Hokeyboy

While the more "popular" mods might be the ones actively engaged in the community, I've no problem if others chose not to regularly interact with the discussions going on day in, day out. That's their business, and that's cool. But these "flying off the handle" suspensions? That's absolutely no way to run a discussion forum. IMO. And when you start alienating your longtime members, you can really kiss any interest in this place goodbye... which, sadly enough, is already on a decline.

Why bother accelerating it for the sake of someone's ego? What does that accomplish on the long run?

For the record, I have zero skin in this conflict. I'm a longtime member and contributor to DVD Talk, as both a poster and a reviewer. I would like to see it to continue to flourish and thrive. But like this? No freakin' way.

Lemdog

qft

Dan

This, I agree with. Members that visit here frequently, even if they're not posting all the time. Members who get the rules and can enforce them when deemed necessary. etc. I know there's at least a few who would fit the bill. I'm sure the more active mods/admins could have a discussion in the mod/admin forums to discuss specific candidates.

I would nominate SpermyMcSpermallet, but he's already infiltrated himself into the group. Plus, he's the worst.

spainlinx0

Man, I love this forum. I literally don't think there's a day that goes by that I don't spend way too much time here. But the recent goings on have me really thinking about searching for another board to replace this one, and I never thought I would say that.

Lemdog

The reason I gave praise to wendersfan was not because he is actively engaged, but because he explains his reasons for the things he does in a open fashion, and if he could have done something better he says so, and the forum moves on. He is always fair and we see that, because we see his thought process when he has to lock a thread or has to warn someone to lay off the personal attacks. I've never seen him overreact, or get personally offended in his responses to other forum members.

A great example of this is the Are religious/atheist discussions allowed? in the feedback section.

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/forum-feedb...s-allowed.html

It also helps that he has such great tastes in film.

Hokeyboy

The fucker turned me into a Small Faces fan. So I'd say he's actively engaged, somehow.

LurkerDan

The OP has been a member here for 13 years, as have I. I know him "outside" of this forum (though admittedly we've not met in real life), and I can say with some confidence that if he said he got that PM, he got that PM.

And I'm not just saying that because he asked me to marry him in this thread. Maybe now I'll get suspended just for sticking up for him, even though I've never been in trouble before (though I was warned once for poking Lakers fans by calling Kobe a rapist ). But while one can and should think what one will about the overall issue, I'll bet a big sum of money that he isn't lying about that PM.

Spiderbite

Trust me, you aren't alone.

fumanstan

I had these concerns a couple months ago when the thread about how to improve DVDTalk came about. I think Wally's post earlier was spot on. It's extremely frustrating to see constructive posts in the feedback forum get locked, and questions shot down the way they are. Why bother having a feedback forum if members are limited in what they can say or how they can voice their opinion? Locking a thread when it gets out of hand is one thing, but shutting down long time members who want to stay here, who want to keep posting here and better the DVDTalk community doesn't help anyone. To me, that should be an easy first step. Keep the dialog open. Please!

Maybe its time to change the policy on discussing suspensions and bans, and be more open to everyone here about what's happening so that we get the other side. I want to try my best and treat the suspensions and bans as just and deserved, but I think most would agree that from a forum member perspective it's been increasingly not the case. Everyone knows that mods and admins don't have it easy, but I get the general feeling that everyone should take a step back and see if the actions are certain members have the intention of deliberately harming the forum community itself, not just taking emails and PM's personally. It should be about the forum and it's community, first and foremost, and just looking at the responses in this thread it should be clear that many of us aren't sure that's the case anymore. I know that the mods, admins, and Internet Brands want to believe that have the forum's best interest at heart; but please look at the posts here, take a step back, and think if that's still happening.

El Scorcho

Well, to be fair, Kobe is a rapist.

whotony

If Geoff were alive today and saw all this he would be spinning in his grave.

