Join TSR now and chat with students like youSign up now

Should threads discussing moderation be allowed Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Potally_Tissed)
    You've just changed from referring to "customers", to now referring to "consumers". I'm not disputing your definition of consumer or that you are indeed a "consumer" of TSR, but that's not the same as being a customer, which is what you and Danny referred to in your previous posts and what I was replying to.
    As I said below, it is the same thing. Companies advertise here because it reaches users. If you had no users, you'd have no ads. No customers, no consumers.

    Another matter, the great and holy MadVlad told me that moderators are "users first". I.e. they are also consumers. Now you might get benefits if you work at a business, but tell me one business that gives power to its employees that are also its consumers, to act authoritatively to other consumers?

    You can be thrown out if you don't behave in a coffee shop? Yea, but you can then go to the manager, and then to the chain. Here, all it takes is one other section mod to back up the original mod and its over.

    That is way too much power. In addition, the anonymity that mods enjoy means no one can learn of their abuse.

    TSR is a wholly corrupt system that models itself on regimes like the Chinese or GDR.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Potally_Tissed)
    Agreed, the site would be nothing without the users. But to go from that to public naming and shaming of volunteers who didn't get something right is bit of a leap, to say the least. fluteflute has summarised it better than I can



    You can't really claim to be a customer when you aren't paying for what it is you're consuming, so the difference is somewhat crucial.

    There didn't seem to be much else in your post to reply to. You're free to direct admin to this conversation if you wish, and I will readily admit that my knowledge of random sampling is somewhat lacking
    Then don't volunteer. With responsibility and authority comes accountability.

    The fact that you even try to defend mods in this way shows how corrupt your system is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fluteflute)
    I suppose the principle here is that the company would be nothing without its customers, and therefore should pay attention to their views. And in this sense then without students/users then TSR would be nothing.

    But a company doesn't have to do everything that one of their stakeholders wants. Similarly TSR has to judge what is best for it do to in order to further its overall interests.
    And the Chinese and North Koreans do the same. Good job.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    As I said below, it is the same thing. Companies advertise here because it reaches users. If you had no users, you'd have no ads. No customers, no consumers.

    Another matter, the great and holy MadVlad told me that moderators are "users first". I.e. they are also consumers. Now you might get benefits if you work at a business, but tell me one business that gives power to its employees that are also its consumers, to act authoritatively to other consumers?

    You can be thrown out if you don't behave in a coffee shop? Yea, but you can then go to the manager, and then to the chain. Here, all it takes is one other section mod to back up the original mod and its over.

    That is way too much power. In addition, the anonymity that mods enjoy means no one can learn of their abuse.

    TSR is a wholly corrupt system that models itself on regimes like the Chinese or GDR.
    If you disagree with the section leader, you can go to the admin. So, in your example, the mod is the employee who throws you out, the manager is the section leader who agrees, you can still go to the owner in either case (The Admins / The chain management).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rmhumphries)
    If you disagree with the section leader, you can go to the admin. So, in your example, the mod is the employee who throws you out, the manager is the section leader who agrees, you can still go to the owner in either case (The Admins / The chain management).
    Even so it is all hush/hush and even though I have had numerous arguments admins don't generally care. In fact the last time I got banned I wrote to the site itself and did not even get a reply.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kka25)
    I edited that because I missed that part, and the terms are close together.
    No, they are two different words. You use customer but you then use a definition of consumer. The whole basis of your argument appears to be that users are "customers" ie. they pay to use the site and TSR is therefore accountable to them. Here is a quote: -

    (Original post by kka25)
    Private companies/business (like TSR) are accountable to the paid (sic) customers ; in this case, the TSR users.
    By paid customers, I assume you mean paying.

    But members don't pay to use TSR.

    Now don't get me wrong, kka, I appreciate how important members are. If TSR didn't have the large number of members that it has then it clearly wouldn't be the successful, well known site that it is. This is therefore why we have a feedback forum - so members can provide constructive feedback. However, TSR, which is a private business, can also act in any reasonable way it sees fit in order that its interests be served. Site management have decided that, although constructive moderation can be discussed on the site, specific moderation decisions/appeals cannot, and they have legitimate reasons for believing that this policy benefits, rather than damages, the site and the experience of its important and valued users.

    (Original post by danny111)
    TSR is like China, openly criticize the mods and be shut down, or worse warned and banned.
    Yes, because this thread has been closed down....

