Bad attitude, bad principal?

4zn76tysfajdxp

I'd like to offer feedback on this post.

Personally, I feel that a community manager effectively ranting and raving towards his client base like that paints a negative picture and reflects poorly on the site.

Laying down the law is well and good but I don't see what good it is for an employee of the site to lose his temper towards the users.

I'm no expert in these matters but if a higher up in, say, Vodafone completely lost it online I'd have to question his and the company's professionalism.

Emotions may run high in intense work environments such as the Boards.ie offices but I don't think it's too much to ask for an employee to not take it out on the customers.

Thanks for reading,

Frada.

Dav

I'm not losing my temper, I'm saying that enough is enough on an issue that has been going around in circles for numerous pages and that has been given as many answers as it can get and for as many reasons as we have.

If it comes across as losing my temper, I offer my unconditional and sincere apology - that was neither my intent nor my actual reaction or emotive state. It's frustrating to me seeing these sorts of threads where the volunteers are attacked for doing their duty to the best of their ability and in line with the long established policies (that you helped shape Frada when you were a mod) of the site by people who wilfully ignore the reasons given for our policies simply because they don't like the answers they're getting.

But ultimately, we need to simply call nonsense what it is and say that we're done with it.

[edit]
People here aren't customers, they're members. That may not seem like an important distinction to you, but it certainly is to me. Our customers are the people who pay us money. Our members are the people who make our communities.

The Hill Billy

That's not ranting & raving. That's saying it like it is.

These damn threads crop up time after time. But people don't seem to get it.

'It' being...

Some moderation decisions are made in private (not secret - private).

Moderation decisions are contextual. Example - Poster A & Poster B make exactly the same comment. Poster A gets a yellow, Poster B gets a permaban. Both decisions are correct because Poster A is a newb & is cut some slack, & Poster B has been warned & banned repeatedly for similar behaviour & this is the final straw.

That's the way it works.

But you know this already.

Dan_Solo

Why are the mods yet again pretending this is about the moderation process itself being private? The question is about the result of the moderation being private, as in related by PM to the infracted poster. And it is about seeing which post is acceptable, not which poster is being punished.
The threadlock was based entirely on a strawman.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Dav wrote: »

I'm not losing my temper, I'm saying that enough is enough on an issue that has been going around in circles for numerous pages and that has been given as many answers as it can get and for as many reasons as we have.

If it comes across as losing my temper, I offer my unconditional and sincere apology - that was neither my intent nor my actual reaction or emotive state. It's frustrating to me seeing these sorts of threads where the volunteers are attacked for doing their duty to the best of their ability and in line with the long established policies (that you helped shape Frada when you were a mod) of the site by people who wilfully ignore the reasons given for our policies simply because they don't like the answers they're getting.

But ultimately, we need to simply call nonsense what it is and say that we're done with it.

[edit]
People here aren't customers, they're members. That may not seem like an important distinction to you, but it certainly is to me. Our customers are the people who pay us money. Our members are the people who make our communities.

Apology accepted.

The topic of that thread itself is of no interest to me. I just wanted to say that I feel it's unbecoming for a figurehead of the site to use all caps and look like you're flying off the handle when speaking to the members. Thanks for your response.

The Hill Billy wrote: »

That's not ranting & raving. That's saying it like it is.

These damn threads crop up time after time. But people don't seem to get it.

'It' being...

Some moderation decisions are made in private (not secret - private).

Moderation decisions are contextual. Example - Poster A & Poster B make exactly the same comment. Poster A gets a yellow, Poster B gets a permaban. Both decisions are correct because Poster A is a newb & is cut some slack, & Poster B has been warned & banned repeatedly for similar behaviour & this is the final straw.

That's the way it works.

But you know this already.

Do I? Alright, thanks for reminding me, mate.

Potatoeman

That thread comes across as someone whining for no reason. The post was pulled, grow thicker skin or get off the internet. Asking for infractions because youre offended is worse than the actual offense.

RDM_83 again

Potatoeman wrote: »

That thread comes across as someone whining for no reason. The post was pulled, grow thicker skin or get off the internet. Asking for infractions because youre offended is worse than the actual offense.

They weren't they were asking about consistency in moderation and how the fact that non public "moderation" contributes to inconsistencies and/or masks mod bias.

We're told yellow cards arent a serious thing, all actual consistency would do is mean "good" posters would pick up the rare yellow card unless they consistently rule break in which case they are hardly good posters.

About the broader its not a democracy, if you don't like it leave etc AFAIK boards.ie is in a slow decline of activity, is that really the best thing to tell your users

Dav

Let's not go through that nonsense again, the topic is done.