[River85]

(Original post by ozzyoscy)
Wading into a thread to break down any good discussion it could have with a post opening with "Why do you talk such utter utter rubbish Oscar? Drivel and garbage just spews forth from all of your orifices." is not trolling?

Strongly worded. Although compared to some members (eg. RobbieC who I'm sure will admit he certainly doesn't mince words) that's quite mild.

In all honesty it's not the most tactful way of entering a thread. But I don't think it's offensive.

I see many posts like that every single day. If that was classed as "trolling" then about 200 people will receive new warnings for trolling every day. I don't think they'd like that.

Mods can't win. Mods can't lose.

(Original post by ozzyoscy)
And no, internet is not serious business. It is not even comparable to life.

So why all the fuss?

There were problems with moderation. There were problems and issues I had before and during my time on the team, most notably the lack of consistancy when it comes of warnings, the lack of clear rules, and more transperancy in the AAM system (and that members were sometimes patronised or not given a fair hearing in AAM). But my biggest problem was that moderators were too lenient in certain circumstances (e.g. obvious trolling in General University Discussion - those who signed up to troll, never made constructive contributions, were continously receiving warnings, but never receiving a perm ban).

These were all looked at during my time in the team and improvements and developments have been made (with more to come).

During my team I also think that the moderators who were modded during my time were of a higher calibre than those previously appointed. Generally speaking anyway. I'm not saying those older moderators were awful

But a more professional approach has been taken and there arean increasing number of quality moderators. Particularly Mad Vlad who I know worked terribly hard and whose condubt in Ask A Moderator was refreshing. The whole system has become more professional and I believe admin and the current moderation team deserve respect for this. It was certainly needed because the old system was just inadequate for a forum of this size.

This isn't to say there aren't one or two things I don't like. But these don't have anthing to do with moderation.

Moderators are human beings, they can make mistakes but, in my experience, these mistakes have been rectified whenever they've been brought to the team's attention. They work hard for this site.

It's really not worth getting so worked up about virtual warning points on a forum. Chances are you deserve them especially if you continually receive them.

No one has a personal vendetta against you. The site needs to be moderated.

[Wata]

(Original post by ozzyoscy)
And no, internet is not serious business. It is not even comparable to life.

According to your previous posts, teh internetz is seriouz.

[ozzyoscy]

Hahaha. I think I've magically set a new personal record of Warnings received in a week/two days. I've never got close to this many before. How convenient.

(Original post by River85)
So why all the fuss?

There were problems with moderation. There were problems and issues I had before and during my time on the team, most notably the lack of consistancy when it comes of warnings, the lack of clear rules, and more transperancy in the AAM system (and that members were sometimes patronised or not given a fair hearing in AAM). But my biggest problem was that moderators were too lenient in certain circumstances (e.g. obvious trolling in General University Discussion - those who signed up to troll, never made constructive contributions, were continously receiving warnings, but never receiving a perm ban).

These were all looked at during my time in the team and improvements and developments have been made (with more to come).

During my team I also think that the moderators who were modded during my time were of a higher calibre than those previously appointed. Generally speaking anyway. I'm not saying those older moderators were awful

But a more professional approach has been taken and there arean increasing number of quality moderators. Particularly Mad Vlad who I know worked terribly hard and whose condubt in Ask A Moderator was refreshing. The whole system has become more professional and I believe admin and the current moderation team deserve respect for this. It was certainly needed because the old system was just inadequate for a forum of this size.

This isn't to say there aren't one or two things I don't like. But these don't have anthing to do with moderation.

Moderators are human beings, they can make mistakes but, in my experience, these mistakes have been rectified whenever they've been brought to the team's attention. They work hard for this site.

It's really not worth getting so worked up about virtual warning points on a forum. Chances are you deserve them especially if you continually receive them.

No one has a personal vendetta against you. The site needs to be moderated.

I was going to say "the only major fuss is from 'Veterans' and their replies, I've just been saying what I see and have experienced, certainly keeping the posts as small as possible too.

Like last time I suggested AAM could bepublic to avoid mod abuse and a completely random mod I've never encountered gave me wall-o-texts of attacks", but I think this is a case of 'case in quote' (don't know if it's an attack, I'll assume not cos you seem alright).

(Original post by Wata)
According to your previous posts, teh internetz is seriouz.

Nope.

[-KingWalnut-]

(Original post by Meus)
balanced

At one point, posting a link to the BNP website was filtered on here. These moderators are not balanced, unless it's heavily balanced towards hippydom and left wing socialism.

