Criticising ResMods

So, I've been watching all these posts about ResModding, about the recent suspensions and the like. Got mixed feelings.

On the one hand, I feel kinda bad for the ResMods. They step up and take the heat for whatever decisions are made. If I understand correctly, ResMods can't ban or suspend anyone. Someone with the last name Linden did that. And yet, Lindens don't speak up on the matter. A person like Strife does, and he gets scapegoated for a decision he didn't make.

On the other hand, I do believe some of the criticisms are valid. ResMods shouldn't be above reproach and their decisions can and should be challenged.

That said, I'm troubled by the some of the posts directed to or talking about Stife. All that was missing from some of them were torches and pitch forks. Some of it seemed mean spirited for no reason other than being mean spirited.

Consider it this way: If you want to get someone to reconsider their actions, you won't likely accomplish that goal by immediately putting them on the defensive. It just makes everything worse. There are good ways to approach everything, and in this case, jumping out of the gate with sarcasm or worse just isn't it.

Not saying you have to like everything a ResMod does or says. Not by a long shot. But they shouldn't be a target for misplaced anger either.

I don't think that the anger is misplaced at all. When you are in a position to moderate a forum, you should leave your personal feelings out of your actions. People get offended when someone closes a thread and puts their personal opinion on the suject.

It's like saying:


It should simply be:
Period. End of discussion.

Only a >> FOOL << would challenge that statement.

Do you think that 75% to 100% of the forum community has misplaced anger against 1 person? That's ridiculous to say the least.

LL might allow this, but the community has obvioulsy expressed that it is not acceptable. This person is perfectly aware of that fact. So instead of changing his/her approach, he/she just continues on the same path. It's like "So what if you all don't like it, I'm a resmod and I'll do wtf I want! LL isn't gonna do a damn thing...so why SHOULD I change?"

OK, maybe "misplaced anger" wasn't the best way to say what I meant. It's not someone's anger I'm objecting to, but the manner in which it is expressed.



I don't think we've heard from nearly 75 percent of the forum community on this, so I really don't know. I suspect, however, that many people really don't care either way. Doesn't affect them directly so it's just not an issue to them. That's the way people go on most issues.



Well and fine. Again, it's the not the substance of your complaint I'm talking about here. It's how some people are acting on their dissatisfaction. The old addage about catching more flies with honey holds true. In any case, attacking a person makes it rather unlikely that they'll swing around to your point of view. It's just not a good tactic in conflict resolution.

If there is a lot of dissatisfaction and an agreement can't be reached through rational discussion, kick it up the ladder and seek action from LL. Rude posts don't accomplish anything.

i think critizing the resmod will only give you problems with them

considering they have more power than you...

never taunt with a stick someone with a chainsaw

That depends on how handy you are with a stick.

Thats very true (and scary) - BUT a good person should listen to al and al are equal worth .. OK OK OK.. maybe I am to blueyed but I dream its like that..

/Tina

As long as moderators are briefed enough and consult enough with the lead moderators or with the gamehost, there is no way moderators will be able to make a mistake of large magnitude.

I came from such an environment. The trigger levels of all the moderators were different, and could be different each day, that's being human. But taking the big view the threshold of tolerance still varied only by a very small amount. Furthermore, the board rules were very strict.

We regularly used the "Good Resmod" quote above. Innocents that get swept up in a sub-thread deletion never worry or complain because they know only the off-topic posts are deleted and only the flamers in the sub-thread get penalties.

Mods got respect, and were popular. I was one of the elected moderators and there were two of us that kept getting re-elected. We must have been doing something right. But even the company-managed moderators had the same respect and popularity.

Were the moderators ever criticized? Oh yes. But the critic invariably gets shot down by other members citing what he did wrong (heck they are pissed at the guy for the same reasons because it's usually a flamer).

THIS is what is possible with a good resmod program and good managment of the forum.

On the other hand, it could be supposed that all the posters except the sycophants and masochists left.

Nope. The posters were the active players, movers and shakers and even newbies. Discussions ranged from in-game politics, to strategy, to game issues, the works. The discussions were all really good. We had quite a bit of on-topic ROTFLMAO level comedy too.

The only people who kept getting beaten down were those who couldn't hold their temper.

(sorry though I'd deleted the quote you took because I was trimming down my post's length).

And whether or not the person with the chainsaw remembered to fill it with gas.

My criticisms against Strife and prior resmods in the past who overstepped their bounds in this forum are quite valid and have had zero to do with the recent incident with Cristiano's suspension. These criticisms, of course, were not addressed and instead a rambling reply about DDR and an empty promise of 'leaving' were given. My past threads here in this forum at least did not end so comically bad.

If you'd like to have this sort of discussion about the validity of the criticism, please do not misrepresent the position of those making it -- I have not, nor will I hold ResMods accountable for what happened the night Cris got suspended.

I don't think you went out of your way to do this, but bringing up that charged incident in this forum may derail the value of what has been said here unfairly, hence why I wrote this at all.

I usually stay out of discussions about ResMods, but thought I'd make an apearance .



Its true that ResMods have nothing to do with bans or suspentions, all we do is lock and submit the threads that break the guidelines and after that it goes into the Lindens hands. I'm not sure who specifcally deals with them, it may be the same as the in-world abuse guys.



