Sustainability & Environmental Forum

jacaranda

I'm interested in green issues and in a rigorous debate and examination of the subject.

I made a post in a thread which was fairly straightforward. “Companies who landfill generally do have the word "RECYCLE" emblazoned on the side of their trucks. the word has been so devalued now as to be almost meaningless.” http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66180980&postcount=31

A moderator then replied saying “You mean waste management companies that are engaged in recovering recyclabes also landfill some of their waste? Shocking.”

So I replied that, no, that was not what I meant and what I meant was what I had said.

The moderator then asked if some of the trucks carrying this label also recycled other goods, and I again replied that my view was that the word “recycling” was devalued.

Then he asked if I thought they should be barred from using the word “recycled” and I said “no”.

Then the same moderator said that he was looking for “clarification “as to what I meant, and I told him that I meant what I had said, nothing more and nothing less, and that he really shouldn’t try to interpret what I am saying, and should read it and not try to put words into my mouth.

He then replied that I am now banned from the forum, and has conveniently deleted most of his posts, claiming that his own posts are now “Irrelevant posts deleted”

The moderator seems more like a troll trying to provoke and goad me, and so now he asks "...If you think I'm misrepresenting what you have said, then explain how I have misrepresented you..."

When I reply that its not possible to explain how as he has deleted his posts which show this, he deletes my post, denying me teh ability to answer his question!

While the Sustainability and Environmental has a moderator who behaves like this, the best advice is to avoid posting there!

LoLth

if you have a complaint about a moderator, you should send a PM to the Category mod (nesf or scofflaw) or, if you wish to discuss a decision, you should try talkign to the moderator by PM or to his co-moderator if you feel a polite discourse cannot be held.

failing that, you should post on the helpdesk.

However, to address your issue: anyone with mod access to the forum ( forum moderators, category mods, admins) can read the deleted posts so we can see the full story.

You made a statement.

A user (lets leave aside the fact that he's a moderator) sought clarification

you responded with the exact same statement, nothing more

Again clarification/further detail was sought

You repsonded again with the exact same statement.

you then proceeded to argue with the user, on thread, about semantics of posting and took teh thread off topic.

The mod posted to show where you were in breach of the charter and still you continued.

The mod cleaned up the thread to get it back on topic and posted to explain his actions

You continued to argue off topic

I'm sorry, but I'm failing to see where the moderator was wrong in this instance. Perhaps you can explain your point of view a bit clearer for me?

LoLth

just noticed that you also have a helpdesk thread on the exact same issue where you posted that you would be happy to let the issue pass (admittedly because you didnt want to give the mod the pleasure of knowign it bothered you).

Is there any particular reason you opened this thread 8 days later?

jacaranda

LoLth wrote: »

just noticed that you also have a helpdesk thread on the exact same issue where you posted that you would be happy to let the issue pass (admittedly because you didnt want to give the mod the pleasure of knowign it bothered you).

Is there any particular reason you opened this thread 8 days later?

Yes, since then the mod has been trolling as you can see from the therad. He asked me a question there today "....If you think I'm misrepresenting what you have said, then explain how I have misrepresented you..." and when I replied that I wasn't able to as he had deleted all his relevant posts. he then deleted my reply effectively denying me any ability to respond to his question.

Its a shame to see a moderator, or any member, trolling like that and effectively abusing his mod powers. He takes part in a discussion, and if he doesn't like the responses he gets, he then puts on his mod hat and starts threatening his interlocutor.

It simple isn't possible to discuss with someone who does that, and it's seems evident that someone who appears to need to pull rank as a moderator should not be a moderator.

AckwelFoley

jacaranda wrote: »

I made a post in a thread which was fairly straightforward. “Companies who landfill generally do have the word "RECYCLE" emblazoned on the side of their trucks. the word has been so devalued now as to be almost meaningless.” http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66180980&postcount=31

A moderator then replied saying “You mean waste management companies that are engaged in recovering recyclabes also landfill some of their waste? Shocking.”

So I replied that, no, that was not what I meant and what I meant was what I had said.
!

As someone that likes to think of themselves as showing signs of some form of a semi functioning brain, i dont see the difference you are pertaining to.

If you are not refering to waste managment companies, what are you refering to?

LoLth

jacaranda wrote: »

Yes, since then the mod has been trolling as you can see from the therad. He asked me a question there today "....If you think I'm misrepresenting what you have said, then explain how I have misrepresented you..." and when I replied that I wasn't able to as he had deleted all his relevant posts. he then deleted my reply effectively denying me any ability to respond to his question.

Its a shame to see a moderator, or any member, trolling like that and effectively abusing his mod powers. He takes part in a discussion, and if he doesn't like the responses he gets, he then puts on his mod hat and starts threatening his interlocutor.

It simple isn't possible to discuss with someone who does that, and it's seems evident that someone who appears to need to pull rank as a moderator should not be a moderator.

emmm, what I see on the thread is a mod asking you to clarify a point you made and then removing the off topic posts that followed to keep the thread on track. I dont see any trolling by the moderator on that thread. I see a moderator performing the role he volunteered to do.

I dont see an abuse of mod powers. I see a user make a statement and fail to clarify when asked in direct contradiction to the charter (pointed out by the mod) and then continuing to argue on thread and off topic resulting in the moderator giving a warning and then a ban. The user then went to the helpdesk and when informed of the correct procedure to make a complaint, decided not to do so because the user didnt want to give the mod the satisfaction of seeing that the ban got to him.

Now, 8 days later, a new thread is created claiming the mod is trolling and givign negative feedback on the forum. Fair enough , this is the feedback thread and any feedback, even negative, is appreciated but this is striking me as more of a petty attempt to "hurt" the forum and take a dig at the moderator.

Unless you have a valid complaint which:

if its about the forum should be posted here as clearly and concisely as possible

if its about the mod should be directed to the Category moderator via PM

if its about the ban should be first directed to the mod or co-mod, then the cat mod and then possibly helpdesk

I think this thread would be best closed and left to float away.

jacaranda

.

LoLth wrote: »

emmm, what I see on the thread is a mod asking you to clarify a point you made and then removing the off topic posts that followed to keep the thread on track… I see a user make a statement and fail to clarify when asked in direct contradiction to the charter (pointed out by the mod) and then continuing to argue on thread and off topic resulting in the moderator giving a warning and then a ban.

To be fair, I wasn’t making a point but expressing an opinion. The opinion being that the word “recycling” has been devalued.

When asked by the moderator (not in his capacity as a moderator, but in his capacity as a member) as to what I meant, I replied that I meant what I had said, that it’s my opinion that the word “recycling” has been devalued, when it is carried by trucks which carry garbage to landfill.

The moderator told me “what you mean” and I disagreed, and wrote what I meant was just what I had said.

He tried to twist what I had said, and every time I said that what I had written was what was my opinion. No more or no less.

If what I had said was “off topic” it was only in direct response to his questions.

LoLth wrote: »

I think this thread would be best closed and left to float away.

