Re: Address MOD Questions....?
 

He did address it, just not here

Re: Address MOD Questions....?
 

The rules thread is here:

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/forum-feedb...rum-rules.html

Re: Address MOD Questions....?
 

Indeed, he did. And I'm pretty sure he over-estimated IB's open arms to him posting here on his formerly-owned website.

IB sees Geoff as competition, and apparently to the point of paranoia.

Re: Address MOD Questions....?
 

I think this board really dropped the bomb here. Alienate all the longtime members, ban the founder, etc. I checked out the other site, no annoying ads yet, in post ads, stupid pop ups etc. certainly not what I'd call competition to this place. And looking at everyone that's there now I didn't realize just how many long time members here, myself included, had been nothing more than lurkers here for years. It was nice to see all those people active again.

Never alienate you revenue stream.

Re: Address MOD Questions....?
 

ty.

I realize now why I did not see it. I guess my default only shows threads with posts in the last two days so I just did not see it.

Re: Address MOD Questions....?
 

Benedict,

I just wanted to say thanks for answering my question (in the thread you split off) and being up front about why you locked it. It is appreciated. :thumbsup:

Re: Address MOD Questions....?
 

Come on now, look at all the new Mods and Admins.

It looks like they are handing out the roles to long time members with high post counts.... :)

Re: Address MOD Questions....?
 

Obviously the problems are bigger than the two events that sparked the mass exodus. With that being said, I find it interesting that the suspensions of two long time members for what essential amounted to 'daring to question mah authoritah!" are apparently still in effect, no apology, no sorry we could've handled that better. I think this might have been avoided or at least the damage significantly mitigated if that was taken care of right away, then take all the time you need to anoint new mods and amend processes. The fact that this wasn't done, doesn't really inspire much confidence that much is going to change.

Re: Address MOD Questions....?
 

Can I be a mod too?

For once in my life I want to know what it feels like to be important.

Re: Address MOD Questions....?
 

but, but, but look! We have new mods! And you can change your name!

Re: Address MOD Questions....?
 

I actually have to disagree with you on this. gcribbs's questions are about the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law - and that was precisely the point of interpretive disagreement that provoked this whole thing. If the mods are going to enforce the letter of the law rather than recognize that the spirit of the law, then no, we can't leave things at being "obvious" regardless of how painfully clear that ought to be.

Because I would have thought it painfully obvious that a dude giving a heads up about a sale at place in the Hot Deals section wasn't spamming the forum but instead that led to a suspension because it violated the letter of the law. And here we are.

:distract:

Re: Address MOD Questions....?
 

I sort of agree, although I couldn't fathom how someone could honestly believe some of those questions would result in any punishment. That said, I don't think the forum has to be (or shouldn't be) that particular and exact about it's rules.

The moderators and administrators should simply clarify or admit error on the infraction in question.... which still hasn't been done, which dave-o alludes to above.

Squaring the circle
 

I should preface my reply by saying that, although I don't want to give the impression that issues in this and other theads are being ignored, I do need to be clear that I lack the resources to give a blow-by-blow account of any imminent changes &/or ongoing discussions. So this is by way of a compromise and the best I can do in the circumstances...I can confirm that when absolutes have been posted in the past, these inevitably resulted in criticism from particular members for one reason or another.

The point is that, with some of the rules that Geoff (co)created, mods and admins originally were able to ask him directly what he had in mind and whether he felt a particular member-action represented an infraction.

It was probably in part because of these kind of interactions that the idea of repeatedly skating on thin ice (or "envelope-pushing" as some of us call it) was added to the list of infractions i.e. excessive/repeated discussion concerning a particular member in the mod forum - and maybe with Geoff being brought in - was seen as indicating someone who was due for a posting holiday.

Now, with regard to the procedures for suspension, I thought that someone had already said that this was being worked on. Multiple mods and admins are involved, as well as IB, and I very much hope that the results will be publicised within the week.

Concerning the particular rule that appears to have precipitated some of the current discontent, this too is under discussion. Any final decision regarding its letter and spirit will be for the site owners - as they have the commercial interest.

