[Akalabeth Angel]

Is it just me, or does any one else find it odd that people are moderating their own discussions on this forum? If a person doesn't like the way a discussion is going, they split it off and lock it?

I would assume this forum has multiple moderators to avoid exactly that. People here are all human and they're not necessarily objective when involved in their own discussions, that's why it's important to have an independent 3rd party observer to moderate for those who are either unable or unwilling to moderate themselves.

[Lucika]

Shouldn't this be in Site Support?

Otherwise I 100% agree.

[Droid803]

We should totally start a Rate Your Moderator site.

[The E]

Well, personally, I try not to use my moderator powers in a thread I have been actively participating in, especially not if there was some heated discussin going on that I was part of. Other moderators have different ethics there.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Well, personally, I try not to use my moderator powers in a thread I have been actively participating in, especially not if there was some heated discussin going on that I was part of. Other moderators have different ethics there.

A subsequent question to what you have above then is Why are there no guidelines into what is acceptable and what is not? Obviously all of the moderators are long time, dedicated and active members of the community and so they have demonstrated a desire to add to the community. However, cliche as it is there is also the saying that with power comes responsibility. There should be a set of rules, internal or transparent that dictate the proper ways to conduct oneself.

If people who post on a forum are subject to rules, why not those who moderate as well? They should have more rules to adhere to if nothing else.

Personal experiences excluded, it's a little disheartening to see other people try to become actively involved in a discussion only to have someone else tell them their opinion isn't wanted there. If this is a discussion forum, discussion should be free and open as long as those people involved stick to the topic at hand.

This belittling that goes on, backed up by threats of moderator privileges is not fostering any sense of community.

[Nuclear1]

I think it should be general policy that moderators involved in a discussion should report potential problems to other moderators before action should be taken.

It's a little frustrating and intimidating to be debating with a moderator knowing they can splitlock your posts just because they disagree with you. 

[CommanderDJ]

I think it should be general policy that moderators involved in a discussion should report potential problems to other moderators before action should be taken.

It's a little frustrating and intimidating to be debating with a moderator knowing they can splitlock your posts just because they disagree with you. 

This. The last part especially.

[Lucika]

Could it be maybe set in the forums that no moderator can lock a topic who has already posted in it? I am not sure if this is possible with the engine.

[Mongoose]

I pretty much agree with this sentiment, and I've felt uncomfortable over what's happened in the thread in question as a result.  I don't think Battuta's actions have been in the right here...he obviously has a lot of personal investment in this thread, and there's clearly a conflict-of-interest going on over what does or doesn't constitute inappropriate posting in it.  I mean, it's one thing to splitlock some of Marcov's "hurrdurr i didn't read the thread" nonsense, but Akalabeth was simply stating his reaction to the post.  I may not agree with his assessment myself, but I certainly recognize it as a valid opinion, and I don't think there was any call for it to be split out like that.

Edit: Lucika, with some threads, that would mean that none of the mods would be able to lock it.  That seems like a Bad Thing to me.   If we're going to be getting into guidelines, I think instead that mods should be strongly discouraged from moderating threads that they themselves create, except in obvious cases like spambots.

[Scotty]

with some threads, that would mean that none of the mods would be able to lock it.  That seems like a Bad Thing to me.  

Epic threadnaught generator.

[Flipside]

Well, to be honest, I was the one who did the first split for this very reason, my argument wasn't really with the direction the thread had taken as the manner in which it had taken it.

Thing is, I wouldn't be surprised if the interviewee would pop by and browse the thread, and the interviewer was conscious of that. I'm not really in a position to know enough about the reasons behind the actions to make a judgement.

From my perspective, the moderation has been tough, but the thread is more than the usual conjecture stuff, it's a pretty relevant piece of journalism with regards to this sites' main focus. Possibly on this occasion there was reason for stricter moderation. As to the manner of that Moderation, well, that's something that would have to be taken up on a one-one basis.

[Akalabeth Angel]

My issue is not limited to the thread splitting itself.

That thread quite frankly is rife with people telling people what to talk about. As early as the second page someone is telling another person their input is neither welcome nor relevant. The same thing happened with at least four different users, not counting myself. There's a difference between keeping a discussion on topic and telling people they're outright wrong for disagreeing and then in subsequent cases splitting similar posts off into other threads.

I sincerely hope the guy who got interviewed never actually comes around to read that thread. I suspect he may not walk away with a favourable impression.

[NGTM-1R]

From my perspective, the moderation has been tough, but the thread is more than the usual conjecture stuff, it's a pretty relevant piece of journalism with regards to this sites' main focus. Possibly on this occasion there was reason for stricter moderation. As to the manner of that Moderation, well, that's something that would have to be taken up on a one-one basis.

Or possibly the fact that the person who started the thread and did the journalism is therefore personally invested in it should be a warning sign regarding the way it's been moderated and their treatment of others in the subsequent discussion.

[Flipside]

Thing is, I've not been privy to what happened in that thread from the point of splitting it because I got caught up in other stuff. I don't have a problem with a News item being moderated more strongly, even by the News poster, maybe it should have appeared in Announcements from the start, but the concept of moderating the thread more strictly to prevent problems was a sound one. If there were problems beyond that split, then there are ways to raise those concerns, the report button, or PMing the person involved, or even an Admin etc.

My main point was that the original split was by me, because I had already warned people that if they did not calm down I would do so.