I’m sure you are right, and I am sure that it’s not really worth a lengthy correspondence.

Having said that, it’s fine that both I and the moderator should disagree.

What is less certain is that a moderator should take part in a discussion, and when he disagrees with his interlocutor, he should suddenly abandon his status as a contributor to a discussion, and don his moderator hat and threaten the other party. It seems clear that the moderator was baiting me to disagree with him, and then because I had disagreed he first threatened to ban me and then carried out his threat. And at the same time deleting his own posts!

The issue is how a moderator can take part in a discussion, and then when he doesn’t like the replies he gets to his questions, which were neither rude nor pejorative, he then swoops with his moderator hat and threatens his interlocutor.

While we all know moderators on boards.ie are volunteers, that’s no excuse to abuse their positions and wave their big moderator stick when they don’t like another members opinions.

LoLth

Ok, I can see your point, at least I can see it if I look at it from the point of view you are describing. You *could* be right, but I honestly dont think so. I think its true as you see it but I think perhaps you are reading the situation with an understandable bias.

If the scenario you are describing were true, you would be absolutely right and I would gladly have a word with the mod in question about his modding style.

As I posted above, this is how I read the situation and, I think this is how the moderator saw it too:

you posted a statement.
you were asked to clarify or extrapolate.

all good so far.

Instead of clarifying, you re-posted the same statement. nothing more.

You were asked to clarify again.

You posted the same statement again. no more.

The mod posted up that you were not participating in the discussion but were just repeating the same statement.

You argued that the mod was putting words in your mouth and that it was not true.


The mod posted up the section of the charter that specifically says that posting up the same statement repeatedly is not discussion and so is not allowed. This is to stop people just , well, posting the same unproven statement as their argument instead of actually expanding on it and entering into a discussion. This being a discussion forum, I dont see that as an unreasonable item for a charter.

He didnt "wave a moderator stick" until you had , even after being shown where you were going wrong, continued to argue off topic after being shown the relevant section of the charter.

Even then, it was just a warning and, in the interest of keeping the thread on topic and allowign the discussion to continue, he removed the argumentative posts. Something a good moderator does to keep the forum relevant and drama free.

It was only when you retruned to the thread after the posts were deleted and posted, on thread, about how unfair it was and that it was an attempted cover up that you received the ban... for posting off topic.

Did the moderator ban you?
yes he did.

Did he "go after" you ?
yes he did, to get you to clarify a statement you dropped in to the thread without foundation. Perfectly legitimate for any user in a discussion.

were you warned about your posting behaviour?
Yes

Did you stop?
no

Did anyone force you to return to the thread and continue to post off topic?
No.

You could have taken it to PM.
You could have PM'ed the co-mod.
You could have PM'ed the catMod.

you didnt. You decided to argue on thread and continue posting off topic which you had already been warned about.

I'm not having a go at you here. I can understand that you are annoyed at being banned from a forum you enjoy participating in but you really have to step back and look at this from my, and the mods', perspective.

Honestly, if there was even the slightest hint that the mod singled you out and forced you to post contra to the charter in a nefarious scheme to get you banned, I would happily fight your corner and try to get the moderator to see sense. In this case, I'm just not seeing it.

You received a 3 day ban from the forum. If you do not wish to post there again, that is your choice but I'm pretty sure that, if you let this incident go and return to the forum and obey the charter while participating, the moderator will also consider this incident over and done with. You may be asked to clarify or expand on a point in the future. If you are, either dont post back or give some details to better explain or support your statement. Now that you have been made aware of it, I doubt that you will get as many warnings as you received in that thread. If anythign, the moderator was more patient and more willing to give you a chance to comply than he had to be.

As for the mod taking part in the discussion. I personally think a mod of a forum should take part in the discussion. it shows he has an interest in the topic and is not just a janitor put there to enforce the rules and clean the spam. I agree that a mod should not abuse his position to punish those that disagree with him about the topic beign discussed, however, a mod should use his mod powers to stop users breaking the forum rules.

jacaranda

LoLth wrote: »

Ok, I can see your point, at least I can see it if I look at it from the point of view you are describing. You *could* be right, but I honestly dont think so. I think its true as you see it but I think perhaps you are reading the situation with an understandable bias.

If the scenario you are describing were true, you would be absolutely right and I would gladly have a word with the mod in question about his modding style.

.

There is no truth in this situation, merely opinions. I’ve said that I agree with you that I’m sure you are right, and I am sure that it’s not really worth a lengthy correspondence.

LoLth wrote: »

you posted a statement.
you were asked to clarify or extrapolate.

all good so far.

Instead of clarifying, you re-posted the same statement. nothing more.

You were asked to clarify again.

You posted the same statement again. no more.

The mod posted up that you were not participating in the discussion but were just repeating the same statement.

You argued that the mod was putting words in your mouth and that it was not true.


.

I’ve already said that I expressed the opinion that the word “recycling” has been devalued by being emblazoned on trucks carrying garbage to landfill. That is an opinion and as such needs no “clarification”. The moderator had deleted his posts so they are not available to quote here, but my recollection is that he said “what you mean is…” and I corrected him by saying what I meant was no more or no less than what I had said.

Then he tried in other ways to get me to say that “…the word “recycling” has been devalued by being emblazoned on trucks carrying garbage to landfill” actually means something else, and he seemed unable to accept that what I expressed as an opinion means just what I had said.

Then when I wouldn’t agree with him that it means something other than that which I wrote, he starting waving the moderator stick at me and threatening me.

LoLth wrote: »

The mod posted up the section of the charter that specifically says that posting up the same statement repeatedly is not discussion and so is not allowed.

That’s what I mean, once he couldn’t get me to agree that what I has said was not what I had meant, he then started threatening me.

In other words, if I wasn’t going to agree with him that I had meant something other than that which I had written, then he was going to accuse me of not being allowed to repeat what I had said, even though he kept asking me about it!

That’s trolling in most people’s book, and even if it’s not trolling its petty and juvenile and lacks grace.

I also notice you have expressed no opinion on a moderator taking part in a thread as a member, and then donning his moderator cap when he doesn’t like the answers.

LoLth

jacaranda wrote: »

I also notice you have expressed no opinion on a moderator taking part in a thread as a member, and then donning his moderator cap when he doesn’t like the answers.

emmm

As for the mod taking part in the discussion. I personally think a mod of a forum should take part in the discussion. it shows he has an interest in the topic and is not just a janitor put there to enforce the rules and clean the spam. I agree that a mod should not abuse his position to punish those that disagree with him about the topic beign discussed, however, a mod should use his mod powers to stop users breaking the forum rules.

jacaranda

LoLth wrote: »

emmm

My apologies.

djpbarry

jacaranda wrote: »

I’ve already said that I expressed the opinion that the word “recycling” has been devalued by being emblazoned on trucks carrying garbage to landfill. That is an opinion and as such needs no “clarification”.

