Forum "Moderation"

Will we get in trouble if we use this icon?



Just asking...[]

 

[font="trebuchet ms"]If mods/Admin expect respect and consideration then they also should return some and let members know, that comments made on how the forum could be run in a more peaceful manner conducive to sharing and discourse...ARE being listened to and not just dismissed as "whining".

[/font]
 
Wonderful post!
If we all applied this thought, our forum would go back to being a great place to come to!

If we all applied this thought, our forum would go back to being a great place to come to!

It's starting to be that way now.  I'm quite enjoying it again!

ORIGINAL: Xerxes


It's starting to be that way now.  I'm quite enjoying it again!

I've also notice a change in tone around the board. [sm=wink2.gif]

ORIGINAL: denise m

ORIGINAL: Xerxes


It's starting to be that way now.  I'm quite enjoying it again!

I've also notice a change in tone around the board. [sm=wink2.gif]

I wonder if part of that "change" is that so many people are no longer on the behavior section very much, or that those who have a more direct style feel that they are not able to post anything the least bit "suspect", lest they be jumped on by the fun police.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs
I wonder if part of that "change" is that so many people are no longer on the behavior section very much, or that those who have a more direct style feel that they are not able to post anything the least bit "suspect", lest they be jumped on by the fun police.

I think this is a serious concern. I hate to see people refusing to post in a particular section or whatever because they feel they can't express themselves. The more information and views there are, the more people have to choose from.

But you know what? If I were having serious problems with my dog and I wanted to ask the board for advice and someone decided that my very serious thread was a good place to have "fun", I would get pretty upset.

It's one thing to have a "direct style". I have a very direct style and my communication style has many times been labeled as "harsh". But it's quite another thing to be a total jerk under the guise of having a "direct communication style". I'm not pointing fingers as I don't know any of you well enough to point. [sm=happy.gif]

But what I see is Person A asks for advice.
Person B gives advice.
Person A says thanks, but no thanks.
Person B decides to be a jerk and attacks person A for not knowing what they're doing.
Person A takes offense states it.
Then Woo-hoo! Party time! Let's have "fun" [] and make jokes at person A's expense!

It's stupid and childish.

Once I give advice, if a person doesn't take it, I might explain my reasons for my advice, reiterate that I think it's the best thing for them to do and then back off. There's no need to form up little teams to go at each other and try to make the other "team" look stupid.

People asking for behavior advice are putting themselves in a vulnerable position. They're saying, I'm lost here and I need help. Anyone who feels it's appropriate to come along and attack someone in that position is being a jerk, in my not-so-humble opinion.

There's a time and a place for "fun". There's always the option of starting another thread. But it's important also, to recognize the difference between being "direct" and being downright "mean".

I know... [sm=blah2.gif]

[sm=biggrin.gif]

Wonderful post, Carla. Thank you for articulating things so well; I love it.  [sm=bravo.gif]

I wonder if part of that "change" is that so many people are no longer on the behavior section very much, or that those who have a more direct style feel that they are not able to post anything the least bit "suspect", lest they be jumped on by the fun police.

 
I was going to ask this same question, then couldn't decide if it would be better in a new thread, then just decided not to bother.  [&:] 

I wasn't trying to be specific in any particular section of the forum.  I just meant that the overall tone of the forum has started to settle back into a nicer pitch.

Behavior is always going to be contentious at best.  People want to believe what they want to believe.  If person A's hero doesn't agree with Person B's hero it doesn't need to be a showdown.  (It took me a bunch of red ink to figure that one out!)  But I do believe that argument shouldn't be toned down, nor should it be attacking.  There has to be a healthy medium.  Where that balance point is, is tricky to find. 

I took some time off from the behavior section, but I'm dedicated to my cause and can't stay away.   I can't stand the thought that someone out there might just have a problem that I may have already experienced and be able to help them with.  I may not have as much experience as some, but if someone's house is on fire and I've got a bucket full of water, I'm throwing it on the fire.  It's not a hose, but I still need to feel that I've done my part.[]

Edited for spelling mistake.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

I wonder if part of that "change" is that so many people are no longer on the behavior section very much, or that those who have a more direct style feel that they are not able to post anything the least bit "suspect", lest they be jumped on by the fun police.

I'm hoping that is not the case! I'm hoping that a few individuals (and I believe it is only a few) have recognised how distructive their posting styles have been to the board in general and are making a concerted effort to temper some of their 'suspect' responses. I think this is a good thing. It does not have to result in members not being able to express their ideas, views, passions or opinions at all. Just try to express yourself in a manner that hopefully won't spin things out of control. Sometimes things just get misinterpreted, but more often than not lately, certain phases, sound bites, references etc. are repeatedly used, when posters know from history they are 'fight'n words' in particular threads. Instead of apologising or editing they excuse themselves by describing their style as direct. I think if you are big enough to admit that you have been over zealous or out of line in your comments it goes a long way in keeping the board civil and would cut down dramatically on the mods need to edit.

