Honda Insight Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
446 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I feel compelled to comment and support JulianEdgar’s opinion, even though I’ve never set eyes on the man. My opinion is directly in response to the JulianEdgar-retepsnikrep argument.

This forum is all about allowing robust discussion and debate. It should not be a place where “lies” are accepted without response. I think it’s important to question the prevailing wisdom, not to criticize the person. People can be misled to believe most anything and it’s important to bring those ‘facts’ to light. There was a recent example where Mudder responded to a post in which he felt criticized, I believe, where he inadvertently responded by criticizing the person, not the idea, and when it was brought to his attention he restated his remarks. Done. Members should be held accountable for statements and challenged if spreading falsehoods; they need to justify what they say and support it by evidence. People need to differentiate between opinion and fact.

One problem with “arguments” is that discussions go off track and good threads lose value. Is it possible to have a separate thread completely dedicated to arguments where people could let-off steam? A bitch thread. Titles to new posts would have to be annotated appropriately and post numbers would need to be referenced to in the original post. Censored or modified posts need to indicate they were modified by a moderator with the moderator’s name.

Respectfully,

John Minor
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,878 Posts
John, though I respect you opinion of how the site should be run, the moderators conduct the site in a manner which agrees with the site rules everyone accepts when they initially join. They are found here:

http://www.insightcentral.net/forums/insightcentral-net-site-help-rules-announcements/102794-forum-rules-moderation-infraction-guidance.html

You are not familiar with the struggle that moderators engage, mostly behind the scenes, to keep the site on-track, in agreement with the written rules, and civil to all members. The moderators are all volunteers interested in the welfare and civility of the site. The moderators and site owners have agreed on the manner in which the site is to be managed, therefore a broadbased open discussion of operating procedures is inappropriate.

This forum is all about allowing robust discussion and debate. It should not be a place where “lies” are accepted without response.
This site role is not defined in the rules. The word "robust" in too often interpreted as uncivil so that can and does get out of hand. There are some "old West" knock down and drag out sites on the internet, but this is not one of them. The moderators receive wide thanks for conducting the site in the current manner. Moderators do not exercise "quality control" and most efforts by members to do so become uncivil.
 

·
Learner
Joined
·
351 Posts
Bleck! Drama. I have a strong distaste for it and yet, I care, so here I am wading in.

Moderation is a tough business. The lines can be murky and it can be a dreary, thankless job.

Transparency

The members of a forum should be able to see actions taken by moderators. For example, over at the AnandTech forums, if a member breaks the rules and the mods have to step in, the moderator will edit's the member's post and also leave a short note explaining why. Transparency is something I've noticed is missing from IC.

This thread is a perfect example. Minor originally started this thread in the Honda Insight Forum 1st-Gen Discussion sub forum. And I presume Jim moved it here to the Honda Insight Lounge. While I agree that this a better location for it, there's no note, no "moved" notice in the original sub forum. No public accountability from the moderator that moved it. At first, I thought Minor's post had been deleted.

This immediately made me uneasy as I had just finished doing my best to catch up on 'WTF' was happening between Julian and Peter. Julian complains about about censorship and pieces to the "Julian and Peter" puzzle seem to be missing because I couldn't find a lead up to the blowout. Worse, it ended with Peter(?) locking Julian's thread which seems spiteful given the (lack of) context in that specific thread.

Make no mistake, abrasive and/or extremely arrogant behavior toward other members is unacceptable. This is probably why there was a short vacation (ban) handed out recently.

All this reinforces the point. If a member engages in behavior that requires moderators to take action, the community benefits if the mods can explain what they are doing and why.

For an example of this transparency I am talking about here, lets look at AnandTech. A thread started by Thinker_145, is reported to the mods as being a troll thread. A mod, Markfw, agrees and locks the thread, adding a brief note to one of Thinker_145's posts.

Thinker_145 said:
Atreidin said:
You're either trolling or emotionally invested in showing AMD is worse than they are. Either way it's a waste of everyone's time.
Only a 7970 is a 7970. To try to use a newer generation product to fill in for an older generation product for a longevity comparison is completely illogical.

This thread has been reported as a troll thread, and I agree.
Locked
Markfw
Anandtech Moderator

esquared the forum director agreed with Markfw and added his own note to Thinker_145's original post.


Thinker_145 said:
It seems I hear entire essays on how AMD cards have better longevity on this forum every now and then. And yet nobody has actually ever proved it with an apples to apples comparison with a reasonable sample.

https://youtu.be/BfSi-Z8r12M

680 and 7970 GHz are dead equal in 2017 despite the latter having 50% more VRAM.

I would really like to see a similar comparison showing otherwise or people who keep on going about the magical AMD longevity overreacting over a single game at release should just stop. Even the reviewer remarked that the results were nothing like how people predicted them to be in the comments.







Troll threads are not allowed in tech or anywhere for that matter.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

I personally really like this style of moderation as it keeps everyone honest. The community can easily see and understand the moderators' actions.