If you have a problem with a decision/action made by a ResMod or any moderator for that matter there are lots of things you can do. You can PM the moderator themselves and ask them to submit the decision to a Linden for review, or PM Torley, or report the post you have a problem with with the little button.

This is much more productive that starting threads on the subject, as it breaks the guidelines under "Reposting".



Some of the posts about Strife were very unfair, although I wasn't even around at the time it was all going on. Like I said, its better to challenge a desision privately.



Hehe thats a good saying, although maybe not entirely fitting? If you create a thread asking why your thread was locked and such, it would have to be closed because its against the guidelines, I don't know if that counts as "trouble". But if you have a problem with a decision do feel free to PM one of the mods and ask for it to be looked over by a Linden.





Anyway, if you have any questions about ResMods or anything else for that matter feel free to PM me!

Zap

Sorry, I disagree.

This forum is about discussing the subject of ResMods and that includes critcism, provided it isn't an attempt to restart the actual subject of a locked thread about, say stolen clothing or whatever. If there's a problem and it's visible, discussions of it should be visible and transparent as possible. I do, however, disagree with threads discussing actions and the program outside of this special little buried forum and have respected it being placed here for a reason.

That doesn't mean there's no room to privately discuss matters -- but at some point it simply can't be swept under the rug silently.

I'm hoping you can see my point of view or at least agree to disagree.

Well, I agree to some degree, the moderation of the forums should be discussed, of course. But when its to do with specific "incidents", most of them come under the reposting part of the guidelines, "Furthermore, please do not post a "why did my post get removed" post.". Which is why from my point of view its better to deal with specific incidents privately, but I can definitely see your point of view.

Zap

Actually, I didn't speak to the validity of the complaint. It's the manner it is communicated that I am getting at.

eta: Egg on my face It's my alt here.... Lorelei

I certainly understand some of the distinction you're driving at, yeah. Anyway, thanks for a level-headed response, I realize I've been quite.. direct in what I say.

And again you with the half truths. Way to go Zap!





Yes you submit. And you submit threads out of context. So a thread, on its own, say with a reference to a certain organization, might look like a troll, when in fact, it is two friends having a little fun. Out of context the thread looks bad. Submissions are obviously not made with a note to look at other, similar threads.






Oh yes and this has worked SO well in the past. /sarcasm off. The truth is that people have PM'd and asked for rereviews till they are blue in the face and it does no good. Hence they resort to posting.




How the hell can you say they were unfair when you weren't around to see the shit Strife was doing? Some of the posts about Strife were unfair. Awww poor baby. Strife got people banned unfairly. How's that for unfair?



Because, once again, that works SO friggin well.

Vivianne, I'm not attacking you, just trying to understand. How does a Resmod get someone banned? I've been told they cannot ban, and then I hear statements like yours, and something isn't matching up.

Two people, we'll call them Salt and Pepper, are friends. Salt makes a post about group A. In jest and as a joke, Pepper copies the post but instead of making it about group A, Pepper makes it about a group often associated with pedophilia and says Salt belongs to that group. Strife takes it upon himself to send Pepper's post, completely out of context, for Linden review. Strife doesn't explain the situation. Indeed, he says, later, that he didn't understand it. Yet when the situation is explained, and it really didn't take much to see what was going on, he defends the locked thread, linden review, and subsequent ban as fair because the thread in question was inflammatory -- when clearly it was not.

Hm. I know the situation and I'm really not sure how I feel about it. Calling someone a pedophile when they are not could easily be grounds for libel or slander. I am aware of the satire defense, but I don't know if it would stand up. Hm. Personally, I found it in bad taste.

It was in bad taste. So are certain people trolling the sandbox about religious issues. Neither is against the TOS and the trolls certainly haven't been sent for Linden review. Furthermore, the post and thread in question was in reply to another post and thread and was a joke between two friends. This was pointed out to the ResMod in question who, to this day, feels he was right to send it up for Linden review without giving the context in which the thread was created.

Thinking and paying attention are no way to get through life, Vivi.

That explains a lot about my life actually

Probably my last post on this, as I think it's time to move on. It isn't just a joke between two friends if it's posted on a public forum. I do think it crossed a line and merited a response. I wouldn't say banning would be the appropriate response all times, but there seems to have been a pattern of behavior that could warrant it. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this.

That is definately Not True. If you have a point of view, the mod(s) should be there to listen to you. In words you may use, a mod's Job is not to chop your head off if you poke them with a stick.

If that's what's happening in the community, the wrong mods have been chosen. The first thing a mod should do is try to come to a verbal conclusion with the person/people involved in said matter, not to just ban everyone who's in the thread and the time and close it for no reason.

I've actually had a similar case to this on another forum (though I am the user). "Botted" gold was sent between many accounts on the website and one of them was mine. The moderators simply banned EVERYONE who had that gold in their account, desite who gave it to them or how it was gained. Mine was gained as a gift from my sister, and yet I've lost 1 year of work and over 2million gold from the website. This I wasn't happy with, a mod's Job is to investigate then act, not act then a few months later "Hey, we banned somebody who didn't deserve it here"

That's why I joined SecondLife and kind of abandoned Gaia. Now, ending my story with a sum-over.

Mod's are hired to investigate matters THEN, once they feel they have come to a conclusion BEYOND RESONABLE DOUBT, they act.