And if everyone on this forum decided that their posts were nothing more than opinions needing no further discussion/clarification, then I’m sure you would agree that a farcical situation would quickly ensue. A blog is the place for expressing opinions. A discussion forum is a place for discussion. If it is apparent that a poster is refusing to engage in discussion, then a moderator is required to take action.

jacaranda wrote: »

Then he tried in other ways to get me to say that “…the word “recycling” has been devalued by being emblazoned on trucks carrying garbage to landfill” actually means something else, and he seemed unable to accept that what I expressed as an opinion means just what I had said.

You seem unable to accept that I’m still not entirely sure what point you were trying to make. Let me put it like this; if I were having a discussion in a pub with a few friends and someone said “I’m of the opinion that the word ‘recycling’ has become devalued’, would it be unreasonable for me to ask ‘What do you mean exactly’? If they then simply repeated ‘I mean the word ‘recycling’ has become devalued’, I think it’s fair to say that the discussion would quickly grind to a halt.

jacaranda wrote: »

Then when I wouldn’t agree with him that it means something other than that which I wrote, he starting waving the moderator stick at me and threatening me.

I began to ‘wave the moderator stick’ when you point blank refused to elaborate on a statement you had made – whether or not I agreed with said statement is not the issue.

jacaranda

djpbarry wrote: »

You seem unable to accept that I’m still not entirely sure what point you were trying to make.

The opinion I expressed has been explained so many times now that it appears pointless repeating it one more time only to have you once again claim you don't know what my opinion "the word “recycling” has been devalued by being emblazoned on trucks carrying garbage to landfill" means.

Why you want to continue to discuss it seems unclear, and it's best if we both try to tactfully avoid discussion as a pointless waste of both our time.

djpbarry

jacaranda wrote: »

The opinion I expressed has been explained so many times...

Eh, you haven't once explained anything?

jacaranda wrote: »

...now that it appears pointless repeating it one more time only to have you once again claim you don't know what my opinion ... means.

Let me just state this one last time to make myself absolutely clear: I am not completely sure what you meant by the above statement, hence I sought clarification. Rather than rephrasing your statement or elaborating in some way, you decided (not for the first time) to make a great big hoo-ha about my moderation.

jacaranda wrote: »

Why you want to continue to discuss it seems unclear, and it's best if we both try to tactfully avoid discussion as a pointless waste of both our time.

So you start a thread on the issue in the Help Desk and then you start a thread on the same issue in Feedback, but you don't want to discuss said issue? Why start a thread (or two) on an issue you don't want to discuss?

jacaranda

djpbarry wrote: »

Eh, you haven't once explained anything?
Let me just state this one last time to make myself absolutely clear: I am not completely sure what you meant by the above statement, hence I sought clarification. Rather than rephrasing your statement or elaborating in some way, you decided (not for the first time) to make a great big hoo-ha about my moderation.
So you start a thread on the issue in the Help Desk and then you start a thread on the same issue in Feedback, but you don't want to discuss said issue? Why start a thread (or two) on an issue you don't want to discuss?

I never said i didn't want to discuss, which appears to be another example of you twisting what I have said. I said discussion with you seems pointless for the reasons explained above. I only wish you could come to the same conclusion and just ignore me from now on. Thanks.

LoLth

jacaranda wrote: »

I never said i didn't want to discuss, which appears to be another example of you twisting what I have said. I said discussion with you seems pointless for the reasons explained above. I only wish you could come to the same conclusion and just ignore me from now on. Thanks.

jacaranda, he cant ignore you. he's a mod and mods *have* to read psots even if they dont agree with them. many a book or finale has been spoiled for me during my time as Arts cmod

maybe you're not seeing this the same way as the moderator saw it. So, let me ask you this:

when the poster asked you what you meant with your statement, did you re-word your statement to hopefully make it clearer? Did you link or quote material from another source that supports your statement? or did you re-state the original statement exactly the same as you said it before?

jacaranda

LoLth wrote: »

jacaranda, he cant ignore you. he's a mod and mods *have* to read psots even if they dont agree with them. many a book or finale has been spoiled for me during my time as Arts cmod

Sure, I can imaging the frustrations of being a moderator! No one forces one member to engage directly with another member, and it seems obvious to even the meanest intelligence that it is pointless to have the same discussion here that was fruitless elsewhere.

LoLth wrote: »

maybe you're not seeing this the same way as the moderator saw it. So, let me ask you this:

when the poster asked you what you meant with your statement, did you re-word your statement to hopefully make it clearer? Did you link or quote material from another source that supports your statement? or did you re-state the original statement exactly the same as you said it before?

Really, as he has deleted most of his posts and some of mine, I have no way of checking what was said.

From memory, he started off by saying "what you mean is...." and the proceeded to tell me that I had meant something I have never intended, and had never said. So I suggested he should read what I had said rather than to read into what I had said something which I had not said.

I'm not sure how to reword an opinion which I expressed which seems simple, straightforward and self explanatory.

To refresh , I said that in my view, the word recycle has become devalued because it is emblazoned on the sides of garbage trucks dumping garbage in landfill.

I'm not sure what part of that might be misunderstood, or what part is unclear. Are you saying that you, also, don't understand the sentence?

LoLth

no, I'm not saying I dont underatand it, I'm not making any comment on the content of your statement.

i can read the deleted posts and what I am saying is that you posted the exact same statement three times in response to a request for clarification.

can you understand that that is not discussion?

an example:

a maths teacher tells his class "the square of the hypoteneuse is equal to the sum of the square of the other two sides"

little johnny is confused and puts up his hand "can you explain that?"

teacher: "the square of the hypoteneuse is equal to the sum of the square of the other two sides"

little johnny: "I'm still not sure what you mean"

teacher: "the square of the hypoteneuse is equal to the sum of the square of the other two sides"

little johnny decides to leave it there and will not be able to answer question 1 on paper 1 of the junior cert which reads "the square of the hypoteneuse is equal to the sum of the square of the other two sides" - demonstrate how this can be proven using diagrams.

(yes, I know I probably spelled it wrong but I'm too lazy to look up a dictionary).

It is not enough to state your view again when asked to clarify. You should explain the facts or thinking that lead you to hold that view.

Does this make the issue any clearer for you?

jacaranda

LoLth wrote: »

no, I'm not saying I dont underatand it, I'm not making any comment on the content of your statement.

i can read the deleted posts and what I am saying is that you posted the exact same statement three times in response to a request for clarification.

can you understand that that is not discussion?

an example:

a maths teacher tells his class "the square of the hypoteneuse is equal to the sum of the square of the other two sides"

little johnny is confused and puts up his hand "can you explain that?"

teacher: "the square of the hypoteneuse is equal to the sum of the square of the other two sides"

little johnny: "I'm still not sure what you mean"

teacher: "the square of the hypoteneuse is equal to the sum of the square of the other two sides"

little johnny decides to leave it there and will not be able to answer question 1 on paper 1 of the junior cert which reads "the square of the hypoteneuse is equal to the sum of the square of the other two sides" - demonstrate how this can be proven using diagrams.

(yes, I know I probably spelled it wrong but I'm too lazy to look up a dictionary).

