Abolishing Admin Contact's Precedence and Fixing Site Discussion's Stupidity

[PurplePoot]

I'm sure we're all aware of the rule "if you have a problem with X, take it to admin contact."

Now. I think everyone knows as well as I do, either from experience, observation of others, effect, or a combination of them, that this is the administration's way of saying "shut up." Admin Contact does not have the activity nor aid that it is made out to be. Now, I'm not sure that this is out of intent or just lack of activity (which is bad in itself), but I more and more get the impression that this is a convenient way to silence dissent. Why? Because nothing changes. This also aids in preventing users unifying behind an issue.

The main argument 'for' Admin Contact's use is that Site Discussion's threads get 'out of hand'. The solution, as far as I see it, is simple - make Site Discussion a sort of reverse Medivh's Tower, where you can be added to a group which prevents you from posting there. Wham, suddenly your stupidity is gone, and you can actually discuss public issues where they belong - in public.

However, there's one obvious problem in this - the administration can then just exclude the relevant users from this section, thus still silencing them. The way I would respond to that is adding a second site discussion section, the sort of more serious issue one (which would be the one that has these restrictions), and leaving the normal one for more casual discussion, perhaps with Bug Reports in the same section. That way, when someone complains in the main area, no one can complain as it is moved to the 'serious' area and the issue is at least still "legitimately" raised.

Well, the idea has holes in it, but it would be a step in the right direction.

 

[Ghan_04]

Admin Contact threads do get responded to, and necessary issues are often posted in the moderator forums for discussion there anyway. I don't necessarily think a more serious site discussion would cause more to get done.

It would make it more visible to the public, but I don't really see how it would help with things being changed.

 

[PurplePoot]

Admin Contact threads do get responded to, and necessary issues are often posted in the moderator forums for discussion there anyway. I don't necessarily think a more serious site discussion would cause more to get done.

It would make it more visible to the public, but I don't really see how it would help with things being changed.

If enough people whine, shit gets done or a lot of angry users exist, which is not healthy for the site.

Also, in my experience, controversial admin contact threads get shoved aside. I can cite examples if you really want.

 

[Ghan_04]

Ok, so I have a new question.

Your purpose is to make a new forum where people can be prevented from talking, like Medivh's Tower, so that the discussions don't get out of hand, right?

Well, what if we just stepped up some moderation in this very forum to contain any problems that may arise in the first place? If I could find some people that would focus on this forum, then that would be great. I think you would be a good choice for that, as well. What do you think?

 

[PurplePoot]

I have no interest in being a moderator (hence why I resigned), so no thanks. As for moderating this forum, the problem with that is that it currently has the "close, don't clean" attitude, which destroys basically every important discussion sooner or later. Assuming that it could be cleaned up easily, that would be fine, but hell, assuming that it could be cleaned up easily we wouldn't be in this mess.

 

[Ghan_04]

Well, I'm just thinking that the forum might just do with an attitude change toward this kind of discussions. Maybe I could create a prefix that identifies threads as serious and then they can be taken as such by the staff and users.

 

[PurplePoot]

Or just consider the site discussion section serious as it's about site issues, which tend to be serious. I don't get this tag fad.

 

[Ghan_04]

I think that's a better solution than starting up a separate forum.

 

[PurplePoot]

Well, I figured the separate forum was necessary since Site Discussion should already be running that way and clearly isn't, for whatever reason.

 

[Ghan_04]

But that doesn't mean it's unfixable.

 

[~Void~]

Admin Contact threads do get responded to, and necessary issues are often posted in the moderator forums for discussion there anyway. I don't necessarily think a more serious site discussion would cause more to get done.

It would make it more visible to the public, but I don't really see how it would help with things being changed.

Yeah, but the most common answer is something along the lines of:

"We the administration have already thought of / are considering this issue and we thank you for your concern. We have / do, however, already found a solution / not think this is a major problem and thus... (nothing will happen)"

 

[Ghan_04]

That usually happens if there is/was a staff forum thread on the issue. In that case, I suppose discussion doesn't hurt, but the decision has already been made.

 

[~Void~]

Fair enough, so the changes are:

- Site Discussion is srs bsns naow.
- Trolls/spammers/retards will be negrepped.
- Threads will be cleaned and not closed unless totally necessary.

Amirite?

I think, also, if a user spams 3 times or something in site discussion they should recieve a temporary (second offense longer, third offense permanent) ban from the SD forum only?

 

[Ghan_04]

I agree.

> I think, also, if a user spams 3 times or something in site discussion they should recieve a temporary ban from the SD forum only?

I have added a plugin to implement this change.

 

[Deathcom3s]

I'll try to keep a closer eye on the Site Discussion section, to help us get started in the right direction. Hopefully the other Community mods will help me, as I can't be on 24/7, nor can I claim to be a one-man moderating machine (Heck, none of us should really be able to say that, we all make mistakes).

I think for the time being we should just see how things go, now that the issue has been raised. Feel free to bring it up again if you think it's necessary to bring up at that point.

 

[WhitePhoenix]

I've moderated forums in the past, but am not familiar with Hive's current situation. However I have eyes like any member.

