Here's What's Wrong With The Moderator System
- Thread starter TATE
- Start date
KY BOY said:
Well I too thought Mr. Wilson targeted certain viewers but I just heard that Marissa got banned. If this is true & Mr. Wilson (not AZ Mike) did the banning then I would have to admit that he is beyond playing favorites. I got banned for simply re-stating something that Marissa told me in a private message that I didn't think was a big deal. Marissa doesn't know me from Adam so I felt if she could tell me something than why was it a big deal if anyone else heard it. Anyways, AZ Mike was fair enough to give me a two week ban & now I'm back. I will say that I don't post as much as sometimes it is hard to tell what the moderator will deem as a good or bad comment. I could list endless examples but that would probably get us no farther in this discussion.
i believe if there is a group of moderators, they would all have to stick together.. it would be bad if there were a few moderators and they argued themselfs... with that being said.. i like the idea of the tribunal that way they can agree on somebody getting banned... and also think if there are more then one moderator, maybe possible higher moderators and lower moderators... i think like somebody mentioned, having a lower moderator for each section would be a good idea.. and then having higher moderators over see everything.. wich the higher moderators would act as the tribunal.. and the lower moderators would be able to make suggestions to the big dogs..
chris
chris
jhendri2 said:
I think this is pretty much how a lot of big forums work. A few moderators to delete post/threads , hand out warnings etc and then maybe 2-3 Super mods to deal with the more serious stuff such as banning people. The idea of having one mod to handle a forum this size seem ridiculous to me. I would say that the main forum and NPR would need 2-3 mods EACH.
ChrisOnline said:
On the forum I moderate, the moderators do argue and sometimes heatly but it's done in moderator section only and not visible to general public. Like I said, wehn moderators can't agree, we defer to the forum owner's decision. Regarding section moderating, it's good idea. In my experience, we tend to moderate the sections where we are interested in and generally, other moderators respect the "turf".
I agree with all. These are great ideas towards what you want for moderators. All I can say is: start your own forum and use what ever modulation you like. But, seeing as this is not your forum but a private one and everyone on it are guests I do believe every one should follow the owners rules or pick up your toys and go home.
If someone has a party every night where all have great fun but the owner says "no smoking". Now one of your dear friends decides he doesn't care what the owner wants, he is still going to smoke. Is it now wrong for the owner to ask the man to leave or do you thing it should be put up to a vote?
Dick
If someone has a party every night where all have great fun but the owner says "no smoking". Now one of your dear friends decides he doesn't care what the owner wants, he is still going to smoke. Is it now wrong for the owner to ask the man to leave or do you thing it should be put up to a vote?
Dick
rhncue said:
I'm not sure this is a good analogy.
I don't know the business behind AZ Billiards, and it's not my concern.
If, for example, AZB was able to charge customers/advertisers based on the number of members and daily page hits, then we in effect, are not just "house guests", we are part of the business model. IMO, an analogy to Radio or TV might be more appropriate.
Eric
Dick, I respect your point of view. However, a moderator is not the owner ... more like a manager.
I've heard "start your own forum and use what ever modulation you like" type of rebuttable before and it's a fair one. However, I also think it's important for the forum owner to hear different perspective and evaluate other options to see if any changes are beneficial.
Many of us who are proposing alternatives care for this forum and thus making suggestions.
I've heard "start your own forum and use what ever modulation you like" type of rebuttable before and it's a fair one. However, I also think it's important for the forum owner to hear different perspective and evaluate other options to see if any changes are beneficial.
Many of us who are proposing alternatives care for this forum and thus making suggestions.
daytonajoe
Deceased
I agree as well
Very well said Jazz !! I agree that there should be additional moderators and by section is a great idea
Joe
Jazz said:
Very well said Jazz !! I agree that there should be additional moderators and by section is a great idea
Joe
TATE said:
Hello.I am glad some one has brought this out in the open.I think you have a verry good idea of how things should work.I vote to have a tibunal and keep the members anonymous.I think that would be fair to every one that comes to this board.Well thought out plan,now if we can get this plan instated we will all be alot better off.
rhncue said:
Dick,
You're right that the owner has the right to make whatever rules they want to make. That's a given. However, there needs to be a workable system for managing the shop on a day to day basis too. They make the decisions and I want to help provide ideas on how to make this community better. They can and may totally reject any notion that's different. Regardless, I hope that what we end up with a better system for this large community.