It is not enough to state your view again when asked to clarify. You should explain the facts or thinking that lead you to hold that view.

Does this make the issue any clearer for you?

I've never been unclear on the issue. What I said was clear, and was my opinion, and like yourself the 17 people I work with all had no difficulty in understanding it.

I am not a teacher. I was not stating a fact. I was giving my opinion, no more and no less.

LoLth

lets try another one...

bob: I think penguins are funny

joe: why is that?

bob: penguins are funny

joe: yes, but why do you think that

bob: penguins are funny

joe: i dont care any more.


does the removal of the teacher from the equation make it any clearer?

jacaranda

LoLth wrote: »

lets try another one...

bob: I think penguins are funny

joe: why is that?

bob: penguins are funny

joe: yes, but why do you think that

bob: penguins are funny

joe: i dont care any more.


does the removal of the teacher from the equation make it any clearer?

I already said that I am not unclear!

This latest example is a perfect illustration that on opinion "I think penguins are funny" is not something which is easily explained. The fact that someone asks "why do you think that" shows a level of misunderstanding. In my world, i am able to accept that someone finds penguins funny without (i) feeling the need to question them as to why and (ii) pulling rank on them and banning them when i don't find their answers to my liking.

LoLth

but according to the charter of the forum you were posting to it specifically states that if you post an opinion you should expect to be questioned on it and you should be prepared to explain or clarify without just re-posting the same text.

you werent banned because you didnt provide an answer to the mods liking, you were warned for not providing an answer which was clearly in breach of the charter and this was pointed out to you and then you were banned for arguing on thread with the moderator about a moderation decision.

I really think this thread has run its course. You are free to post in the forum again but I would suggest that the next time you are asked to clarify a statement, whether you think it is simple or crystal clear or not, you oblige the request and reword or expand your statement to make it clearer. Otherwise, if you are not prepared to do that, refrain from posting your opinion in that forum.

LoLth

jacaranda

LoLth wrote: »

I really think this thread has run its course.

LoLth

I agree and said that ages ago. We simple aren't going to agree, as I've said so many times now, I wasn't making a statement, but giving an opinion.

If someone is not able to understand the sentence " I am of the opinion that the word recycle has been devalued due to garbage trucks with the word "Recycle" on the side dumping garbage in landfill", the I am truly sorry for them.

If they need such a simple sentence "clarified" then they might consider whether their standard of english is up to moderating a message board for adults.

bonkey

jacaranda wrote: »

This latest example is a perfect illustration that on opinion "I think penguins are funny" is not something which is easily explained. The fact that someone asks "why do you think that" shows a level of misunderstanding.

I have a friend who finds penguins funny, actually.

The thing is, that when he is asked why, he says "I can't really explain...its just how I feel about penguins". Straight away, there, he's provided more information.

In my world, i am able to accept that someone finds penguins funny without (i) feeling the need to question them as to why and (ii) pulling rank on them and banning them when i don't find their answers to my liking.

In your world, though, is there something wrong with them being asked why? I can understand that some people may not feel the need to question the idea....but if someone did, are they wrong to do so?

Where this analagy breaks down is that the concepts of value and devaluation are perhaps more weighty then the concept of "funny". There are unstated implications arising from them....such as whether or not value is really being lost, what that value is in the first place, whether or not it is important or if something should be done about it?

jacaranda

bonkey wrote: »

I have a friend who finds penguins funny, actually.

The thing is, that when he is asked why, he says "I can't really explain...its just how I feel about penguins". Straight away, there, he's provided more information.

My opinion is that the word Recycle has been devalued because it is emblazoned on the side of of garbage trucks dumping into landfill.

Why do I feel the word has been devalued?

Because it is emblazoned on the side of garbage trucks dumping into landfill.

And no matter how many times you ask the question, your friend will still say he doesn't know why he finds penguins funny, he just does, and I'll say because it is emblazoned on the side of garbage trucks dumping into landfill.

bonkey wrote: »

In your world, though, is there something wrong with them being asked why?

In my world there is nothing wrong with being asked why, but I also don't have to explain why again when I have already explained why I think the word recycle has been devalued.

bonkey wrote: »

I can understand that some people may not feel the need to question the idea....but if someone did, are they wrong to do so?

It wasn't the idea they were questioning, it was my opinion. As I've already explained, he told me "what you mean is..." and i had to point out that what I meant was that i think the word recycle has been devalued etc etc ( ie repeating what i had said as the other poster seems to think I meant something other than that which I had said).

bonkey wrote: »

Where this analagy breaks down is that the concepts of value and devaluation are perhaps more weighty then the concept of "funny". There are unstated implications arising from them....such as whether or not value is really being lost, what that value is in the first place, whether or not it is important or if something should be done about it?

I'm not sure what anyone can do about this, or even if we should do anything about it, as words change their meaning all the time, and trying to be the word police wont work. I was merely making an observation which seems obvious to me, and perhaps less so to others.

bonkey

jacaranda wrote: »

I'm not sure what anyone can do about this, or even if we should do anything about it, as words change their meaning all the time, and trying to be the word police wont work. I was merely making an observation which seems obvious to me, and perhaps less so to others.

Lets recap.

When it was clear that someone in the thread had a different understanding of the words you used then you had, you got outraged that they would "put words in your mouth".

Only a post or two ago, you suggested that their understanding of the english language was defective, because they didn't claimed to not be entirely sure what you actually meant by your statement.

Now you're saying that you understand that people understand words differently, that their meaning isn't cast in stone, and that perhaps there's nothing to be done about this....in response to a comment made about a key part of the comment you made - the meaning of devaluation.

It seems this discussion had a purpose after all, as you now seem to be agreeing that its not unreasonable for different people to understand the meaning behind words differently....which would then logically imply that its not unreasonable for someone on a discussion forum to want to clarify someone meant by a statement.

jacaranda

bonkey wrote: »

Lets recap.

When it was clear that someone in the thread had a different understanding of the words you used then you had, you got outraged that they would "put words in your mouth".

Only a post or two ago, you suggested that their understanding of the english language was defective, because they didn't claimed to not be entirely sure what you actually meant by your statement.

Now you're saying that you understand that people understand words differently, that their meaning isn't cast in stone, and that perhaps there's nothing to be done about this....in response to a comment made about a key part of the comment you made - the meaning of devaluation.

It seems this discussion had a purpose after all, as you now seem to be agreeing that its not unreasonable for different people to understand the meaning behind words differently....which would then logically imply that its not unreasonable for someone on a discussion forum to want to clarify someone meant by a statement.

If someone doesn't understand a word (in your example the word devaluation) they have a number of courses open to them. They can, for example, say "I don't understand the word "devaluation" . If, instead, they choose to say "What you mean is...." when they mean "I don't understand the word devaluation" then it becomes necessary for me to try to double guess what they mean, rather than accepting they mean what they say. Which is, obviously, impossible.