When I was a moderator, every action we took had to be recorded, and then reviewed by the chief. If any evidence was brought against a moderator that he did not record a high profile action, he was removed. A low profile action got him suspended. I know this might seem ridiculous because of the size of this forum, but that's a matter of organization. The forum i moderator had childboards in childboards and five or six portals. However, the chief was extremely organized and the site ran cleanly. Any argumentation happened in the moderators lounge, among moderators. We collaberated about members in private and then precented our arguments to the chief for his final decision on a particularly inflammatory person. We were enumerated certain powers and were not to go beyond that.

There was no "necessary and proper" clause.

In the end, the more independence you give a moderator in handle broad situations, the worse off your administration is. Moderators need to know what the can deal with in very specific detail, and then your need moderators to moderate them, and then the chief to handle those, with the site owner making sure the chief does not become corrupt. It the owner becomes corrupt then there is nothing you can do about it, because he has the ultimate decision in the matter, but usually does not partake in the rules of the forum.

The biggest problem I see is an internal struggle in the administration itself. Which is absolutely ridiculous. Certain people should not be high enough to even get to such heated discussions that cause such exoduses. They shouldn't have that kind of power. I suppose you think that they need it in order to adapt to the ever changing situation of a forum board, or something along those lines, however I think thats more then wrong. I think that's ignorant.

As far as members are concerned. They're predictable. They might be annoying and horride, defaming and inflammatory, but they're are most certainly predictable.

Truly, I think the main problem that the administration is having is the lack of comprehable people to handle the evolving situations. Why? Because your making them such broad positions. You only need one person to handle an entire portal, but that one person should be making sure the moderators below him are handling there job appropriately.

My own ignorance in your structure could prove that you've already considered and attempt to implement. In which case, I think you guys just have to much difference in opinion, and not enough conviction as a administration to handle this correctly.


As an observer, I have to say. Deleting a forum, unless it violates obscenity laws or something that could get you in legal trouble, should never be deleted. It's called administrative transparency. Show what actually happened, undoctored. Then remove those moderators who can't control their tempers. Enumerate your powers, and don't cross your boundaries.

That, is only an opinion, of course.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

Well, I figured the separate forum was necessary since Site Discussion should already be running that way and clearly isn't, for whatever reason.

It's funny, I saw the announcement before this and I actually said nigh the exact same thing in that thread as Poot did here.

If I could find some people that would focus on this forum, then that would be great.

I really don't mean to sound intrusive here (and I know that I will), but this is YOUR JOB. YOU as an admin are supposed to be doing EVERYTHING that your mods do, and do it EVERYWHERE. If you do not, then you are NOT doing your job, plain and simple. What I want to see at this site is some ADMIN REFORM, because if I could finally get that to happen then the staff would fall into place behind it and it'd be practically peaches and cream henceforth.

 

[Pyritie]

When I was a moderator, every action we took had to be recorded, and then reviewed by the chief. If any evidence was brought against a moderator that he did not record a high profile action, he was removed. A low profile action got him suspended. I know this might seem ridiculous because of the size of this forum, but that's a matter of organization.

Here, it's more like "okay, you did something wrong, lets drama about it a bit and when that's all done nobody is the wiser". The only time a moderator gets demoted is if s/he really screws up. Most staff members here resign though; only a few get demoted.

The forum i moderator had childboards in childboards and five or six portals. However, the chief was extremely organized and the site ran cleanly. Any argumentation happened in the moderators lounge, among moderators. We collaberated about members in private and then precented our arguments to the chief for his final decision on a particularly inflammatory person. We were enumerated certain powers and were not to go beyond that.

The main reason why we can't do this here is a lack of activity. I don't know what the situation was in your forum, but here almost everyone's still in school and so are affected by projects, exams, and so on. The admins and Ralle just don't have that kind of time.

The biggest problem I see is an internal struggle in the administration itself. Which is absolutely ridiculous. Certain people should not be high enough to even get to such heated discussions that cause such exoduses. They shouldn't have that kind of power. I suppose you think that they need it in order to adapt to the ever changing situation of a forum board, or something along those lines, however I think thats more then wrong. I think that's ignorant.

If by the administration you are referring to Ralle and the directors, you couldn't be farther off. I've never heard of any sort of struggles up there for as long as I've been here. Among moderators, sure, but not amongst the admins. Their biggest problem is their activity (or the lack of it).

 

[PurplePoot]

The main reason why we can't do this here is a lack of activity. I don't know what the situation was in your forum, but here almost everyone's still in school and so are affected by projects, exams, and so on. The admins and Ralle just don't have that kind of time.

Then get some active administrators.

 

[Pyritie]

Then get some active administrators.

Easier said than done.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

No, it's really not. They're there, you just have to deal with the fact that most of the current administration gets really pissy when their positions are threatened and fights back -- violently. Ralle needs to just act and ask questions later, but he doesn't have the demeanor to do that. As a result, nothing ever changes for the better. C'est la vie.

 

[PurplePoot]

Easier said than done.

Easy to get them, hard not to alienate them. Hereabouts, that is.