Thanks for reading.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,751 Posts
John, though I respect you opinion of how the site should be run, the moderators conduct the site in a manner which agrees with the site rules everyone accepts when they initially join. They are found here:

http://www.insightcentral.net/forums/insightcentral-net-site-help-rules-announcements/102794-forum-rules-moderation-infraction-guidance.html

You are not familiar with the struggle that moderators engage, mostly behind the scenes, to keep the site on-track, in agreement with the written rules, and civil to all members. The moderators are all volunteers interested in the welfare and civility of the site. The moderators and site owners have agreed on the manner in which the site is to be managed, therefore a broadbased open discussion of operating procedures is inappropriate.


This site role is not defined in the rules. The word "robust" in too often interpreted as uncivil so that can and does get out of hand. There are some "old West" knock down and drag out sites on the internet, but this is not one of them. The moderators receive wide thanks for conducting the site in the current manner. Moderators do not exercise "quality control" and most efforts by members to do so become uncivil.
'It's a matter of national security... The age old cry of the oppressor.'
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,878 Posts
Make no mistake, abrasive and/or extremely arrogant behavior toward other members is unacceptable. This is probably why there was a short vacation (ban) handed out recently.
And again this was the origin of the action which retepsnikrep took to delete certain posts. After consensus of moderators, a ban was also imposed.

All this reinforces the point. If a member engages in behavior that requires moderators to take action, the community benefits if the mods can explain what they are doing and why.
Agreed, and we mostly do provide a short explanation, but most of the moderators prize site civility and huge public arguments which just stir up a lot of nonconstructive hard feelings do not result in a civil site. I thought that Peter went out of his way to offer more explanation than usual.

For an example of this transparency I am talking about here, lets look at AnandTech. A thread started by Thinker_145, is reported to the mods as being a troll thread. A mod, Markfw, agrees and locks the thread, adding a brief note to one of Thinker_145's posts.
Agreed, the move did not have much transparency, and there was no reason documented. You will notice a deleted post in the general discussion area, John's original location, where I attempted to test why the "system" did not provide me the usual "reason" line. Non of the moderators are perfect, we sometimes have limited time to moderate, and the S/W system we work with is not perfect. My reasoning was that the rules by which the forum operates are well documented and advertised, so the discussion was really inappropriate. The moderators operate mostly by rule, judgement, precedent and trust in each other. Sometimes we negotiate consensus when an action if felt to be grave or extremely important, as the original action to which John refers was in this case.

Our system for the most part works just like the example site you offered, in the case of posts a member reports as inappropriate. You can report a post by clicking the flag in the bottom left of each post. In this case, the beginning offense took place overnight and was detected in Great Britain first. There is broad moderator consensus on action.

I'm sure the other four moderators are reading this and there may be other discussion within the Moderator Chanel. No moderator relishes a huge, divisive, time wasting open argument, so I suspect we won't have that here. Remember that moderators volunteer to try to do this job to the best of our abilities. We do make a few mistakes along the line, but not many.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
446 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Was this decision done by a single person? I think it would be instructive for readers to know what remarks or type of remarks were so offensive since they are not available.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,878 Posts
Was this decision done by a single person? I think it would be instructive for readers to know what remarks or type of remarks were so offensive since they are not available.
No, the decision to ban was made by consensus of the moderators.

General verbal abuse and disrespect of other members, and abuse of multiple volunteer moderators - a very quick ticket to suspension. The decision to suspend was a consensus decision by the moderators. Not going to provide exact language as that is a "shade of grey" decision that moderators have to make. Non of this is up for vote. Read the rules that I have already pointed to. No real point in my saying more.

My apologies for being so direct, but the written rules are a necessary mechanism to moderate a civil and constructive site.

OBTW: We attempt to be fair and provide adequate warnings as a careful reading of the infraction system will reveal.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,751 Posts
From what I saw, he called out a mod and got banned for it, and all the evidence was deleted. But I guess the arguments are moot at this point.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,878 Posts
From what I saw, he called out a mod and got banned for it, and all the evidence was deleted. But I guess the arguments are moot at this point.
You don't really know the full history of multiple abuses with this particular individual and that won't be rehashed, so you'll have to take my word that the moderators have tried gradualism with great patience over a considerable period of time. It hasn't worked, and the moderators are determined that the site WILL remain civil and constructive.

Incidentally you are wrong in your conclusion above. It was abuse of a moderator (don't know what "call out" of a moderator means - not provided for in the documented rules), but not the one you think, so don't jump to conclusions.

Your continued negative comments make me feel that you are unhappy with the site. Ya know, there a lots of "old west" unmoderated sites on the internet that might prove more titillating and exciting.

Enough said!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,878 Posts
I think this thread has reached a logical conclusion and has the potential to get abusive. Three members have asked questions and they have be answered as best I can without providing titillating fodder for the mill. I will therefore now close the thread since I don't want to expend any more hours of my volunteer time on something already settled.

Please do not reopen this topic!
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top