I've never thought other than that it is entirely reasonable that we all do not understand words in exactly the same way.If you are now suggesting that the moderator wanted me to define the word "devaluation" then thats what he should have asked. I would then have been happy to point him to the OED which defines devaluation as • verb (devalues, devalued, devaluing) 1 reduce the worth of. 2 reduce the official value of (a currency) in relation to other currencies.[SIZE=-1]— DERIVATIVES[/SIZE] devaluation [SIZE=-1]noun[/SIZE], or to have discussed with him what I meant by the term devalued.


Indeed, if there were any other words in my post which he did not understand, i would have been happy to have tried to help him with their definitions too.

But at no time did he say that he didn't understand a word or words and wanted to discuss their meanings, and no one could construe from what he did say "What you mean is...." can be interpreted in any way to be asking to have an individual word defined to make its meaning clear.



To then conclude that its "...not unreasonable for someone on a discussion forum to want to clarify someone meant by a statement...", because they may not have understood the definition of one word in the statement, is illogical. School children are taught that if they don't understand a word they should either look it up in a dictionary or ask for a definition. I do the same myself and usually have a dictionary handy, and would have been happy to supply the definition, as I have done above, if only he had asked for that. He didn't.

bonkey

jacaranda wrote: »

If someone doesn't understand a word (in your example the word devaluation) they have a number of courses open to them. They can, for example, say "I don't understand the word "devaluation" . If, instead, they choose to say "What you mean is...." when they mean "I don't understand the word devaluation" then it becomes necessary for me to try to double guess what they mean, rather than accepting they mean what they say. Which is, obviously, impossible.

I've never thought other than that it is entirely reasonable that we all do not understand words in exactly the same way.If you are now suggesting that the moderator wanted me to define the word "devaluation" then thats what he should have asked. I would then have been happy to point him to the OED which defines devaluation as • verb (devalues, devalued, devaluing) 1 reduce the worth of. 2 reduce the official value of (a currency) in relation to other currencies.[SIZE=-1]— DERIVATIVES[/SIZE] devaluation [SIZE=-1]noun[/SIZE], or to have discussed with him what I meant by the term devalued.


Indeed, if there were any other words in my post which he did not understand, i would have been happy to have tried to help him with their definitions too.

But at no time did he say that he didn't understand a word or words and wanted to discuss their meanings, and no one could construe from what he did say "What you mean is...." can be interpreted in any way to be asking to have an individual word defined to make its meaning clear.

So now what you're saying is that you don't have an issue with someone seeking clarification....you just don't like the manner in which he set about it.

Not only that, but you're saying that the manner in which he set about it could be interpreted in different ways....which is ironic, really, considering that you're also trying to argue that if you understand the meaning of the individual words, there shouldn't be any issue in understanding what is being said.

Allowing for that irony, though, let us note that you saw it could be read different ways, but choose not to ask what he meant....no more then he directly asked you. So obviously, any complaint that someone not asking clearly for clarification would have to apply as equally to you as it would to him. So either neither of you is in the wrong, or you're as bad as he is. You can decide...but either which way, there's no moral high ground to be found there.

Lets move one.

To then conclude that its "...not unreasonable for someone on a discussion forum to want to clarify someone meant by a statement...", because they may not have understood the definition of one word in the statement, is illogical.

Ironically, you appear to be misunderstanding the meaning of what I said.

You have accepted that the meaning of individual words is not cast in stone. It is, therefore, somewhat subjective. In turn, this makes the meaning and implications of a comment also subjective. You offer nice definitions of devaluation...but ignore that they in turn ask what the concept of "worth" is in the context you originally used the term.

Ultimately, in order to understand what you meant by your statement, we would have to discuss just that...the meaning you intended to convey. Its not purely about the meaning of the individual words, although it derives (at least in part) from that.

Of course...you must already accept this as being true, given your comments above about the "you mean..." post being able to be read different ways.

School children are taught that if they don't understand a word they should either look it up in a dictionary or ask for a definition. I do the same myself and usually have a dictionary handy, and would have been happy to supply the definition, as I have done above, if only he had asked for that. He didn't.

And yet, despite all that, you managed to misunderstand the point I was making. You either understood the words, or looked them up....but still didn't understand the meaning and implications I intended to convey. Additionally, you've already accepted that a sentence can be read multiple ways, conveying different meanings....which makes this line of argument you present entirely redundant. It arose, presumably, because you didn't understand the meaning I attempted to convey.

I felt I was making the point clearly...as I'm sure you felt on the thread you are complaining about. Do you think the appropriate response for me would be to get angry with you for misunderstanding me here? Should I berate you for "putting words in my mouth", as you are drawing the inferences from what I said other then those I intended? Should I just repeat myself, rather than trying to progress our mutual understanding of the topic? Would I be justified in getting angry with you if I didn't like the tone you're taking in your posts, if (for example) I were to find it patronising and insulting to other members?

Somehow, I think we'd both agree that if you were the victim of such behaviour, that you would be wronged and that it would be unacceptable of me to carry on in that manner.

jacaranda

bonkey wrote: »

So now what you're saying is that you don't have an issue with someone seeking clarification....you just don't like the manner in which he set about it.

Not only that, but you're saying that the manner in which he set about it could be interpreted in different ways....which is ironic, really, considering that you're also trying to argue that if you understand the meaning of the individual words, there shouldn't be any issue in understanding what is being said.

.

No, that’s not what I am trying to say. I have no issue with someone seeking clarification. Once more, to say “what you mean is…” is different from saying “could you clarify this word”

I don’t think it unreasonable for a grown adult with a reasonable IQ to understand a simple sentence.

bonkey wrote: »

Allowing for that irony, though, let us note that you saw it could be read different ways, but choose not to ask what he meant....no more then he directly asked you. So obviously, any complaint that someone not asking clearly for clarification would have to apply as equally to you as it would to him. So either neither of you is in the wrong, or you're as bad as he is. You can decide...but either which way, there's no moral high ground to be found there.

.

“it” , we must remember, is the sentence, “Companies who landfill generally do have the word "RECYCLE" emblazoned on the side of their trucks. the word has been so devalued now as to be almost meaningless.”

If you find that sentence could be read in different ways, then that’s your conclusion.

If you have to label me good or bad, then that’s your decision. For me, good and bad are moral concepts and I tend not to think of others as good or bad. We differ.

bonkey wrote: »

Ironically, you appear to be misunderstanding the meaning of what I said.

You have accepted that the meaning of individual words is not cast in stone. It is, therefore, somewhat subjective. In turn, this makes the meaning and implications of a comment also subjective. You offer nice definitions of devaluation...but ignore that they in turn ask what the concept of "worth" is in the context you originally used the term.

.

I have no idea who are they “they” who have asked what the concept of “worth” is. Or why it should be relevant.

bonkey wrote: »

Ultimately, in order to understand what you meant by your statement, we would have to discuss just that...the meaning you intended to convey. Its not purely about the meaning of the individual words, although it derives (at least in part) from that.

Of course...you must already accept this as being true, given your comments above about the "you mean..." post being able to be read different ways.