Norm de Plume

I agree with this. Granted, we don't know the whole story behind the recent kerfuffle, but the secrecy is only compounding the communal sense of frustration.
Yes, a good forum needs rules, and I think the rules here generally strike a nice balance between leniency and maintaining some measure of decorum; but if members feel they are being treated heavy-handedly, and can't appeal to a third party for an unbiased assessment of a dispute, they are going to leave in droves.
I can't remember ever having been dealt with punitively by a mod or admin (other than when Geoff K. amiably asked me to change my original username (which was vulgar in another language) some 8+ years ago), but apparently some members are needier and use more of the mods' time. I appreciate that the staff here is composed of volunteers, but if they treat regular members imperiously, there will eventually be no forum to oversee, voluntarily or not.
And another thumbs-up to benedict. I have only interacted with him a few times on the forums, but he has always been cordial, to my recollection. I'm sure most of the others deserve praise for professionalism, too.

Travis McClain

I have always believed, and continue to believe, that the best metaphor for life is baseball. One of the most important rules of the game is, "Don't show up the umpire." After all, arbiters need to have some measure of weight to ensure that their rulings are respected.

However, it's also important to remember that umpires are supposed to call the game; not be part of it. At least three different umpires have trended on Twitter at one point this season. It's never a good thing when the general public knows an umpire by name, much less mentions that name so much that it becomes a trending topic online. Umpires make mistakes. They're human. But those three instances went well beyond the no-one's-infallible nature of the game. Those were instances where the umpires made a controversial call and then escalated it into essentially inserting themselves into the outcome of the game. That's bad for baseball in a lot of ways, chief of which is that arbiters are not supposed to be agents of the game themselves.

I get that showing up a moderator is in bad form and undermines their ability to do their thing here. I think we all get that. But it seems right now - for whatever reason - we've had some instances where moderators have appeared to insert themselves into some pettiness and that reflects badly on the site. It undermines our collective confidence.

I won't comment on any of the specific incidents of late, but I do think there's been a noticeable trend in recent months of these kinds of things happening. I don't know what the standard procedure is at present, but there are at least three things I could think of offhand to suggest to help address this trend:

1) Moderators ought not to issue disciplinary action for any thread in which they have directly participated. For some of us, seeing a moderator in a thread discourages open conversation because there's a sense that if a dispute arises, the one with the ability to issue suspensions can invoke that. These days, with the perception being that some moderators have a thin skin and an itchy trigger finger, it would be nice to feel freer to debate with a moderator.

As it is, many of us watch a thread evolve (or devolve, depending on one's perspective!) knowing a moderator is an active participant and we wonder just why some things are allowed to be said by some forum members without so much as a comment from the moderator participating in said discussion. It sends the message that as long as the moderator agrees with, or likes, Member A, then Member A can say whatever he or she wants and that challenging Member A risks the wrath of the pro-Member A moderator.

2) There needs to be a clearly defined penalty schedule. The durations of suspensions seem entirely arbitrary. This person gets a month, that person gets three. [Three months suspension from an online forum?] If there is a codified explanation for how penalties are issued, I haven't seen it referenced in my several years here as an active member.

3) Either moderators need to be scaled back, or expanded. That is, either we need more of a laissez-faire approach in which moderators only handle specific kinds of concerns (links to illegal content, spam accounts, bullying/harassment), or we need more moderators to help out those who are seemingly overly burdened at present. That's not a swipe at the mods. It's okay that some of them may be stressed and just not have the patience for online forum shenanigans. I think we all understand burnout. But burnt out people continuing ceteris paribus are not going to become rejuvenated.

Perhaps some forum members held in high esteem should be considered for "promotion" to moderator status. Members known for being reasoned and fair-minded, with a healthy mixture of humor and respect for others.