[River85]

(Original post by -KingWalnut-)
At one point, posting a link to the BNP website was filtered on here. These moderators are not balanced, unless it's heavily balanced towards hippydom and left wing socialism.

Check out the BNP's economic policies.

Quite left wing if you ask me.......

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by River85)
Check out the BNP's economic policies.

Quite left wing if you ask me.......

If that truely was filtered then it's a bit pathetic though tbh.

[matthew93]

All hail the Mods!

[Mad Vlad]

(Original post by ozzyoscy)
No, I'm not the equivalent of a conspiracy theorist, I'm just saying what I have seen and experienced. Free speech.

You're entitled to your opinions, but it's worth remembering that you're only seeing one perspective. You're not an administrator and therefore cannot see everything. Is it therefore wise to pass judgement having not seen all the evidence? In my experience, I'd say not.

Now that original cliché and tactic's out the way...

I have worked 'with' the moderators, that's how it came about. Started off normal, but eventually when it got to touchy areas like mods breaking rules or certain people not getting moderated (coincidentally 'veterans' and friends of mods/the 'community'), I was met with rudeness, 'I'm not going to look into it' and locked AAM threads.

When you have to get a 3rd/4th 'opinion' (or even an admin) for someone to even bother to discuss things with you, that suggests serious issues with the moderation team.

Again, I can't comment on this as I'm not privy to AAM (what is now AASM). I am sure, however, that there was a valid reason as to why your questions were dismissed in the way that you claim they have been. Still, this thread is not the place to discuss business conducted in AAM.

Interestingly, if you had reason to believe mods were corrupt, you must have been moderated quite a bit...

I was warned on no less than ten occasions. And, looking back, I deserved them all (apart from one that was overturned).

yet you became a moderator. (I'm sure that all that ill-feeling went away when you became a mod btw)

Indeed I did, however my ill-feeling for the team subsided about 2 years before I was modded, when I realised that I was wrong. I'd grown out of being a rebellious, trouble-making knob and realised that my energy could be put to better, more constructive use. I drove some of this energy into TSR, getting involved mainly in the Tech Forum and helping with its development.

But people who break the rules don't become mods.

Wrong. Many of the moderators that joined the team at the same time as me in August last year I think had imperfect warning records.

I suppose your join date helped, eh?

Not at all. Most of the moderation team have been a member for far less time than myself. Join date is not really a criteria when moderation positions are being considered.

No, no bias at all.

No, I don't believe there was. The team had recognised that cumulatively, I'd contributed a lot to the site, particularly in the year leading up to my appointment, through being helpful, having a good attitude, good post reporting etc.

The appointment process for moderators is pretty meritocratic.

P.S. The situation I cited was in your forum. You either don't remember, had it done behind your back or you can't be arsed.

I'm a moderator of two forums, and I don't answer every single post report as there are many other moderators that can moderate in the forums I look after. I am unaware of the situation you're referring to and cannot comment on it, as I have no evidence other than the hear-say you are furnishing me with.

[River85]

(Original post by -KingWalnut-)
x

(Original post by paddy__power)
.

I can't comment on why it was edited, but why assume that it's just because the mods are strictly opposed to its political content?

It might have been that the content was inappropriate (ie. it contained graphic/offensive material?). Even one swear word will result in ANY link, regardless of its political stance, being edited.

Admin will probably need to confirm this, I'm not saying this is true, but having BNP links around the site might cause problems with those trying to accesss the site at school's (as the Internet blockers might pick up on it and block TSR).

I'm not saying these were the reasons, I really can't comment, but try and give moderators the benefit of the doubt. They aren't here to impose their own political views on others. At least never assume why a certain action was taken. Every member who isn't an admin or mod is in a position of ignorance.

Although I do like it when people criticise the moderation team for being "left-wing" or unable to accept. There are a wide range of political opinions across the moderation team from left to right. In fact, they're quite often accused of being too right wing.

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by River85)
I can't comment on why it was edited, but why assume that it's just because the mods are strictly opposed to its political content?

It might have been that the content was inappropriate (ie. it contained graphic/offensive material?). Even one swear word will result in ANY link, regardless of its political stance, being edited.

Admin will probably need to confirm this, I'm not saying this is true, but having BNP links around the site might cause problems with those trying to accesss the site at school's (as the Internet blockers might pick up on it and block TSR).