    Members are perfectly entitled to provide constructive criticism and feedback about moderation and site rules. It's actually welcomed.

    Specific details about a moderation decision cannot be discussed in the public forum, admittedly, and this is for some very good reasons which have probably been mentioned in this thread already.

    In theory I am (or was) fully supportive of an open AAM forum where members can view, but not post in, other members' AAM threads.

    Back in 2009 there were some issues that came up with a certain thread and I decided to have a fully open discussion about the difficulties and future moderation policy and even some recent moderation decisions. This was intended as an experiment, and was used in this thread as I knew the members well and it had an active community (in which I posted was an active member, rather than a moderator). Unfortunately this discussion would only be hijacked by trolls, and people completely ignorant of the details would post in the thread causing certain difficulties.

    This isn't to say it was a total disaster, but it did demonstrate some, but not all, of the problems of allowing public discussion of moderation decisions/warning appeals.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    And the Chinese and North Koreans do the same. Good job.
    Can you please discuss this seriously and not make such fallacious statements? Besides, every business acts in a way in which its interests are best served, some with less morality than TSR does.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by River85)
    No, they are two different words. You use customer but you then use a definition of consumer. The whole basis of your argument appears to be that users are "customers" ie. they pay to use the site and TSR is therefore accountable to them. Here is a quote: -



    By paid customers, I assume you mean paying.

    But members don't pay to use TSR.

    Now don't get me wrong, kka, I appreciate how important members are. If TSR didn't have the large number of members that it has then it clearly wouldn't be the successful, well known site that it is. This is therefore why we have a feedback forum - so members can provide constructive feedback. However, TSR, which is a private business, can also act in any reasonable way it sees fit in order that its interests be served. Site management have decided that, although constructive moderation can be discussed on the site, specific moderation decisions/appeals cannot, and they have legitimate reasons for believing that this policy benefits, rather than damages, the site and the experience of its important and valued users.



    Yes, because this thread has been closed down....

    Members are perfectly entitled to provide constructive criticism and feedback about moderation and site rules. It's actually welcomed.

    Specific details about a moderation decision cannot be discussed in the public forum, admittedly, and this is for some very good reasons which have probably been mentioned in this thread already.

    In theory I am (or was) fully supportive of an open AAM forum where members can view, but not post in, other members' AAM threads.

    Back in 2009 there were some issues that came up with a certain thread and I decided to have a fully open discussion about the difficulties and future moderation policy and even some recent moderation decisions. This was intended as an experiment, and was used in this thread as I knew the members well and it had an active community (in which I posted was an active member, rather than a moderator). Unfortunately this discussion would only be hijacked by trolls, and people completely ignorant of the details would post in the thread causing certain difficulties.

    This isn't to say it was a total disaster, but it did demonstrate some, but not all, of the problems of allowing public discussion of moderation decisions/warning appeals.
    I'm pretty sure at some point I could not open it and then when I could it was moved.

    Trolls can hijack any thread on TSR, that's a pitiful excuse.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by River85)
    Can you please discuss this seriously and not make such fallacious statements? Besides, every business acts in a way in which its interests are best served, some with less morality than TSR does.
    I am serious. The Chinese government thinks it's in best interest to censor the internet. All I am saying is that you do the same.

    I am 100% serious.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    Even so it is all hush/hush and even though I have had numerous arguments admins don't generally care. In fact the last time I got banned I wrote to the site itself and did not even get a reply.
    I would imagine that a lot of businesses / chains will have a very similar attitude though. I know that a few times I have complained to certain businesses, I have received a letter saying, very politely, "Sorry, but we don't care - go away".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rmhumphries)
    I would imagine that a lot of businesses / chains will have a very similar attitude though. I know that a few times I have complained to certain businesses, I have received a letter saying, very politely, "Sorry, but we don't care - go away".
    I appreciate that.

    Doesn't mean that one should not campaign and try to change things.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kka25)
    Potally_Tissed you're really getting on my nerve. I'd let you go on the issue of sampling because I don't want to explain from A-Z what is (non)random sampling.

    But here again, you're basically trying to give lame excuses here.

    Here's definition of "consumer"/"customer"

    TSR provides a service. Since you're a part of TSR, you should know what the services are.

    I'm not interest to debate with "terms" here. Seriously; this post of yours is lame. This is a good example how a mod cannot explain himself well.

