Join TSR now and chat with students like youSign up now

Should threads discussing moderation be allowed Watch

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    Mods make mistakes, would be nice to know who they are when they do incase they repeat it.
    As said if you feel a mistake has been made then go to AAM and the mod that gave you the warning will discuss it with you there.

    (Original post by FO12DY)
    Well this thread is somewhat paradoxical!
    General discussion is allowed but it's specific instances that isn't.

    e.g. I just got a 5 point warning for saying ****...
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Motorbiker)
    General discussion is allowed but it's specific instances that isn't.

    e.g. I just got a 5 point warning for saying ****...
    Aye, I'm kidding, I just thought it was somewhat amusing when I saw the title
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by danny111)
    If in real life politicians could not be criticized directly they could get away with anything. If you cannot question authority you have a totalitarian regime, which is exactly what TSR is.
    You have contradicted yourself there.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    If it's about newbies then you could easily make it so that you could only post in that forum after you'd made 100 posts and/or been a member for 1 month.

    And people who flame would be warned and eventually banned and then perm banned.
    I really don't see how those are persuasive arguments. It's not as if you would be allowed to break the rules in those threads.
    Oh!! So you meant having a separate forum for all that?? That's not that bad. Since people who don't like that type of megatitvity don't go there. Just as long as its not posted in the general forum or something
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Motorbiker)
    As said if you feel a mistake has been made then go to AAM and the mod that gave you the warning will discuss it with you there.
    And if it's reversed before going to AAM, which mod will discuss it then, the original mod or the one that reversed it? Either way the argument that it will lead to mod abuse and revenge negging doesn't seem to stand up if you can get it by going to AAM.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I mean I've seen forums where people have been saying ban this idiot! So the guy gets banned for no apparent reason cos the members force the staff to :/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    If in real life politicians could not be criticized directly they could get away with anything. If you cannot question authority you have a totalitarian regime, which is exactly what TSR is.
    When you start comparing the command structure on an online forum to that of nations then you might be analysing a little too deeply..
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MalevolntPhantom)
    Oh!! So you meant having a separate forum for all that?? That's not that bad. Since people who don't like that type of megatitvity don't go there. Just as long as its not posted in the general forum or something
    Not originally, I was just reacting to what you said! If it's a problem there's a solution.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    And if it's reversed before going to AAM, which mod will discuss it then, the original mod or the one that reversed it? Either way the argument that it will lead to mod abuse and revenge negging doesn't seem to stand up if you can get it by going to AAM.
    If the warning is reversed then surely there's no need to go to AAM as the warning is now invalid? In any case I imagine that in most cases the mod who gave out the original warning would reply to the AAM thread.

    And yes, having to go to AAM to find out who warned you is obviously not 100% effective at preventing mod abuse/negging, but it creates an additional barrier and gives the moderator a question a chance to engage with the user and/or explain their reasons for giving the warning. This should hopefully decrease the chances of the moderator being attacked.

    I'm personally in favour of removing moderator anonymity when giving out warnings (I'd rather that the user knew who I was right from the start and it might make warnings seem less impersonal), but for the reasons given in this thread I can understand why this isn't the case.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RightSaidJames)
    If the warning is reversed then surely there's no need to go to AAM as the warning is now invalid? In any case I imagine that in most cases the mod who gave out the original warning would reply to the AAM thread.

    And yes, having to go to AAM to find out who warned you is obviously not 100% effective at preventing mod abuse/negging, but it creates an additional barrier and gives the moderator a question a chance to engage with the user and/or explain their reasons for giving the warning. This should hopefully decrease the chances of the moderator being attacked.

    I'm personally in favour of removing moderator anonymity when giving out warnings (I'd rather that the user knew who I was right from the start and it might make warnings seem less impersonal), but for the reasons given in this thread I can understand why this isn't the case.
    I think perhaps a half way house so one could request it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    You have contradicted yourself there.
    You have contributed greatly to the discussion there.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Idle)
    When you start comparing the command structure on an online forum to that of nations then you might be analysing a little too deeply..
    Would suit you to keep everything superficial, wouldn't it?
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by danny111)
    You have contributed greatly to the discussion there.
    There's little to say in reply to your poorly worded post. You responded to my post about the different ways users can criticise moderation (this forum) and question moderation actions (AAM) and didn't seem to directly rebut any of my points. You then proceeded to use a bad analogy about political accountability through criticism and how totalitarian regimes can be found where authority cannot be questioned and finished off by concluding that TSR is a totalitarian regime.

    Except the fact that AAM and this forum do allow criticism and authority to be questioned and therefore, by your own logic, TSR is not a "totalitarian regime". :erm:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    Would suit you to keep everything superficial, wouldn't it?
    Yes, because, frankly - it's an internet forum. :fyi:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    There's little to say in reply to your poorly worded post. You responded to my post about the different ways users can criticise moderation (this forum) and question moderation actions (AAM) and didn't seem to directly rebut any of my points. You then proceeded to use a bad analogy about political accountability through criticism and how totalitarian regimes can be found where authority cannot be questioned and finished off by concluding that TSR is a totalitarian regime.

    Except the fact that AAM and this forum do allow criticism and authority to be questioned and therefore, by your own logic, TSR is not a "totalitarian regime". :erm:
    AAM is private. I was clearly talking about public criticism.

    Plus, I am sure that you full well know what I think of AAM.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    Yes, because, frankly - it's an internet forum. :fyi:
    No way, please tell me more, I'm curious now. What is this internet you speak of?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FO12DY)
    Well this thread is somewhat paradoxical!
    Should threads discussing whether discussing moderation should be allowed be allowed?

    ...

    A forum doesn't actually represent real life, people will be surprised to know, and if forum owners want to run their forum a certain way, they are quite entitled to do so, as long as they don't do anything nefarious. Comparing moderators to politicians isn't appropriate as politicians are elected to represent you as part of the infrastructure of the state, whereas a forum is private property that only the forum owner has the ultimate right to decide what is permissible. You probably wouldn't allow strangers to slaughter goats in your house for example.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Should people be allowed to complain about corrupt doctors?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see the point.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Potally_Tissed)
    Yes, if you want to complain about a moderator then post in Ask a Section Leader.
    And that is exactly what we are saying is wrong. When a politician ****s up they shouldn't be judged by other politicians but by the media and the public in general. It's the same principle here. You keep everything hush hush, meaning you stay in complete control.

    TSR is like China, openly criticize the mods and be shut down, or worse warned and banned.
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?

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.