[Nuclear1]

The moderation problem really wasn't locksplitting people being stupid, but from my end, it seemed that the people whose FS experience wasn't revolutionized by the interview or people who didn't understand it were subsequently told they were ignorant, incapable of reading, and/or stupid.

Like I said before, we can debate our points of view on the interview without resorting to name-calling. 

[Akalabeth Angel]

Exactly. Most of the information in the interview from my interpretation was pretty speculative and placating quite frankly. Certain members took from the speculation a very rigid and generous interpretation of what was actually being said and enforced their interpretation in the subsequent discussion to the derision of all others.

And if this is about journalism it should be about reporting. An unbiased report would present the interview with the very minimum of introduction and then discuss their interpretation of that interview thereafter. That's what journalism is, presenting facts so that the audience can both read and discuss. Journalism is not enforcing your interpretation through moderation or derision.

If the interviewed individual ever actually visited the forums and saw the results of his interview he would see people being put down for having a different interpretation rather than a free and open discussion of the varied possible interpretations. And personally I don't believe that's how this community would want to present itself.



Regardless, the thread in question is an example and it's probably happened before in other instances that I'm not aware of, potentially by other moderators than those involved in the referenced thread. It's simply the latest example of where this sort of thing becomes a problem.

[Thaeris]

There's a difference between keeping a discussion on topic and telling people they're outright wrong for disagreeing and then in subsequent cases splitting similar posts off into other threads.

There are times a user is indeed incorrect, and correction is not out of the question...

The moderation problem really wasn't locksplitting people being stupid, but from my end, it seemed that the people whose FS experience wasn't revolutionized by the interview or people who didn't understand it were subsequently told they were ignorant, incapable of reading, and/or stupid.

Like I said before, we can debate our points of view on the interview without resorting to name-calling. 

^This sums up the problem perfectly though. It is the means by which a correction is made. I certainly have been in error at time, other times I've not felt I was. In any sense, the one to make "correction" often was blunt, unfriendly, and generally uncourteous. In short, in making their position known, or making a correction to a situation, they seemingly felt an example was needed of the one being responded to. There may be a time and a place for that, but it should never be the first resort.

[Akalabeth Angel]

There's a difference between keeping a discussion on topic and telling people they're outright wrong for disagreeing and then in subsequent cases splitting similar posts off into other threads.

There are times a user is indeed incorrect, and correction is not out of the question...

I would be happy with correction if the thread in question offered any (or if there were any grounds to even make a correction). Telling a person that they're wrong and telling a person WHY they are wrong are two different things. The latter is more accommodating and helps with clarity of position and mutual understanding, the former does not.

[Marcov]

I believe the thread where I was trying to clear out that the issue wasn't clearly about me not reading the interview should really have been splitlocked, since I was trying to prove something specific and not that relevant to the topic at hand.

However part of said thread I was also revealing my stand on how the debate is quite improper, to say the least, due to heavy disrespect, which, as I see, is clearly the discussion here.

Let me see. At first it was something like "Ahh...I find Scott's ideas compelling, though not that much, as the seemingly "mysterious" Shivans aren't that complicated after all," then I was told "you don't understand the intent here at all".

Then I explained that I though FS 3 was somehow going to be made. He refused. Truth is, I somewhat screwed up at that point (I was led to believe it by the "Volition will murder" news").

But then S-99 swoops in and starts giving out the same "It isn't so interesting, but yeah thanks, you were able to do the interview" opinion, which got splitlocked and flamed upon again.

Then I start doing some minor reason of how the splitlocking should be done; why don't the moderators just transfer these posts to the "FreeSpace Open Trailer" thread instead? After all, it's, to say the least, ontopic to the said thread. But apparently Mongoose couldn't take me too seriously (explanation please) and did a "Shut-Up" comment. So, to elaborate more, I posted again, and eventually ended up getting splitlocked again (!). I confess, I rather view these "Shut-Up" posts pretty irritating, and somehow a form of minor flaming (heck, GB actually did a lot of flaming there), so that's why I want an explanation, whether Mongoose didn't take me seriously or simply didn't want me to reply at all anymore to the thread, for some reason I don't know.

This time, Akalabeth takes over, and does the same but with a harsher tone. GB, of course, with his impatience on the matter, will treat him more harshly than with me.


There have been a lot more splitlocked threads. You know what, I think the plenty offtopic posts don't have to be splitlocked unless they get TOO MUCH (IIRC there are dozens of past threads that have, at some point, offtopicness, but return back to normal after someone gives a warning), though can anyone give us a clear reason why Moderation is quite heavy here? Or is it because of GB's rather fiery temper against members who have different views??

E.g. "Gargantuan posts" were clearly offtopicness, but was it worthy to be splitlocked? It might come to stop in a while, though there appears to be heavy moderation indeed.

[General Battuta]

Hahaha this is awesome I can see like 40% of the posts in this thread.

Anyway, I assume this is complaining about threads getting split locked out of the big interview thread. Locking is generally a bit much but splits are cool as far as I'm concerned. If Akalabeth is worried about getting his own thread, it was left open for him to reply as much as he liked until someone else locked it out of the blue.

Debate is cool, but when people start making things up and tossing about wild accusations just to stir up ****, it's pretty obviously trolling, and that's what mods are here to prevent. S-99 and Marcov were both just ****ty posters. Akalabeth is generally able to string sentences together and had every right to keep posting in spite of his bizarre reading of the paragraphs meant to prevent mod politics from turning up, so I don't know why his thread was locked.