    You can forward my post to the Admin; they will agree with me that your use of terms is wrong.
    TSR users are consumers (they use the site but normally don't pay us anything), whereas advertisers are customers (they pay us money but don't normally use the site). Some advertisers fall into two groups, such as Official Representatives and people who buy 'Engagement' packages, and obviously a small percentage of our users are subscribers.

    TSR as a company is responsible to its stakeholders (customers, consumers, shareholders, the local community, employees, volunteers, the media, the government etc.) but as a private company it has the right to dictate how its services are used and put measures in place to protect its employees and volunteers from targeted scrutiny.

    TSR moderators and section leaders act as representatives of the company and are accountable to our users and to the company, but TSR as a company chooses to grant us protection from targeted scrutiny.

    As an individual you have the legal right to complain about TSR as a whole and individual moderators if you so choose, but our rules (which you agreed to follow when you became a member) state that you cannot name individual moderators or discuss specific moderator actions in the public forums. As a private company TSR has the legal right to impose these rules, but we cannot legally prevent you from doing any of these things on a different website, in the press etc. (within the constraints of the law, of course).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    I'm pretty sure at some point I could not open it and then when I could it was moved.

    Trolls can hijack any thread on TSR, that's a pitiful excuse.
    If an individual post is deleted(aka moved to the recycle bin), then if you are trying to load the thread based on that post (can happen when you are replying to the thread, or loading the thread based on where you have seen up to); the thread can appear to have been deleted, where actually it is only one post.

    Technically, it isn't a bug, as you are trying to load a post you don't have access to (but if it had been split and move to its own thread, you would want the new thread) - and to fix it would require a reworking of alot of core vb code, to prevent a bug which happens fairly rarely.

    It is moved to TSR News, Help and Feedback, as it is feedback about TSR. Before it was in advice on everyday issues, wasn't it?

    (Original post by danny111)
    I am serious. The Chinese government thinks it's in best interest to censor the internet. All I am saying is that you do the same.

    I am 100% serious.
    You are not a citizen of TSR-Land though. If you want to post porn, or insult another user, TSR is not stopping you going and posting that on 4chan or whatever. Whereas the Chinese government are censoring websites they don't own. TSR is saying what you are allowed to do on servers it owns (or rents).

    I am hardly censoring someone's music if I tell them I don't want them playing rap music in my house, am I?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Potally_Tissed)
    You can't really claim to be a customer when you aren't paying for what it is you're consuming, so the difference is somewhat crucial.
    Who's claiming anything? We're talking about the paid customers on TSR.

    The terms overlap with each other.
    But why are we arguing this?; after the fiasco with you trying to explain "sampling" and "population", which you got it wrong, now you're trying to pull another one?

    There didn't seem to be much else in your post to reply to.
    Really? Wow, talk about not paying attention.

    You're free to direct admin to this conversation if you wish, and I will readily admit that my knowledge of random sampling is somewhat lacking
    Well, obviously. Thus, this concludes your responds to me prior were basically erroneous.

    The only reason that you responded to my prior threads was because you wanted to defend the mod; however you yourself got it wrong and don't really know what to defend, so you just blurted what you can (a pattern that is repeating). This is obviously unprofessional.

    Lastly;

    (Original post by danny111)
    Then don't volunteer. With responsibility and authority comes accountability.

    The fact that you even try to defend mods in this way shows how corrupt your system is.
    This.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kka25)
    Who's claiming anything? We're talking about the paid customers on TSR..
    I'll make this simple for you,

    Who pays to use TSR? It's free to register and use.

    You may need to be a subscriber to take advantage of certain benefits, true, but even then, many subs don't actually "pay" (I don't).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by River85)
    I'll make this simple for you,

    Who pays to use TSR? It's free to register and use.

    You may need to be a subscriber to take advantage of certain benefits, true, but even then, many subs don't actually "pay" (I don't).
    Also, when you are a sub, you are paying for a subset of TSR functions, so you are only a customer in relation to those functions, not the core TSR user experience.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Of course any thread can attract trolls. The point being that a thread specifically about moderation is far more likely to attract trolls.

    They also tend to get full of people who, though perhaps not "trolling", are effectively stirring things up by lying and claiming they received a similar (unjust) warning when, in fact, a check of their warning history shows they did not, thus creating distrust and division which harms the site.