 

[Captain Griffen]

No, it's really not. They're there, you just have to deal with the fact that most of the current administration gets really pissy when their positions are threatened and fights back -- violently. Ralle needs to just act and ask questions later, but he doesn't have the demeanor to do that. As a result, nothing ever changes for the better. C'est la vie.

Current administration: Ghan.

Rui and GF don't seem to have anywhere near the same authority as Ghan. Samuraid's behind the scenes / inactive, same with Ralle. Actually, same with Ghan, unless he's moderating / overruling directors.

 

[Zelda.Alex]

Rui and GF don't seem to have anywhere near the same authority as Ghan. Samuraid's behind the scenes / inactive, same with Ralle. Actually, same with Ghan, unless he's moderating / overruling directors.

*OFF TOPIC* Who is GF?

 

[PurplePoot]

General Frank.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

Current administration: Ghan.

We can't forget about Archian's temper tantrum the last time replacing him came up in a discussion.

Easy to get them, hard not to alienate them. Hereabouts, that is.

This.

 

[Gilles]

Easy to get them, hard not to alienate them. Hereabouts, that is.

I'd be curious to know who these "easy to get" people are. Probably not here though, PM or MSN would be more appropriate.

 

[Ralle]

I'm sure we're all aware of the rule "if you have a problem with X, take it to admin contact."

Now. I think everyone knows as well as I do, either from experience, observation of others, effect, or a combination of them, that this is the administration's way of saying "shut up." Admin Contact does not have the activity nor aid that it is made out to be. Now, I'm not sure that this is out of intent or just lack of activity (which is bad in itself), but I more and more get the impression that this is a convenient way to silence dissent. Why? Because nothing changes. This also aids in preventing users unifying behind an issue.

The main argument 'for' Admin Contact's use is that Site Discussion's threads get 'out of hand'. The solution, as far as I see it, is simple - make Site Discussion a sort of reverse Medivh's Tower, where you can be added to a group which prevents you from posting there. Wham, suddenly your stupidity is gone, and you can actually discuss public issues where they belong - in public.

However, there's one obvious problem in this - the administration can then just exclude the relevant users from this section, thus still silencing them. The way I would respond to that is adding a second site discussion section, the sort of more serious issue one (which would be the one that has these restrictions), and leaving the normal one for more casual discussion, perhaps with Bug Reports in the same section. That way, when someone complains in the main area, no one can complain as it is moved to the 'serious' area and the issue is at least still "legitimately" raised.

Well, the idea has holes in it, but it would be a step in the right direction.

The idea of admin contact is to let users to ask for help to the top directly. For example if they are being harassed by moderators or something screwy. This will be their channel directly to me and the directors.
It is also there for users to ask for administrative tasks such as stuff about their account etc.

Everything seems to be about "politics" and silencing the public. If that was our intention I would have closed Site Discussion already.

Oh and most of the things in admin contact do get solved pretty quickly. Some of them however, like complaints are tougher because the validity has to be checked and judged upon.

 

[PurplePoot]

The idea of admin contact is to let users to ask for help to the top directly. For example if they are being harassed by moderators or something screwy. This will be their channel directly to me and the directors.
It is also there for users to ask for administrative tasks such as stuff about their account etc.

Yeah, I understand that - this isn't about those threads. This is about more public issues to do with the site which are for some reason pushed into admin contact (or were at least).

Everything seems to be about "politics" and silencing the public. If that was our intention I would have closed Site Discussion already.

Well, it certainly does get weird at times.

Oh and most of the things in admin contact do get solved pretty quickly. Some of them however, like complaints are tougher because the validity has to be checked and judged upon.

If they get a response at all. Perhaps the situation has improved, but meh.

 

[Kyrbi0]

I can personally attest to that forum working for me.

 

[Pyritie]

If I post things such as "my permissions in X are messed up, can you fix this" then it usually gets solved in a day or two. Things like complaints though tend to be put off.

 

[busterkomo]

If I post things such as "my permissions in X are messed up, can you fix this" then it usually gets solved in a day or two. Things like complaints though tend to be put off.

Of course I can't speak of all instances, but my complaint threads have always been responded to quite promptly.

 

[oh_snap]

I never have submitted any complaints, so I can not comment on the efficiency of them getting solved. Any issues I've had, however, were promptly solved within a couple of days.

~Snap

 

[Vegavak]

I take it there haven't been any changes to the administration/how moderators work here since I took my very enjoyable vacation from this forum?

 

[PurplePoot]

A few people were appointed (as usual) but not really, no.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

Perhaps the situation has improved, but meh.

I feel that it did after I set the precedent and then lost my permissions to that forum. People would have been actively angry if there was activity then there suddenly wasn't, so the forum started getting more admin views as a result.

 

[Gilles]

Lost? Did you not throw them away?

 

[Rising_Dusk]

There's a long story behind it that I would prefer not be discussed here.

 

[Ash]

AC will always have binding precedence, but there's no reason for it to be the start all and end all of things.

What we really need is a separation of powers. We've got the rule makers, rule deciders and rule punisher's all in one category.