An owners role should be more bent toward making sure the site is financially viable and profitable, selling advertising and looking for the future. This bickering is non-productive and should be delegated.
When it comes to the forums, the posters produce the information that draw people here. Some are real draws - real superstars. I get e-mails from a lot of famous names I didn't even know were looking.
Everyone who is anyone is right here!
Chris
Last edited:
Lol. Politics. Goodie.
Already we've touched on the "capital punishment" debate with the "lifetime ban" vs. "6 months maximum ban" -- can "criminals" be rehabilitated? Lol.
In any case, I'm gonna try to avoid the tendency of this sort of forum to draw politically-oriented lines, but I would be in agreement that a new system sounds like an idea worth developing...
We've seen that word "democracy" thrown around a few times during this whole fiasco...
While I won't try to define what kind of "government" runs this forum, nor advance that we ought to be one kind over any other, truth is I believe things just tend to run a little more fairly when there is more than one source of input rather than an absolute power in certain matters (i.e. - multiple moderators for conference-purposes).
Also, Hal made a comment about diversity among our moderators, which I couldn't agree more with. While it may seem silly at times to discuss the AZB system in this manner, the decisions which some have been, and we will always be, praising or complaining about basically boil down to the people making them. We're asking them to act in the way a political officer might, or to resemble a judge, jury, or executioner.
What we need are some good-hearted, friendly (yet authoritative when necessary) people to monitor the forums. Of all different kinds. "Equal Representation" in two words. And they ought to have the maintenance of the quality of this forum, as well as the quality of interactions between members, as their prime goal, just as they do now. Beyond the system, rules and regulations of governing the forum, I think that it is the people whom we have as moderators which will obviously affect the way the forum is run most. Hence, most of the energy in reformulating the system ought to be directed at said recruitment process.
I also agree with the idea of deferring to the owner in the case of unresolvable conflict between moderators. And I think that a moderator per forum would be a great place to start the unraveling of this new system...
I 100% agree with TATE on the fact that it is bad when: "things [get] too restrictive and imposing on A-Z, to the point where censorship is inhibiting many posters. This hurts the entertainment value. Polite society is mind numbingly boring."
One can't expect for someone who has a certain character in person, whether it be a more sarcastic form of humor or a very blunt and opinionated tone of speech, to simply "turn it off" on a forum. Nor should they even request it of one another -- to do so would be to "take the fun out of the job" so to speak.
And the moderators should feel the same way.
Basically, I say they ought to resort to the rule of utility in most cases: if more good than bad comes from it, it stays. If the bad out weighs the good, its gone. Under which of these categories does a particular post, thread, or member's general behavior fall...that's where the tribunal comes in.
My only gripe comes in with the anonymity of the moderators...not sure how I feel about that one yet...
But, in short, great topic TATE!
(P.S. - For the record, I'm for the "6 month ban" as a maximum...maybe even less for the type of 'petty crimes' were talking about...lol)
Already we've touched on the "capital punishment" debate with the "lifetime ban" vs. "6 months maximum ban" -- can "criminals" be rehabilitated? Lol.
In any case, I'm gonna try to avoid the tendency of this sort of forum to draw politically-oriented lines, but I would be in agreement that a new system sounds like an idea worth developing...
We've seen that word "democracy" thrown around a few times during this whole fiasco...
While I won't try to define what kind of "government" runs this forum, nor advance that we ought to be one kind over any other, truth is I believe things just tend to run a little more fairly when there is more than one source of input rather than an absolute power in certain matters (i.e. - multiple moderators for conference-purposes).
Also, Hal made a comment about diversity among our moderators, which I couldn't agree more with. While it may seem silly at times to discuss the AZB system in this manner, the decisions which some have been, and we will always be, praising or complaining about basically boil down to the people making them. We're asking them to act in the way a political officer might, or to resemble a judge, jury, or executioner.
What we need are some good-hearted, friendly (yet authoritative when necessary) people to monitor the forums. Of all different kinds. "Equal Representation" in two words. And they ought to have the maintenance of the quality of this forum, as well as the quality of interactions between members, as their prime goal, just as they do now. Beyond the system, rules and regulations of governing the forum, I think that it is the people whom we have as moderators which will obviously affect the way the forum is run most. Hence, most of the energy in reformulating the system ought to be directed at said recruitment process.