ORIGINAL: FourIsCompany

...People asking for behavior advice are putting themselves in a vulnerable position. They're saying, I'm lost here and I need help. Anyone who feels it's appropriate to come along and attack someone in that position is being a jerk, in my not-so-humble opinion.

There's a time and a place for "fun". There's always the option of starting another thread. But it's important also, to recognize the difference between being "direct" and being downright "mean"....

 
I generally agree with you but there should be a different moderating approach when someone ask for help versus discussion or debate on a topic.  The latter should allow more free expression and little to no moderating.
 
The other sections are not immuned to this.  I believe that Ixas_girl wants to maintain decorum in the Behavior Section, applied consistently and for reasons such as archive and google search.  So when I post a "Point of Clarity", I get PM not to do that again. 
 
Now contrast that moderation style with a thread in the Illness Section where there was no moderation and IMO decorum went out the window.  Which do you prefer?
 
[linkhttp://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=403328]http://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=403328[/link]
 

ORIGINAL: DPU
I generally agree with you but there should be a different moderating approach when someone ask for help versus discussion or debate on a topic.  The latter should allow more free expression and little to no moderating.

I agree.

It depends on the moderating rules of the board and I have no idea what those are here. In the last board I moderated on, there were strict guidelines to judge posts by, basically if people didn't break the T&C (Terms and Conditions) and if the post was on topic, it was fine. If the T&C weren't broken, then people were free to speak however they saw fit. But things on a pet board are usually more "controlled" or subdued. People are more sensitive and think they have the right to not be offended. []

I believe that Ixas_girl wants to maintain decorum in the Behavior Section, applied consistently and for reasons such as archive and google search.  So when I post a "Point of Clarity", I get PM not to do that again. 

I think I agree with Ixas_girl here. Not only to maintain an integrity for archives, but simply to keep the thread on topic and help the person who asked for it instead of having a huge dramatic argument over some Dr. I've never heard of. Someone running across this board might see that thread (the illness one) and it would apply to them and they're reading it and see a total breakdown of thread integrity and shake their heads and move on. That's what I would have done.

Now contrast that moderation style with a thread in the Illness Section where there was no moderation and IMO decorum went out the window.  Which do you prefer?
[linkhttp://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=403328]http://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=403328[/link]

That was an interesting thread. Personally, I think another thread should have been started the minute Dr. Dodd's credentials were brought up. Discussing a particular doctor's practices and credentials was off topic to the thread kelly started.

I think part of the problem is Billy has a reputation. And when people see a post from him, even if it contains nothing confrontive, they search it looking for something that might be intended to offend. Then, when they call him on it, he comes back wide-eyed and innocent saying, "What did I do wrong"? And that just irks people.

I don't have any problem with Billy AT ALL or his communication style, but it's VERY hard to offend me. And I don't operate under the assumption that I have a right not to be offended. critter clearly saw something "offensive" and  confronted Billy about it and then it went on and on in KELLY's thread!  That's not right.  Somebody should have come in and insisted that the people who wished to discuss Dr. Dodd and her credentials take it elsewhere. Make a thread "Dr. Dodd... What do you think of her?"

I prefer a moderating style where everyone stays on topic. The topic of the first post. If the subject changes, a new thread should be started because a) someone looking for something in the future can find it and b) the author of the thread gets their help and c) people who wicsh to discuss the topic can do so without wading through the drama.

I'm not sure if I answered your question, but I tried.

I agree with your first paragraph, David. Asking about a specific issues is one thing--debating "theories" (if that's what we call them) is another and it shouldn't be heavily moderated.

I also know I'm not posting in the Behavior section because I don't like being manhandled. Sheesh, I clicker train for a reason. []

I don't mind sticking to the topic but I don't care for one moderator deciding what's on topic and what isn't, and who's being cheeky and who isn't.

I still say the the most animated section deserves more than 1 moderator.

I still the the most animated section deserves more than 1 moderator.

 
Because it naturally becomes balanced and reflective...IMO

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs
I wonder if part of that "change" is that so many people are no longer on the behavior section very much, or that those who have a more direct style feel that they are not able to post anything the least bit "suspect", lest they be jumped on by the fun police.

 
I believe that this is definately the reason that things have been more quiet.  If you're not recommending more exercise, being the "pack leader", 3 alpha rolls, & numerous tsssst's.  Then you are likely going to be edited.  What's the point of posting when you know what's going to happen?