And yet, despite all that, you managed to misunderstand the point I was making. You either understood the words, or looked them up....but still didn't understand the meaning and implications I intended to convey. Additionally, you've already accepted that a sentence can be read multiple ways, conveying different meanings....which makes this line of argument you present entirely redundant. It arose, presumably, because you didn't understand the meaning I attempted to convey.

I felt I was making the point clearly...as I'm sure you felt on the thread you are complaining about. Do you think the appropriate response for me would be to get angry with you for misunderstanding me here? Should I berate you for "putting words in my mouth", as you are drawing the inferences from what I said other then those I intended? Should I just repeat myself, rather than trying to progress our mutual understanding of the topic? Would I be justified in getting angry with you if I didn't like the tone you're taking in your posts, if (for example) I were to find it patronising and insulting to other members?

Somehow, I think we'd both agree that if you were the victim of such behaviour, that you would be wronged and that it would be unacceptable of me to carry on in that manner.

You seem to have progressed down the line to some sort of philosophical or Jesuitical argument about the fact that sentences or words are open to be misinterpreted.

All your questions about what you should do if "...Do you think the appropriate response for me would be to get angry with you for misunderstanding me here? Should I berate you for "putting words in my mouth", as you are drawing the inferences from what I said other then those I intended? Should I just repeat myself, rather than trying to progress our mutual understanding of the topic? Would I be justified in getting angry with you if I didn't like the tone you're taking in your posts, if (for example) I were to find it patronising and insulting to other members?...” are really question you’ll have to answer for yourself, and why they are relevant to this discussion seems uncertain.

djpbarry

jacaranda wrote: »

I don’t think it unreasonable for a grown adult with a reasonable IQ to understand a simple sentence.

And yet, you have misunderstood at least one of bonkey's 'simple sentences'. Hmmm....

bonkey

jacaranda wrote: »

No, that’s not what I am trying to say.

You've used simple sentences and I've misunderstood you. Oh dear.

I don’t think it unreasonable for a grown adult with a reasonable IQ to understand a simple sentence.

These repeated snide little rearks about someone's inability to understand simple english sentences being a relection of their intelligence are doing you no favours....especially when they follow you telling me that I've not understood you.

“it” , we must remember, is the sentence, “Companies who landfill generally do have the word "RECYCLE" emblazoned on the side of their trucks. the word has been so devalued now as to be almost meaningless.”

If you find that sentence could be read in different ways, then that’s your conclusion.

As I've already tried to make clear, the entire meaning of the sentence hands on the interpretation and understanding of what you mean by "devalued" (and, consequently value) in this context. What value did the word
have that has been lost? Why has it been lost? Who has it been lost by? What are the implications of it being lost? Do these implications, in turn, suggest that its something worth caring about?

If, from your perspective, none of that is connected to the meaning of your sentence, then we can agree to disagree. However, getting angry that someone would have a viewpoint similar to mine (as in the case of djpbarry) seems unreasonable.

You seem to have progressed down the line to some sort of philosophical or Jesuitical argument about the fact that sentences or words are open to be misinterpreted.

You've repeatedly based your insulting of the moderator of a forum on the concept that only some sort of idiot could fail to understand the meaning of a simple sentence.

Rather than trade insults, I've attempted to make it clear to you that simple sentences, comprised of the simplest of words, are not necessarily as clear as we might think.

Along the way, both of us have misunderstood the other at times, or needed to discuss further points we had already made, in an attempt to make our point clear (having seen that it wasn't so the first time around).

We've had an enjoyable, mostly-civil discussion, which has both centered around the reality that simple words do not always suffice, and which has served as an illustration of exactly that point.

You've apparently been a willing actor in this discussion....although throughout it, you've insisted that someone who exhibits the traits that we've both shown and discussed must be stupid, or have a sub-standard grasp of the english language.

Might I suggest that you've successfully undermined the entire basis for your outrage? You've not only shown that you share the very flaws that got you so incensed, but also that you're willing to civiliy engage with someone (me) who's also showing the same traits.

You might, therefore, wish to reconsider why it was you got outraged. You may not wish to - that's your choice.

jacaranda

bonkey wrote: »

You've used simple sentences and I've misunderstood you. Oh dear.


These repeated snide little rearks about someone's inability to understand simple english sentences being a relection of their intelligence are doing you no favours....especially when they follow you telling me that I've not understood you.

Snide little remarks? Because I hold the view that if someone is is unable to understand what is a fairly simple sentence, then perhaps being a moderator of a forum where people are likely to talk in sentences may not be the best choice for them.

bonkey wrote: »

Rather than trade insults, I've attempted to make it clear to you …

It’s a little ironic that you call my view above “snide little remarks” and then say “rather than trade insults….”

bonkey wrote: »

If, from your perspective, none of that is connected to the meaning of your sentence, then we can agree to disagree. However, getting angry that someone would have a viewpoint similar to mine (as in the case of djpbarry) seems unreasonable.

I agree and getting angry is never useful. I if you implying that you think I am, or have been angry, then you are mistaken.

bonkey wrote: »

You've repeatedly based your insulting of the moderator of a forum on the concept that only some sort of idiot could fail to understand the meaning of a simple sentence.

.

I haven’t “insulted” anyone and to make an observation, or a criticism of someone's behaviour, is not to insult them.

bonkey wrote: »

Along the way, both of us have misunderstood the other at times, or needed to discuss further points we had already made, in an attempt to make our point clear (having seen that it wasn't so the first time around).

We've had an enjoyable, mostly-civil discussion, which has both centered around the reality that simple words do not always suffice, and which has served as an illustration of exactly that point.

You've apparently been a willing actor in this discussion....although throughout it, you've insisted that someone who exhibits the traits that we've both shown and discussed must be stupid, or have a sub-standard grasp of the english language.

.

No, I have consistently said that someone who is unable to understand the simple sentence “Companies who landfill generally do have the word "RECYCLE" emblazoned on the side of their trucks. the word has been so devalued now as to be almost meaningless.” is and unusual choice for a moderator in a forum which consists of many such simple sentences.

bonkey wrote: »

Might I suggest that you've successfully undermined the entire basis for your outrage? You've not only shown that you share the very flaws that got you so incensed, but also that you're willing to civiliy engage with someone (me) who's also showing the same traits.

You might, therefore, wish to reconsider why it was you got outraged. You may not wish to - that's your choice.

As I am not, and was not, either outraged or incensed,, it seems your judgement that I am, or was, is wrong. I have lots of flaws and never pretended otherwise.

djpbarry

jacaranda wrote: »

I haven’t “insulted” anyone...

Yes you have:

jacaranda wrote: »

I don’t think it unreasonable for a grown adult with a reasonable IQ to understand a simple sentence.

That's not a criticism of my behaviour, that is quite clearly an insult.

Oh look, we're disagreeing on the meaning of a post again.

jacaranda wrote: »

No, I have consistently said that someone who is unable to understand the simple sentence “Companies who landfill generally do have the word "RECYCLE" emblazoned on the side of their trucks. the word has been so devalued now as to be almost meaningless.” is and unusual choice for a moderator in a forum which consists of many such simple sentences.