I also agree with the idea of deferring to the owner in the case of unresolvable conflict between moderators. And I think that a moderator per forum would be a great place to start the unraveling of this new system...
I 100% agree with TATE on the fact that it is bad when: "things [get] too restrictive and imposing on A-Z, to the point where censorship is inhibiting many posters. This hurts the entertainment value. Polite society is mind numbingly boring."
One can't expect for someone who has a certain character in person, whether it be a more sarcastic form of humor or a very blunt and opinionated tone of speech, to simply "turn it off" on a forum. Nor should they even request it of one another -- to do so would be to "take the fun out of the job" so to speak.
And the moderators should feel the same way.
Basically, I say they ought to resort to the rule of utility in most cases: if more good than bad comes from it, it stays. If the bad out weighs the good, its gone. Under which of these categories does a particular post, thread, or member's general behavior fall...that's where the tribunal comes in.
My only gripe comes in with the anonymity of the moderators...not sure how I feel about that one yet...
But, in short, great topic TATE!
(P.S. - For the record, I'm for the "6 month ban" as a maximum...maybe even less for the type of 'petty crimes' were talking about...lol)
Last edited:
Don't Rock The Boat
Well, this won't be popular, but I'll say it as politely and clearly as possible.
People have agendas and prejudices and personal beliefs that are contrary to others. Some people may be very religious and straight laced and easily offended. Some may not be bothered by porn or vulgar language, arguing or bickering.
Some may be racist and are aware or unaware that they are. Some may be bigots. Others may be in daily contact by PMs, e-mail and telephone with current banned members and doing their bidding.
Some may belong to the same pool team, league or clique and their beliefs run along the same lines in matters of importance. Some may feel that a person can whatever they like, because they are a "tells it like it is" type of person.
Some people would rather AZB be about pool only, with no room for other subjects. Some see no problem going on and on and on about Politics or religion or a host of other topics. Some would prefer this to be like the wild west, with no law whatsoever.
I don't like the tribunal idea or the moderator for each section idea.
I don't like the moderators identity is kept secret idea.
I don't like people that have a gripe with other posters, deciding what becomes of their adversaries.
I like the system that's in place now. Maybe it needs a wee bit of tweaking, but it's working just fine (imo). Mr. Wilson seems to have a good grip on what's acceptable here, without leaning too far in any of the above examples. Mr. Wilson is fair and does a good job, despite the current uproar and demand for change. We are lucky to have someone that devotes the time and energy necessary to keep AZB the great site that it is. It won't be perfect for everyone, but it is acceptable.
I hope that things remain as they are, but I'd hope that Mike and Mr. Wilson discuss the possibilty of allowing banned members a reprieve on the 1st of the year. Ultimately, it is their decision and I will abide by it.
Doug
( there's an ass for every saddle and if that saying offends anyone, I certainly don't want THEM as a moderator... imo )
Well, this won't be popular, but I'll say it as politely and clearly as possible.
People have agendas and prejudices and personal beliefs that are contrary to others. Some people may be very religious and straight laced and easily offended. Some may not be bothered by porn or vulgar language, arguing or bickering.
Some may be racist and are aware or unaware that they are. Some may be bigots. Others may be in daily contact by PMs, e-mail and telephone with current banned members and doing their bidding.
Some may belong to the same pool team, league or clique and their beliefs run along the same lines in matters of importance. Some may feel that a person can whatever they like, because they are a "tells it like it is" type of person.
Some people would rather AZB be about pool only, with no room for other subjects. Some see no problem going on and on and on about Politics or religion or a host of other topics. Some would prefer this to be like the wild west, with no law whatsoever.
I don't like the tribunal idea or the moderator for each section idea.
I don't like the moderators identity is kept secret idea.
I don't like people that have a gripe with other posters, deciding what becomes of their adversaries.
I like the system that's in place now. Maybe it needs a wee bit of tweaking, but it's working just fine (imo). Mr. Wilson seems to have a good grip on what's acceptable here, without leaning too far in any of the above examples. Mr. Wilson is fair and does a good job, despite the current uproar and demand for change. We are lucky to have someone that devotes the time and energy necessary to keep AZB the great site that it is. It won't be perfect for everyone, but it is acceptable.
