RealGM

Got this in a Pm from a mod within the hour...

More or less, for better or worse, think of the mods as the refs. You are limited in criticizing them, especially publicly. They have authority and it's not to be questioned. You can only go at one and complain so long before you're hit with discipline.

Now, given the utter blanket claim to irreproachable "authority" claimed, the context of which I received this PM should be irrelevant, but I'll be glad to provide the details if asked.

My point, however, is this - I hope this isn't the instruction, directly or indirectly, your moderators are "performing" their duties under.

First of all, let me break down the analogy.

Sports refs ARE given disciplinary authority over players, but their powers are not arbitrary and are clearly defined and known to the players.

Secondly, the sport of disciplinary powers is that so arguing doesn't take focus and time away from the games. Given that the sole purpose of RealGM is DISCUSSION, to argue that users can't openly discuss criticism of mods, is to argue mods are above the very reason the site exists.

When exercised in this manner, the disciplinary authority serves no purpose other than self-service.

So I'd like to ask a genuine question - do the mods serve the users of this site or do the users serve the mods?

Because one mod has told me directly they are above reproach, though no offering explanation as to why this is to the betterment of the site and suggesting quite plainly that they don't like to be questioned and will use their "authority" to place themselves above it.

I can't see it because he hasn't posted on any of the boards I mod, but I'm setting odds that an IP check fails to return a host of proxies at 12:1 against.

Schadenfreude wrote:I can't see it because he hasn't posted on any of the boards I mod, but I'm setting odds that an IP check fails to return a host of proxies at 12:1 against.

I don't have a clue what this means but I'd be glad to post on one of your forums if you tell me which they are.

This is becoming comical.

Stuckey-man wrote:So I'd like to ask a genuine question - do the mods serve the users of this site or do the users serve the mods?

Neither.

The mods are posters too. Usually posters that have an active interest in keeping these forums sane and jerk free. Unfortunetely, sometimes we have to make decisions that negatively affect a poster (or posters) in order to achieve this and make us seem like the jerks. The fact is not everyone shares the same sensibilities, nor the same sense of humour and some take offense easily and others like to stir the pot in order to get a rise from people. It is our task to try to keep this place rolling as smoothly as possible, keep discussion from deteriorating in to a pissing contest and try to appease the majority.

Yuri Vaultin wrote: Unfortunetely, sometimes we have to make decisions that negatively affect a poster (or posters) in order to achieve this and make us seem like the jerks.

It is our task to try to keep this place rolling as smoothly as possible, keep discussion from deteriorating in to a pissing contest and try to appease the majority.

This is all understood. I get what the textbook job description of moderator is, what I'm seeking clarification is this particular mods definition of his "authority".

Is that endorsed by RealGM? That mods are NOT to be questioned, in a forum whose primary function is the asking and answering of questions and interaction between posters?

This mod also said quite plainly you can only criticize a mod for so long before being disciplined. He offered no caveat as to whether the substance of the criticism was a factor.

In this case, a mod criticized me personally without provocation (I was critical of a Wiretap story that was corrected - twice - in direct response to my criticism, the mod didn't appreciate it) and my critique of this mod was in response to his criticism of me.

The message sent to me quite clearly was the mod had full reign say what he liked about me, but I had only limited ability to respond.

I'm asking if this sort of double-standard is endorsed and encouraged by RealGM?

You are limited in criticizing them, especially publicly. They have authority and it's not to be questioned.

Those 2 statements are contradictory. If you are limited in criticizing them, then that implies that can be questioned to a degree.

charity stripe wrote:Those 2 statements are contradictory. If you are limited in criticizing them, then that implies that can be questioned to a degree.

Exactly, which implies the line between "limited criticism" and "unquestionable authority" is entirely arbitrary and subjective, which makes it ripe for abuse.

That's basically the substance of my question - are there any standards that can be articulated in which mods are held to, or in a dispute between a forum member and a mod, is RealGM going to favor on the side of the mod by default, regardless of circumstance?

Who cares? See all the other threads about moderators on the board? Get over it or leave, it's the internet - not congress your high school.

G=K wrote:Who cares? See all the other threads about moderators on the board? Get over it or leave, it's the internet - not congress your high school.

no comment

G=K wrote:Who cares? See all the other threads about moderators on the board? Get over it or leave, it's the internet - not congress your high school.

Yeah, indifference is cool! F standards! The internet is for people who don't give a s**t about nuthin!

Stuckey-man wrote:The internet is for people who don't give a s**t about nuthin!

Or for people who get bent out of shape over a forum and any perceived injustices.

Or for sexual predators, deviants and perverts.

Or for gingers who must keep some contact with the outside world as they simultaneously seek refuge from the hellacious scorching sun.

Or for stalkers whom have restraining orders in place.

Or for people suffering from horrific communicable diseases and lepers. Can't forget the lepers!

Or the desperate and lonely.

Or conspiracy theorists... The Truthers!

Or trolls.

Or people who check the weather and like looking at the odd titty here and there.

troll checking in

To give you a fair answer - Yes, you have the freedom to question a mod, to complain about their actions.

However, doing so in a respectful manner is the best way to go about it. Remember, verbally attacking members publically is not allowed here at RealGM, so this rule obviously applies to mods and admins as well. Your best bet would be to send a private message to the mod in question, respectfully letting them know about your complaint. If, in the end, you feel that the mod has treated you poorly or is ignoring your complaint, you should then send a private message or an email to one of the administrators of the site for further assistance.

Forum moderators are not beyond reproach. We are here to talk basketball just like everyone else; we just have the added task of helping to keep things civilized and in order best we can.

When, where, and by whom were you told this Stuckey (and in regards to which Thread/Post)?

PM me or another Global, that's what we're here for if you're having trouble with a Mod(s), and lemme know the details...and I'll (or another Global) will see if we can help.

Thanks,
--Mags

To build on magnumt's post, usually its poor form to disagree with a mod in public...that leads inevitably to thread derailment. The best course of action is to sent the mod in question a PM if you don't understand his/her approach to the situation.

If you are still unsatisfied, that's what these board (and the Global Mods) are for.

god, i am so f***ing beautiful.

YogiStewart wrote:god, i am so f***ing beautiful.

I know...

...But I hear Yuri and Schad gotz the hotzness too!!1!!

--Mags

magnumt wrote:

YogiStewart wrote:god, i am so f***ing beautiful.

I know...

...But I hear Yuri and Schad gotz the hotzness too!!1!!

--Mags

Nothing is sexier than a sea cow

^'Tis true, 'tis VERY true indeed.

--Mags

magnumt wrote:^'Tis true, 'tis VERY true indeed.

--Mags

When a guy like this is a "global mod", it all starts to make sense