Along with adding some new mods to the mix, I would also point to baseball and suggest that for the more serious matters that involve suspension of accounts, there ought to be some kind of "tribunal" in which a certain number of moderators review the incident and decide collectively on the matter. It doesn't need to be anything formal or any more time consuming than what a moderator already does, beyond the matter of redundancy. And here I would add that if we're talking about a situation in which a forum member may be suspended for as long as three months, then it's only fair that that level of severity be handled with an appropriate level of commitment on the part of the moderators.

benedict

Although fellow mods and admins doubtless will be reading the post above, I'll copy the whole thing to the mod forum for a belt and braces approach. My comments below are just a few first thoughts by way of demonstrating that we are taking notice.As a general rule, moderators DO refer decisions regarding threads in which they have been participating for further consideration by their peers. I don't participate in or review each and every forum so recognise that it may be that there have been occasional instances where this rule of thumb has been overlooked.

The question of codifying something perhaps can be illustrated by reference to the fact that the general rule for a long time actually was:

Warning
Suspension
[BAN]

As time went on and length of membership increased it was deemed that there had to be some leeway by which multiple suspensions could be allowed rather than acting like a machine and [BANNING] a ten year log member who'd once before had a suspension maybe five years ago.

Likewise, having longer and shorter suspensions such as would show the seriousness of a particular "offence" also seemed a useful tool in ensuring that we did not lose particular high-spirited members or those who showed a rare lapse of judgement.

When looking at codified sets of rules, we do have the pretty well-publicised forum rules one of which is that you are not supposed to advertise the good/services of a firm with whom you are employed. It was the wilful and knowing breach of those rules, apparently followed by a sustained bout of self-justification that appears to have ignited this recent bonfire. This might serve to demonstrate that hard and fast rules are not in and of themselves a universal panacea but I appreciate YMMV.

We have been discussing and continue to discuss new names for the mod roster. It may well be that those who are called upon to take up the mantle will see this as an opportunity to "return the fun" but, possibly, they may decide that "life is too short". We'll see!

For the avoidance of doubt, we do have a process of collective decision-making for anything contentious or when someone feels too close to a particular issue to be objective. As I've mentioned earlier, this can take time and, unfortunately, the pattern I have seen in these occasional flare-ups is that the person at the epicentre is often unwilling to wait and chooses to add fuel to the flames rather than letting the process take its course. Positions become entrenched and it becomes more difficult to dig oneself out - to mix a few metaphors!

Regarding the idea that one has to be careful in a thread where a mod is participating in case (s)he gets antsy and starts wielding the BAN stick to shore up a flakey argument... I don't think that happens any more in International, Music or Book And I know that mods want to "be themselves" and contribute without fear or favour to the discussions that drew them to sign up for membership in the first place. I've seen the point made before and always try to reassure folk that there should be nothing to worry about.

<small>(I write as one who has before posted in anger and found himself embroiled in something of a sh*t storm and was grateful for cooler heads who were able to reduce the temperature and deflate rampaging egos - including my own - as necessary...)

benedict

PS) Another way of looking at a three month suspension is that it isn't a [BAN].

Mod forum discussions go back many years and, when I did a search, I could see relevant evidence as long ago as nearly a decade of problem posting including instances of being unable/unwilling to agree to stay within the rules.

Another search showed repeated gratuitous sniping at X earlier this year. The cumulative effect of this kind of behaviour is difficult to legislate for precisely which I think is why we have the sanction of being able to propose a suspension for excessive use of moderator time when it is considered that a final straw has been placed upon the camel.

I realise that there is bound to be some subjectivity but that is exactly why we tend to talk about these in the mod forum by way of a sanity check.

Travis McClain

I do appreciate the acknowledgement and response to my suggestions (and your timeliness!). I've had a taste of what moderating would be like through the handful of challenges I've hosted, where I've had to reconcile differing interpretations of the spirit of the challenge and its guidelines, while trying to promote civil, thoughtful discourse. Those challenges are draining, and that's just one thread that only lasts a month! (Technically two, but who actually moderates a list thread?)