I hope that things remain as they are, but I'd hope that Mike and Mr. Wilson discuss the possibilty of allowing banned members a reprieve on the 1st of the year. Ultimately, it is their decision and I will abide by it.
Doug
( there's an ass for every saddle and if that saying offends anyone, I certainly don't want THEM as a moderator... imo )
My .0002 cents:
I agree of course everyone can just pack up and leave if they do not like a certain system.
The question is: is this the kind of system Mike wants?
If you will all agree that this is Mike's creation, do you think he wants to impose a system of "take it or leave it?"
I cannot speak for Mike but from what I have seen, that is not what has made Az as popular and big as it is today.
I do not know how much freedom is considered a democracy, but I know for a fact that Mike listens and he makes improvements to try and make our Az experience more enjoyable based on our suggestion. In that sense, I believe we are allowed to express our opinion/suggestions, and even criticism.
If we all agree that Mike is open minded and listens to our opinion, then my second question is: Is "take it or leave it" what we want?
Let's imagine going to a pool hall, since we are all pool players here.
The owner can say, "this is the way things are, take it or leave it, the rules are all posted at the door, which you have agreed when you walked through that door..."
OR
he can say "I would like to listen to what my customers want, and I would like to do my best to serve them, so they will enjoy coming back again and again."
From my experience, the latter business model is usually more successful.
The latter business model is not one in which no rule or policy has to be observed; it is one that rules and policies are more flexible and are catered towards the needs and wants of the customers.
I am sure most of us here would like to spend our money in a poolhall which adapts the second business model, because we will feel more respected, and comfortable.
Does that mean this pool hall is now a democracy? I don't know for sure, but I dont think so.
I think it is just a very customer orientated environment, and customers usually like this kind of setting better than one in which the owner takes up a parental role with a "take it or leave it" attitude.
This is what I think about "take it or leave it." I am not saying it is not good, or is wrong; I just think that a system which respects the voices of the members would be more welcome, and can do more good to the forum/business in the long run.
About not having the identity of the moderator known to the general public, I think it is a good idea.
I feel sorry for Mr. Wilson at times, I know he has to work so hard, and yet has received so little credit. Also, he cannot post whatever he wants because he is the "moderator." I think to keep the mod anony is a great idea. After all, he might want to just talk and discuss with the rest of us and have some fun, like a regular poster. It is not fair to take that away from him.
Thank you.
Richard
I agree of course everyone can just pack up and leave if they do not like a certain system.
The question is: is this the kind of system Mike wants?
If you will all agree that this is Mike's creation, do you think he wants to impose a system of "take it or leave it?"
I cannot speak for Mike but from what I have seen, that is not what has made Az as popular and big as it is today.
I do not know how much freedom is considered a democracy, but I know for a fact that Mike listens and he makes improvements to try and make our Az experience more enjoyable based on our suggestion. In that sense, I believe we are allowed to express our opinion/suggestions, and even criticism.
If we all agree that Mike is open minded and listens to our opinion, then my second question is: Is "take it or leave it" what we want?
Let's imagine going to a pool hall, since we are all pool players here.
The owner can say, "this is the way things are, take it or leave it, the rules are all posted at the door, which you have agreed when you walked through that door..."
OR
he can say "I would like to listen to what my customers want, and I would like to do my best to serve them, so they will enjoy coming back again and again."
From my experience, the latter business model is usually more successful.
The latter business model is not one in which no rule or policy has to be observed; it is one that rules and policies are more flexible and are catered towards the needs and wants of the customers.
I am sure most of us here would like to spend our money in a poolhall which adapts the second business model, because we will feel more respected, and comfortable.
Does that mean this pool hall is now a democracy? I don't know for sure, but I dont think so.
I think it is just a very customer orientated environment, and customers usually like this kind of setting better than one in which the owner takes up a parental role with a "take it or leave it" attitude.
This is what I think about "take it or leave it." I am not saying it is not good, or is wrong; I just think that a system which respects the voices of the members would be more welcome, and can do more good to the forum/business in the long run.
About not having the identity of the moderator known to the general public, I think it is a good idea.
I feel sorry for Mr. Wilson at times, I know he has to work so hard, and yet has received so little credit. Also, he cannot post whatever he wants because he is the "moderator." I think to keep the mod anony is a great idea. After all, he might want to just talk and discuss with the rest of us and have some fun, like a regular poster. It is not fair to take that away from him.
Thank you.
Richard