I'm not saying these were the reasons, I really can't comment, but try and give moderators the benefit of the doubt. They aren't here to impose their own political views on others. At least never assume why a certain action was taken. Every member who isn't an admin or mod is in a position of ignorance.

Although I do like it when people criticise the moderation team for being "left-wing" or unable to accept. There are a wide range of political opinions across the moderation team from left to right. In fact, they're quite often accused of being too right wing.

I do tend to give them the benefit of the doubt, and my objection is not rooted in political preference and I gave no indication that I thought it was politically motivated in the last post so I could flip your first statement back on you really mate, don't assume

My issue is with the censoring of ANY site for a reason other than the swearing/offensive language etc that you allude to [et al] - which are perfectly legitimate. There is no more offensive content on the BNP website than there is on any newspapers site for example which is why it is logical to conclude that, if a mod did it, it was likely for a skewed reason which I don't doubt would be loosely justifiable with a few choice statements but is all the same somewhat dodgy.

As I have said previously in the thread, I think they do a good job, and personally I don't think any of the mods I know would censor such a thing unless it was accompanied by a statement such as 'click here if you hate blacks' or something but if they did I can't help but think it was likely because they personally find the BNP distasteful, and I'm not sure how legitimate that is as a reason to censor something. Ultimately, if true, it's anomalous and so in a broad sense is irrelevant but taken on it's own merits I'm sure you can see the logic in objecting to it =]

[asdalol]

Sarcasm at it's best..

[RK]

I can't recall the exact reasons why the BNP website was added to the censor, but it was only for a short period. I do know that we were getting a lot of people simply linking to the site on here which I think included some who signed up on the site just to post it. So it's probable that we added it for a while, it just like any link being spammed around the site, to prevent people spamming/advertising it through the registration of new accounts. At any time we might have one or two website URLs in the censor for reasons like this.

[Leon Trotsky]

The mods here certainly aren't the best. In fact, some even hold silly, childish grudges against you.

[PQ]

(Original post by RK)
I can't recall the exact reasons why the BNP website was added to the censor, but it was only for a short period. I do know that we were getting a lot of people simply linking to the site on here which I think included some who signed up on the site just to post it. So it's probable that we added it for a while, it just like any link being spammed around the site, to prevent people spamming/advertising it through the registration of new accounts. At any time we might have one or two website URLs in the censor for reasons like this.

There was a time when the stormfront message board had a few threads encouraging their members to come on tsr and troll/spam - was that it?

[Magnum Opus]

(Original post by PQ)
There was a time when the stormfront message board had a few threads encouraging their members to come on tsr and troll/spam - was that it?

I think so, and J or someone didn't want the BNP having loads of referral links from TSR...

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by RK)
I can't recall the exact reasons why the BNP website was added to the censor, but it was only for a short period. I do know that we were getting a lot of people simply linking to the site on here which I think included some who signed up on the site just to post it. So it's probable that we added it for a while, it just like any link being spammed around the site, to prevent people spamming/advertising it through the registration of new accounts. At any time we might have one or two website URLs in the censor for reasons like this.

That's fine, but I'm not sure it's any different [in terms of effect] of people always posting stories from their preference newspaper, or posting stories from the BBC far more than from ITV etcetc ad infinitum. Unless you mean they were linking to it randomly, out of context, and repeatedly, in which case it makes more sense.

[Mad Vlad]

(Original post by Addzter)
The mods here certainly aren't the best. In fact, some even hold silly, childish grudges against you.

I disagree. As I've said in numerous posts on this subject, moderators do not hold "grudges" against people - we treat every case individually.

[Mad Vlad]

(Original post by PQ)
There was a time when the stormfront message board had a few threads encouraging their members to come on tsr and troll/spam - was that it?

I'm pretty sure it was something along these lines

[Meus]

I got banned on another forum for saying I would smack my child if I caught them smoking. In fact, others implied the same and that thread saw at least half a dozen people banned for the same reason. It's a gaming-forum with a popular Off Topic section. Naturally, they don't allow discussion of video game piracy but there is a mixed attitude towards the idea of movies and don't mind torrenting TV shows or having a Marijuana thread. To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if my ban was extended for merely pointing this out but you can't talk about Moderators or bannings on that forum. And you people complain about TSR?

[Mad Vlad]

Indeed - I've visited forums before where there's no warning system and the moderators just simply ban you for really trivial stuff, like posting in the wrong forum, or not using the search function.