It's pretty sour for me after several years as an active member who has often bragged on the civility and thoughtfulness of this forum and its community to see pettiness encroach as far as it has in recent months. I subscribe to the adage which tells us, "be the change you want to see in the world" so I try to be proactive however I might be rather than sit it out or, worse, just complain while offering nothing constructive. Still, at the end of the day this is ultimately a matter for moderators and administrators to address and show leadership on more than it is one in which the rest of us really have any power to resolve.

kvrdave

Finally a benefit to being a paid member.

You were making sense up until this post.

There is something to this. Generally the mods do things that all reasonable people can see the logic behind. But "double secret probation" seems to be on the rise.

Perhaps something as simple as "if a member has x number of years here, and the suspended/banned member agrees, air that dirty laundry for the good of the forum.

I still post a lot, and obviously often, but I have started spending more time at reddit and their stupid formatting lately. A few other places as well. And trust me, after all these years and posts, I'm not the one who has changed. And generally this type of shit never hits my radar because I simply don't care that much. But it is getting to be a bit stupid.

d2cheer

I agree with the above. I have been a member here for almost 14 years! I visit almost everyday even on vacation! I too have not typically got involved with some of the things going on here but there really has been some out there decisions lately regarding some suspensions. And a general change in the culture that has not been for the better. I know I am not the only one that has noticed.

Get a handle on this quick. BUT be smart about it.

The only reason I am still here is that I have not found a forum that I like better...yet. I have noticed several have posted that same thought. Maybe this recent change is the kick in the ass I needt to spend time doing other things...like my job instead of posting here.

There has been some very good discussion at another place that some of us are a member at. That may be the way to go.

crankyman

i'm sure sticking up for banned members will be considered 'antics' and get you suspended.

Hokeyboy

I think it's telling when we're told that since we don't know the entire situation, that we don't know all sides of the conflict, that we shouldn't be so quick to condemn. That is, of course, an entirely reasonable statement to make. The tell lies in the fact that we don't know, because threads are locked, members are suspended/banned... and that's it. No explanation. No reasons. No discussion about it. Period.

And when two people dare to ask questions, they get suspended for it. And sent obnoxious, ridiculously immature PMs about it (let's not mince words or deny it; they are out there). While their own emails go unanswered/disregarded.

Not that he has to or anything -- he doesn't -- but the fact that we haven't heard word one from X speaks volumes about the perceived arrogance, abuse of power, disrespect, and lack of communication that is only fueling frustration levels around here.

wishbone

Some mods do lock threads and provide an explanation as to why, indicate that a review of the situation and likely suspensions are forthcoming, etc. -- this is the standard that should be followed and not what has recently transpired.

cpgator

Well said.

dave-o

Agreed. it seems this forum is taking the "Spottedfeather Philosophy" of banning/suspending recently. And now the OP of this thread is banned. Ridiculous.

I appreciate the thoughtful responses though, so thank you for trying to clarify things a bit benedict. In all seriousness, it seems that dvdtalk has a potentially serious problem on it's hands when long time members are getting the boot and even kvrdave is not spending as much time around these parts.

You are absolutely right that there are always two sides of the story. With that being said, we are only privileged to see one side, by design (and not our design either). The fact that a member can be suspended by a mod or admin who may have an axe to grind, while being told they are "being discussed" and "just be patient", without being given the ability to see what is being said, and if it is being presented accurately and fairly is probably why suspended members get impatient and worry about fairness, etc.

Bottom line, no matter what transpired, sending a threatening PM to a member like the one the OP received should be unacceptable. It is completely unprofessional and does not really instill a lot of confidence in 'being patient to let the process take place'. If I received a PM like that, I would not need to be banned or suspended. I'd leave and take my business elsewhere (just as I would if a representative from any other company treated me in a threatening manner.

Just my 2 cents. Again, I appreciate the moderators of this forum, as it has long been an outstanding example of how strike a good balance between enforcing rules and letting a forum community develop. I hope this problem can be nipped in the bud before it undermines that sense of community.

LurkerDan

Agreed. and then suspending them for posting the PM because it is highly relevant to the thread is equally unacceptable.

BDB

We need someone to blow the whistle on this whole moderation / banning situation !!!