's, but this post makes me think that you maybe aren't or are barely in them.

The way of the world is "do it or else". Our very elections run on that concept. If you want a dictatorship, I seriously suggest you take a good look at your self inventory and ask yourself why.

Is this acceptable character defamation?

Well considering this is a forum where you and me are both talking from behind the computer, i'm not really sure what else you expect. you're certainly not someone for whom i'd travel down and speak with nor do i expect myself being somehow important enough to you for you to travel down and see me ... and if you do, i'd probably get you arrested for stalking me over the internet.

and please quit with the 'you don't tell me what to do' attitude. i'll say what i want. nebs will say what he wants. if our new user here ev@n feels like saying what he wants, then he will say what he wants. nobody here is really going to let you dictate how things are done nor cares to entertain those requests of yours.

By the way, this thread was provoked by essentially the locking of Snrubs thread.
I still don't understand why that was and would like to see it explained.

I can completely agree with that. i may disagree with your opinion on getluv's banning but i do not disagree with you on the outright banning of maverikk. hes been given many chances on this forum. he clearly hates the people here and the admin team. and i definetely agree there is a difference between your statements on how the admin team may be inefective and how he portrays them. i don't have to agree with you but i do see the clear distinction here.

In other words, never refer to me as "boy" again, or have the intelligence to recognize it.



Yet you somehow know my last name...



And I'll say what I fucking want. If that's your philosophy, what the hell is your problem?

boy boy boy

i know your last name cause you've openly mentioned it a few times.

and the fact that you're somehow implying that it is important enough to travel up because you brought up last names scares me a bit.

Mav,

This is an opinion, written by a member. The post was written in a constructive manner, and was not an attack. No, I do not consider this character defamation in the slightest, I consider it an opinion.

Well, I think we both know that you wouldn't say it to my face, but anytime you wish to, just let me know!

Show me where I mentioned my last name!!!

Michael, mentioned this already, but I thought the thread was made in jest, and if I misunderstood it, I apologize to Snrub. But still, as it was addressed to one of us, could've easily been a pm.

I'm confused here, Karl, so maybe you can help me out. Are you saying that if the whim strikes me on a daily basis to type out a well constructed critique of a member like Libs, that it passes under the opinion definition, not as an attack?

why would i say anything to your face. my intent is not to meet you nor do i have any reason to. youre a dude on a forum website. thats about it. i've met people on the forum that i felt like meeting. you not so.
you've even worked for the site so obviously, i know your name along with anyone else whose worked for it.

Mav,

Everything is shades of gray. In this case, there is honest truth behind some of what Michael discusses, and while his opinion on how to handle it differs from mine, I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be allowed to give it.

Why is it that you can't take any negative commentary about yourself or your impact on the community, because let's be honest here, you are not one of the more positively contributing members.

Uh...I was never paid for working and didn't use my real last name, if you recall correctly, so for somebody who claims not to have interest, you sure do have a lot of my personal info swimming around in your head.

well then in that case, i probably have your wrong last name then. in either case, don't really see why i would have your last name unless you handed it out.

Because I don't genuinely care for finger pointing from those who don't live in glass houses.

Okay, so you are saying that it's okay for me to constantly voice my displeasure for anything Libs says or does (or has said and done in the past), as long as I do it in a constructive manner and don't bring in her personal life?

Gotcha! I can do that!

No, I remember very distinctly that you used my last name before. I thought it was so odd that I thought it best not to even talk about it with you and hope you forgot it.

I know I didn't freely hand it out.

The moral of the story. If you want to use the stalk word, even in snark, you probably shouldn't have private information about the person that you use it to when they didn't give said information to you.

Mav,

You know that's not at all what I mean. There is a right way and a wrong way to let an opinion be known. How many times has Michael came into this forum and posted a critique of you? To my knowledge, this is the first. And this critique is more a critique on the Mod Team than one of you, and I hope you can understand that. What you are suggesting doing would in no way be acceptable.