Perhaps you could point out where I stated that I did not 'understand' your sentence?

bonkey

jacaranda wrote: »

I haven’t “insulted” anyone and to make an observation, or a criticism of someone's behaviour, is not to insult them.

And yet, you suggest that me referring to your "snide little remarks" is insulting.

You've made it clear that you don't understand my meaning at times, but suggest that it is somehow not acceptable for others.

You imply that my comment about your snide remarks is insulting, but then argue that your comments on other people's behaviour is an "observation", and therefore not insulting.

You've accepted without ire or insult me telling you that I've misunderstood you, me telling you what I've understood your meaning to be, me telling you what I've understoodd the inferences of your comments to be..and then courteously informed me that I'm wrong.

You have also made it clear that you've misunderstood me, you've told me what you've understood my meaning to be, and you've told me inferences of my arguments...and apparently courteously accepted me telling you you're wrong.

When it comes to djpbarry, however, you keep insisting that these are unacceptable traits for a moderator, are indicative of sub-par intelligence, and are sufficient justification for your truculence and subsequent outrage.

So when its you, its acceptable. When its me...its apparently at least acceptable enough to engage in civil discussion and to refrain from insults. When its djpbarry, its neither.

In short, it clearly suggests that the problem lies elsewhere.

Its up to you whether or not you wish to accept that.

Either which way, I'm done here.



You're free to continue, but you're only making it clea r

jacaranda

bonkey wrote: »

And yet, you suggest that me referring to your "snide little remarks" is insulting.

You've made it clear that you don't understand my meaning at times, but suggest that it is somehow not acceptable for others.

You imply that my comment about your snide remarks is insulting, but then argue that your comments on other people's behaviour is an "observation", and therefore not insulting.

Anyone can see that to call someone else about their "snide little remarks" is a value judgement. To call their remarks "little" appears patronising, and to generalise and say they are or have been "snide" (▸ adjective: expressive of contempt) is an opinion.

I’ve never said either is insulting and you are wrong to claim that I did.

Unlike some, I don;t find offence where none is intended, and i especially don't take offence where it is!

bonkey wrote: »

You have also made it clear that you've misunderstood me, you've told me what you've understood my meaning to be, and you've told me inferences of my arguments...and apparently courteously accepted me telling you you're wrong.

When it comes to djpbarry, however, you keep insisting that these are unacceptable traits for a moderator, are indicative of sub-par intelligence, and are sufficient justification for your truculence and subsequent outrage.

So when its you, its acceptable. When its me...its apparently at least acceptable enough to engage in civil discussion and to refrain from insults. When its djpbarry, its neither.

Again, your language is interesting as I have never insisted anything. Ironically, you keep “insisting” that I am outraged, even when I have already told you I am not!

bonkey wrote: »

In short, it clearly suggests that the problem lies elsewhere.

Its up to you whether or not you wish to accept that.

Either which way, I'm done here.



You're free to continue, but you're only making it clea r

It’s not up to me to accept or not your opinion that the problem lies elsewhere. That’s your opinion and is entirely valid as such, whether or not anyone agrees with you.

jacaranda

As a postscript, it seems no one has added to the thread in question since the moderator started issuing threats 16 days ago. Which is a shame, but understandable, as heavy handed moderation invariably seems to put members off posting.

Mahatma coat

Just finished reading this.

Jacaranda, I dont know it it will make you feel better or worse but you're not the only one to have a run in with A Particular Mod in that forum.

this Circlin of the Wagons is obvious from the first page, do not expect anything to be done about it, besides the Big Guns stepping in to berate you with eloquence.

BTW I found your statement of opinion rather clear and unambigious as I'm sure others responding to this thread would admit if they werent toeing the party line

djpbarry

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Jacaranda, I dont know it it will make you feel better or worse but you're not the only one to have a run in with A Particular Mod in that forum.

I assume by a "run in", you mean "unfair treatment"? If so, feel free to provide an example.

LoLth

If you have a complaint about a mod, please use the proper channels ie:

PM the mod in question or PM one of the co-mods to get their take.

If still unhappy, PM the cmod, if there is an issue they will take it up with the mods.

If you *still* feel that the mod's actions are questionable and that the cmods arent following up when it should be, then make a case on the helpdesk where an admin will look into it for you. BUT, please be sure that you have a valid complaint before starting a helpdesk thread.

by and large, the mods/cmods/admins arent unreasonable (its one of the traits we look for in mods and cmods) . As long as you are polite and willing to engage in dialogue and not just want to insult you'll be listened to.

LoLth

Mahatma coat wrote: »

this Circlin of the Wagons

beign in agreement is not necessarily circling of the wagons. if I agreed with the user I would have no difficulty letting the mod know. I could just as easily take your input into this thread as an attempt to stir up trouble by egging on an other user to fight your fight but I'm hoping thats not the case.

Mahatma coat

djpbarry wrote: »

I assume by a "run in", you mean "unfair treatment"? If so, feel free to provide an example.

No, not quite, and this is a prime example, you ASSUME to know the motives of the posters, you ascribe meanings that are not there in order to take umbrage and use you Moderator powers to terminate any discussion that you disagree with and Bully other users into submission, here again in this thread it has been mentioned that you deleted the posts that showed you up as petty.

@Lolth I called it a wagoncirclin because I am astounded that you could find difficulty in understanding the sentence posted by the OP, to me it seemed like another 'How dare this upstart question a Mod' moments

Maybe some of ye did have difficulty understanding the Sentence, or the first response, but the fact that you see nothing wrong with the moderator ascribing meaning that simply wasnt there or contradicts the OP does display a shocking lack of the language skills required to Moderate debates between English speaking Adults.

djpbarry

Mahatma coat wrote: »

No, not quite, and this is a prime example, you ASSUME to know the motives of the posters, you ascribe meanings that are not there in order to take umbrage and use you Moderator powers to terminate any discussion that you disagree with and Bully other users into submission, here again in this thread it has been mentioned that you deleted the posts that showed you up as petty.

So it’s no ok for me to ask a question in order to clarify what a poster means, but it is ok for you to accuse me of being petty based on the content of posts that you haven’t even seen?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Maybe some of ye did have difficulty understanding the Sentence...

Perhaps you could point out where I stated that I did not 'understand' the sentence in question?

Mahatma coat

djpbarry wrote: »

So it’s no ok for me to ask a question in order to clarify what a poster means, but it is ok for you to accuse me of being petty based on the content of posts that you haven’t even seen?

Askin Questions is the point of a discussion, however ascribing motives to a post based on assumptions is not.

Perhaps you could point out where I stated that I did not 'understand' the sentence in question?

well then why the need for clarification?????

djpbarry

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Askin Questions is the point of a discussion...

Indeed - what have I done other than ask a question?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

...however ascribing motives to a post based on assumptions is not.

