stunsworth Posted December 9, 2013 Share #1 Posted December 9, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...a thread has run its course no one posts in the thread. Can we please have some less heavy handed moderation please. I'm getting seriously pissed off with the forum. I disagreed with much that was posted in the now closed Mandela thread, but we're adults, please mods treat us as such. 11 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 Hi stunsworth, Take a look here If.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wattsy Posted December 9, 2013 Share #2 Posted December 9, 2013 Couldn't agree more. I'm inclined to think the forum as a whole might have run its course. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
euston Posted December 9, 2013 Share #3 Posted December 9, 2013 Couldn't agree more. I'm inclined to think the forum as a whole might have run its course. Not LUF as a whole but Barnack’s Bar certainly. As it is, it’s a waste of space. There's no point to it unless the moderation is at the ultra-light end of the scale. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted December 9, 2013 Share #4 Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) I wasn't involved directly in the moderation of the Mandela thread, but, what I would say is that a Forum member, who has posted about the Moderation here in the past, reported the Mandela thread and demanded that it be closed. Indeed, this member has been involved in this current thread. (This was not the reason why it was closed, btw - not every thread that gets reported, gets closed) You can't have it all ways. You can't complain about "heavy-handed" moderation, then demand that threads be closed just because you don't like the tone. Barnack's Bar was an addition to the forum that was long called for by members. It is as good as the people that contribute to it. And as good as those of us who Moderate it. I cannot remember the last time that I moderated a thread here and, FWIW, I wouldn't have Moderated the Mandela one, even if I did think that the subject matter might have been better left until a bit later. This Moderator will do his level best to ensure that only threads which break the rules of the Forum are dealt with. The rules are there for all to see, and follow. Thanks. Edited December 9, 2013 by andybarton 12 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
euston Posted December 9, 2013 Share #5 Posted December 9, 2013 I wasn't involved directly in the moderation of the Mandela thread, but, what I would say is that a Forum member, who has posted about the Moderation here in the past, reported the Mandela thread and demanded that it be closed. Indeed, this member has been involved in this current thread. There are only four of us (apart from the mod) in this thread. Which of you three reported the Mandela thread? I know it wasn’t me. Or does he mean one of the thankers? I don’t like it when moderators attack contributors in this insidious way. They shouldn’t do it. It makes me wonder whether some of the moderators may have run their course. A bit of a shake up might not be a bad thing. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted December 9, 2013 Share #6 Posted December 9, 2013 There are only four of us (apart from the mod) in this thread. Which of you three reported the Mandela thread? I know it wasn’t me. Or does he mean one of the thankers? I don’t like it when moderators attack contributors in this insidious way. They shouldn’t do it. It makes me wonder whether some of the moderators may have run their course. A bit of a shake up might not be a bad thing. A little too general or non specific I feel. If you have a particular beef, spit it out. Give an example of a moderator, as a moderator, attacking a contributor. Who do you think has run their course? If you want action, spell it out or no one will will know your meaning, other than a desire to stir. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted December 9, 2013 Share #7 Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) It wasn't me. (Feels a bit dishonourable writing this – a bit like declaring to the Romans that "I'm not Spartacus":D.) Edited December 9, 2013 by wattsy 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted December 9, 2013 Share #8 Posted December 9, 2013 One does not have to be a poster in a thread to report it. Duh! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
azzo Posted December 9, 2013 Share #9 Posted December 9, 2013 It wasn't me, either! ps This reminded of my brother and two sisters when we were young, somehow. ... 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted December 9, 2013 Share #10 Posted December 9, 2013 Couldn't agree more. I'm inclined to think the forum as a whole might have run its course. Then think about this. Making a fist or pointing a finger, either way you have a hand in the outcome. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted December 9, 2013 Author Share #11 Posted December 9, 2013 Wasn't me either. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
euston Posted December 9, 2013 Share #12 Posted December 9, 2013 A little too general or non specific I feel. If you have a particular beef, spit it out. Give an example of a moderator, as a moderator, attacking a contributor. Who do you think has run their course? If you want action, spell it out or no one will will know your meaning, other than a desire to stir. I’ll do my best to get my meaning across to you. One does not have to be a poster in a thread to report it. Duh! No-one has said that it was a poster in the Mandela thread who reported it. What AB said was that the reporter has been involved in the current thread, by which he means this one. I wasn't involved directly in the moderation of the Mandela thread, but, what I would say is that a Forum member, who has posted about the Moderation here in the past, reported the Mandela thread and demanded that it be closed. Indeed, this member has been involved in this current thread. (This was not the reason why it was closed, btw - not every thread that gets reported, gets closed) You can't have it all ways. You can't complain about "heavy-handed" moderation, then demand that threads be closed just because you don't like the tone. Here, he is is accusing one of a small and identifiable number of contributors of hypocrisy - reporting a thread and then denouncing heavy-handed moderation. In my book that is an attack on the contributors to this thread, all of whom have now denied that they reported the Mandela thread. So, not only has he attacked the integrity of all four of us in a McCarthyite way, but it seems he was wrong. As for moderators being appointed, apparently, for life, I think that’s a bad thing. There should be a turnover to help bring a different perspective from time to time to the task of moderating the forum. That’s what I mean by a bit of a shake up. Since you ask, it's you, erl, who heads my list of moderators who have run their course. No surprise there, I’m sure. I’m never convinced that you understand the issues in these discussions about how the forum operates and you don’t appear to read other people’s posts very carefully. None of which prevents you becoming quarrelsome and combative in your responses - just as you're being now, I would say. I expect you're a wonderful human being in all other aspects of your life but, as far as I'm concerned, you are not suited to the role of moderator. I would like to add one suggestion that might help the moderators operate with a lighter touch in Barnack’s Bar. If contributors re-read the forum rules and Andreas's advice on forum conduct now and again, it might help keep discussion on an even keel and avoid the need for intervention. Flame-baiting, for example - posting provocatively in order to elicit an intemperate response - is verboten. It happens more often than it should. I don't think the Mandela thread was an example of deliberate flame-baiting but, given the timing, the poster must surely have understood that some of his readers would find his post cruelly provocative. With a little consideration his point might have been made in a way that carried less risk of turning the discussion sour. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted December 9, 2013 Share #13 Posted December 9, 2013 ...and people ask me why I don't contribute here anymore... Sent from another Galaxy 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted December 9, 2013 Share #14 Posted December 9, 2013 So, not only has he attacked the integrity of all four of us in a McCarthyite way, but it seems he was wrong. I did no such thing. That's it. Clearly there are people who have a problem with me and my role as a Moderator. I will be tendering my resignation as a Moderator of this Forum forthwith. It has been a pleasure to serve this community since 2006, when Andreas took it over from Leica themselves. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo Posted December 9, 2013 Share #15 Posted December 9, 2013 So, not only has he attacked the integrity of all four of us in a McCarthyite way, but it seems he was wrong. Just to be a little pedantic, at the point Andy passed his comment that a person 'involved in the thread' was the person who reported it, four people had made posts and nine others had hit the Thanks button. So far, only the four posters have claimed their innocence whilst the nine have remained quiet. At the moment, euston, you can only claim that Andy was wrong about the four however, it is still possible that one of the nine is sat back having a chuckle at Andy's expense. It is much too easy to pin blame on Andy because he, by having the role of moderator, has to put his head above the parapet. I think we may be rushing the gun to say that Andy is wrong at this juncture. 9 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larsv Posted December 9, 2013 Share #16 Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) Andy, erl and pop, It looks like a "peasants uprising" and I would not take this too seriously. I don't have the feeling that this forum is moderated too heavily. Certainly not when compared to many other forums. Due to cultural and language differences I have seen some misunderstandings or misinterpretations in the past. I think that the provocative way some people post on sensitive subjects (as in the subject on hand) may lead to heated responses. I am pretty sure that Les Paul (I have not seen one single serious post by him, using an artist's name as forum name and another artist's logo (Steve Vai) as avatar) was very much aware of that when posting the initial provocative post on Mandela. In a thread regarding a new Sony camera he also asked leading questions. When asked whether he represented Sony, there was no response. I think he is a poser, just trying to be a nuisance. I don't think there is one single reason for you guys to even considering leaving your posts. And to those (including Euston) suggesting that you leave: what do you think you would do better and do you feel that your way of dealing with the function would be better appreciated by the forum members? Edited December 9, 2013 by larsv 7 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larsv Posted December 9, 2013 Share #17 Posted December 9, 2013 ...and people ask me why I don't contribute here anymore... Sent from another Galaxy You just did. Very, very clearly. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil U Posted December 9, 2013 Share #18 Posted December 9, 2013 It looks like a "peasants uprising" ... I think that the provocative way some people post on sensitive subjects (as in the subject on hand) may lead to heated responses. I am pretty sure that Les Paul (I have not seen one single serious post by him, using an artist's name as forum name and another artist's logo as avatar) was very much aware of that when posting the initial provocative post on Mandela. In a thread regarding a new Sony camera he also asked leading questions. When asked whether he represented Sony, there was no response. I think he is a poser, just trying to be a nuisance. You talk about posting in a provocative way? This particular peasant thinks we'd all be better off if members made more certain than "pretty sure" before they launch ad hominem attacks and denigrations of the character of other forum members or moderators. Better still, we'd all be better off if we didn't do that at all. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 9, 2013 Share #19 Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) I'm a bit non-plussed about the accusation of heavy handed moderation in Barnack's Bar. Apart from the "gun" threads there have been no threads closed for content as far as I am aware. Most of our work here consists of dousing fights amongst members and trying to keep the Forum in some kind of understandable order by moving threads, etc. Apart from removing spam. As for this thread, I probably would not have supported closing it if it were not for the extremely tasteless timing. The man is not even buried yet.. Andy is one of the cornerstones of the Forum, I would ask him seriously to reconsider. For the sake of clearness, this is not Parliament where one can ask/demand a Minister to stand down. The moderators are appointed by Andreas because he trusts HIS forum with them. Edited December 9, 2013 by jaapv 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil U Posted December 9, 2013 Share #20 Posted December 9, 2013 I did no such thing. That's it. Clearly there are people who have a problem with me and my role as a Moderator. I will be tendering my resignation as a Moderator of this Forum forthwith. It has been a pleasure to serve this community since 2006, when Andreas took it over from Leica themselves. I for one don't think your behavior or standards as a moderator should be questioned. I think you are a great example of how moderation should be conducted - I only ever see you intervene when you have to and I don't see you as heavy handed. You were decent enough to come and post here on this subject, offer some explanation and even declare your personal view on how you would have dealt with the subject (i.e. that you would have let it run). I appreciate that you did that and I don't think you should be criticized for the same. You do a great job moderating here. If you were to leave your role as mod, it would be a great shame. I see why the mod's role is often called thankless. 13 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.