    Now you may say that the current system creates distrust and division anyway, but I don't agree and I'll go into this in another post later.

    Anyway, this isn't the only reason why specific discussion is not allowed and I'm sure it's already been extensively discussed

    (Original post by danny111)
    I am serious. The Chinese government thinks it's in best interest to censor the internet. All I am saying is that you do the same.

    I am 100% serious.
    I am sure you are being serious. It doesn't make the comparison less fallacious though.

    TSR has rules, as most forums do. When you sign up you agree to abide by these rules. If you fail to act in accordance with these standards you receive warnings. Members can appeal warnings and, despite what one or two members mention on here, will be given a fair hearing in AAM. If a moderator has found to have been harsh/acted improperly then this is dealt with. Is this arbitrary or corrupt? These rules and TSR's influence only extends to this site.

    China and Korea, both governments and not business, as well as some of the Arab Gulf States, censor many sites, taking down criticism, and imprison those accused (often without trial).

    The two situations are in no way comparable.

    In what way do you feel TSR is censoring people and liming their expression and freedom of speech?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by River85)
    The two situations are in no way comparable.

    In what way do you feel TSR is censoring people and liming their expression and freedom of speech?
    But they are comparable. Both institutions decide to censor its subjects.

    And I don't have the time nor inclination to repeat all the times this has happened. One thing I will mention is the ridiculous notion of closing threads in AAM as "resolved" when clearly nothing is resolved. Now that's a joke. And there is no fair trial in AAM, it serves no purpose other than appearance.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    But they are comparable. Both institutions decide to censor its subjects.

    And I don't have the time nor inclination to repeat all the times this has happened. One thing I will mention is the ridiculous notion of closing threads in AAM as "resolved" when clearly nothing is resolved. Now that's a joke. And there is no fair trial in AAM, it serves no purpose other than appearance.
    I agree that sometimes AAM doesn't always function brilliantly. I had a time when I was asking a time sensitive question to post in the Frank section. It was removed. Then i asked why it was removed and was told I was being silly.
    It took around a week I think for them to allow me to make a new thread with the question.

    But at the same time, it seemed clear that the super-mods wanted the original mod who had done all of that to handle the situation, whilst at the same time they kept me apprised and gave me the support I needed to know that if a speedy reply didn't happen, I'd likely get one from someone else.

    If a thread is "resolved" when i don't think it should be I'll usually comment challenging that and trying to get a better answer.
    I do think TSR has a slight agenda in keeping a few topics off the radar, and I disagree with that, but find me a decent functioning forum that doesn't do those things?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    But they are comparable. Both institutions decide to censor its subjects.
    But the point is we (as users) aren't 'subjects' or citizens - we're here voluntarily and not being able to post what you want on TSR doesn't infringe on your human rights because there's plenty of other forums where you can discuss the same topics, and there's always Twitter which has very little censorship. If you live in a place where the media, the internet and even your private communications are censored then that's a much more substantial infringements on your rights to free speech than not being able to criticise specific mods on an internet forum. It's also worth mentioning that North Korea don't frequently pass round surveys asking their citizens how they feel about the military dictatorship, nor is there a forum where they can give constructive criticism if they feel that the military dictatorship is negatively affecting their lives.

    Also, I think the reasoning behind 'censorship' is important here: on TSR we moderate content to protect our users (e.g. preventing people under the age of 18 from being exposed to porn) or our volunteers (e.g. preventing moderators from being insulted or, as has happened on this thread, compared to Nazis and perpetrators of genocide). In North Korea their citizens are censored so that the government can continue to live a life of luxury whilst imposing starvation and poverty on the rest of the population. It's a completely preposterous and hyperbolic comparison that you're trying to make.

    And I don't have the time nor inclination to repeat all the times this has happened. One thing I will mention is the ridiculous notion of closing threads in AAM as "resolved" when clearly nothing is resolved. Now that's a joke. And there is no fair trial in AAM, it serves no purpose other than appearance.
    First of all, you're perfectly welcome to continue to continue responding to an AAM after it has been marked as resolved (it's really just a guideline for us), and we only lock the thread if someone is being abusive or obviously trolling. In the unlikely event that a thread was locked unfairly then you'd be welcome to start a new thread or email the admins.

    And warnings are frequently reversed or downgraded in AAM, much more often than you might think. Only when it's justified, of course.
 
 
 
Poll
Which pet is the best?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.