Yet you accuse me of being 'petty' based on the content of posts that you have not seen?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

well then why the need for clarification?????

Because a statement can obviously be understood to mean different things to different people, as has been demonstrated several times on this thread.

jacaranda

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Just finished reading this.

Jacaranda, I dont know it it will make you feel better or worse but you're not the only one to have a run in with A Particular Mod in that forum.

this Circlin of the Wagons is obvious from the first page, do not expect anything to be done about it, besides the Big Guns stepping in to berate you with eloquence.

BTW I found your statement of opinion rather clear and unambigious as I'm sure others responding to this thread would admit if they werent toeing the party line

I've not had a run in with him, and started this thread to see what others views are on a moderator taking part in a discussion as a member, and then pulling rank and threatening his interlocutors when he doesn't like their responses.

To be fair most moderators don't do that and are reasonable & balanced in their outlook. I suppose, a little bit like school, there were always one or two prefects who took it all a little too seriously and got it a little out of proportion.

Looking at the Sustainability & Environmental Forum now, it seems very quiet compared to how is was in the past. I wonder how many members are put off posting there by what is viewed as heavy handed moderation which, for example, issues public threats on the forum to members who are polite and courteous.

I suppose the answer to that is that we will never know, but certainly compared to the forum in the past, which was both thought provoking and interesting, it is a forum of little activity.

djpbarry

jacaranda wrote: »

Looking at the Sustainability & Environmental Forum now, it seems very quiet compared to how is was in the past.

Says the guy who signed up to boards all of nine weeks ago.

I'm done with this thread at this stage - it's little more than a medium for you (and now Mahatma coat) to cast aspersions about my ability as a moderator.

Mahatma coat

Tell ya what, Hows about thisa for a novel idea, Instead of stroppin off in a huff complanin that people are gangin up on you, You could maybe try to listen to the FEEDBACK being given here, take a little bit of it onboard and try to avoid creating situations like this in the firstplace.

this is not the first time Users of the Sustainability/Green Issues forum have raised their objections to your moderation style, but if you tried it might be the last.

or you could just throw yer toys out of the pram and shout a lot until someone with a bit of authority makes the nasty boys stops picking on you.

One aproach will see you cement your position as a respected moderator and valued contributor to your chosen Forum.
the other will not end well for you

Jusrt a thought like

bonkey

Here's an equally good idea.

How about you stop taking digs at people, with your comments about people abusing powers, circling the wagons, bullying others, etc.

You might call that Feedback, but its not....at least not in the sense that this forum is intended for.

If you want to offer Feedback, then give the the aggression, the anger, and the insults a rest. No-one will stop you from offering feedback.

jacaranda

I think my feedback from here is that

(i) Over zealous moderation seems to prevent members from participating in forums where that is apparent

(ii) It seems impossible to discuss in a thread with a member if he/she is suddenly going to turn around and put on his/her moderators hat, pull rank, and issue threats, in thread, if he/she doesn't like what his/her interlocutor(s) says.

While it remains a problem, the only solution to either (i) or (ii) above is not to participate in the threads where that behaviour is apparent, (which usually results in a decrease in activity on the forums affected) or, if one is participating in forums affected, not to engage with the perpetrator(s).

It's really impossible for boards to police all moderators, as they are voluntary and not employees, and in the main it is a thankless task and most moderators do a splendid job, from my observation. So currently members vote with their feet and cease contributing to those forums.

bonkey

jacaranda wrote: »

I think my feedback from here is that

(i) Over zealous moderation seems to prevent members from participating in forums where that is apparent

(ii) It seems impossible to discuss in a thread with a member if he/she is suddenly going to turn around and put on his/her moderators hat, pull rank, and issue threats, in thread, if he/she doesn't like what his/her interlocutor(s) says.

In both cases, my response would be that these would be problems where moderators overstep the mark. Where moderators overstep the mark, the poster effected has a right to seek recourse. We have a system for dealing with that.

While it remains a problem, the only solution to either (i) or (ii) above is not to participate in the threads where that behaviour is apparent, (which usually results in a decrease in activity on the forums affected) or, if one is participating in forums affected, not to engage with the perpetrator(s).

I don't see these as the only solutions.

I believe that there's at least a third option, which is to seek third-party arbitration to decide if a moderator overstepped their mark, and if so, to decide what should be done about it.

This is the system we have in place.

It's really impossible for boards to police all moderators, as they are voluntary and not employees, and in the main it is a thankless task and most moderators do a splendid job, from my observation. So currently members vote with their feet and cease contributing to those forums.

We have a system in place whereby users can deal with grievances. In that sense, we can and do police all moderators...in that users have the ability to hav someone look at their case.

We do not review every moderator action, regardless of whether or not there was a complaint....but if someone has a grievance, voting with their feet is not their only option. They can air their grievance.

That you, in the case that apparently started all of this, chose not to do is entirely your perogative.

If you feel you would prefer to vote with your feet rather then seek redress for what you see as a moderator acting inappropriately, that is (again) entirely your perogative.

It does not, however, suggest for one second that this is the only way to deal with such issues, nor that it is your only option.

jacaranda

bonkey wrote: »

In both cases, my response would be that these would be problems where moderators overstep the mark. Where moderators overstep the mark, the poster effected has a right to seek recourse. We have a system for dealing with that.

I agree, although also suggest there is a difference between what is viewed as over zealous moderation and overstepping the mark.

bonkey wrote: »

I don't see these as the only solutions.

I believe that there's at least a third option, which is to seek third-party arbitration to decide if a moderator overstepped their mark, and if so, to decide what should be done about it.

This is the system we have in place.

I wasn’t suggesting there were only two options, but from observation they seem to be the options more usually chosen by others.

We all have to decide these things for ourselves, and if anyone decides to choose a third or fourth option, that’s also their prerogative, and they should be encouraged to do so.

The problem arises where members vote with their feet and don’t choose to seek third party arbitration, for whatever reason. Thus the problem remains under the radar and the only indication may be forums which used to be busy and thriving becoming less busy, with less and less members posting there less and less frequently.

bonkey wrote: »

That you, in the case that apparently started all of this, chose not to do is entirely your perogative.

Of course. Actually it never occurred to me that there was a formal procedure.

Having said that, I’d have to work out first what I was hoping would be the bottom line before making a formal complaint. I am not interested in getting the particular moderator removed from his post. Neither am I interested in him receiving a rebuke, as that seems unlikely and a little pointless, if one follows the logic of that through.

He seems to enjoy it or get something out of it, so my view is to let him continue to enjoy it if adds something to the happiness of his life.

bonkey wrote: »

If you feel you would prefer to vote with your feet rather then seek redress for what you see as a moderator acting inappropriately, that is (again) entirely your prerogative.

It does not, however, suggest for one second that this is the only way to deal with such issues, nor that it is your only option.

I agree wholeheartedly. While it’s not the only option for anyone, I've looked at some threads from the past, and from the number of posts in the past on the forum when compared to recently, all one can say with confidence is that the forum appears a lot quieter nowadays than it has been in the past.