One of the suspended members to whom you allude was returned to the fold within the announced timescale i.e. yesterday. My understanding was that this represented his third or fourth suspension and that the on-board actions resulting in this suspension created hours of work for one of our mod/admin team. I would hope that we (you, me, the member in question, everyone) can now put this element of recent events behind us. That said, I am conscious that, by even mentioning matters here, there is the risk that folk will want to subject them to minute analysis. All I can say is that this illustrates the difficulties of determining how transparent one can be...

As I have said, my time here is limited and I would very much prefer to spend it getting things right for the future rather than continuing to rake over the past. However, I fully appreciate that other folk have their concerns and may well wish to continue to discuss them here.

Re: Squaring the circle
 

I'm trying to be fair here, as I'm sure with limited time and ability to speak openly, it's hard for you to communicate. But I am not all to sure what you were trying to say here. But nowhere in there did I see anything about this 'problem' being fixed.

"oops, I got a little heated and overreacted. Sorry about that."

One line at the start could've avoided most of this. I'm sorry but, the lack of any sort of apology by people who are representing this site seems to speak volumes about how much will be changed. Probably too late at this point anyways as the damage was done. :shrug:

Re: Squaring the circle
 

My understanding is that one of the mods created hours of work for himself by being a martinet who enforces stupidly strict interpretations of rules -- something that many of us here have seen for ourselves in the Random Picture threads -- and IB's inability to see that this is what's pissing off the community is the real problem that needs addressing.

Re: Address MOD Questions....?
 

Locking threads where there is ongoing discussion that is not against forum rules is exceedingly lame. But I guess that's always been par for the course.

Re: Address MOD Questions....?
 

:boring:

Re: New Moderator SOP regarding Suspensions/Bannings/etc
 

It's kind of funny. More than anything, a simple apology (for the wrongful suspensions/bans, the autocratic manner in which people have been treated, etc) would have done way more than the silly pandering that's going on now, yet that is the one thing that we haven't seen.

Re: New Moderator SOP regarding Suspensions/Bannings/etc
 

You are entitled to your opinion and to read things or, indeed, not read things, as you see fit.The whole advertising and self-promotion side of things remains under active discussion, has been for the last couple of weeks, and I think we'll have something out there very soon. Just a few more tweaks and we should be done.

Re: New Moderator SOP regarding Suspensions/Bannings/etc
 

The part that isn't opinion though, is the fact that there has been no apology. The new procedures seem pretty similar to what we were told happened before. :shrug:

Re: New Moderator SOP regarding Suspensions/Bannings/etc
 

I hope more changes are coming, but I am fine with the "silly pandering." Allowing avatars for everyone, and giving folks a chance to change their usernames, were good moves.

Re: New Moderator SOP regarding Suspensions/Bannings/etc
 

Benedict, my comment was a just a joke referencing Tarantino's reinstatement. But fwiw, I'm happy to see you all actively working to improve things.
And that's the biggest issue, IMHO. These silly little tweaks are somewhat nice, but the real issue is that over the years people have been improperly punished, mainly by a single admin, for slight infractions and then daring to question authority. The recent mass exodus could have been prevented with a more forgiving and apologetic admin. While the damage is largely done and irrecoverable in at least a dozen long-time and mass posters case, it's never too late for an apology.
They were good moves overall, but they were implemented poorly, seem more of a rush patch job to try to fix the exploding dam.

Avatars probably are a good thing for everyone to have for free, but for years they've been the only real perk for those of us who pay to support the site. Refunds? New tangible benefits?

Usernames were perhaps ruled with a slightly iron fist, but I think everyone agrees that the current open period could have been handled better.

Re: Address MOD Questions....?
 

Ask for the things you want, but don't dismiss the things you got as silly. I don't mind avatars going to the "masses" - I am sure there will be perks for premium members. If not, you are free to opt out at the next cycle. Why hold other people down so you feel more special?

Re: Address MOD Questions....?
 

I like the small changes that have been put in; pandering maybe, but in the end they're positive changes.

But I have to agree with dave-o and Trevor; the information about new rules and moderation policies seems like a way to avoid directly admitting fault for a few years of poor administrative decisions.