"goes against the supportive atmosphere this site strives to offer" -- LiveWire Teen Forums

I have a severe distaste for responding to exceedingly long posts. So I may miss a few points here and there.

Quote: from marshmellowman at 5:48 pm on Sep. 20, 2008

Quote: from Forever Angel at 11:05 pm on Sep. 20, 2008
Please look up what that quote actually means.
An observation which isn't always true.

True enough for all human endeavors.

Sometimes things seem to be one way because of the public views of moderators. While it might appear that a moderator acts unreasonably and is just abusing their powers, we are biased as being members and not seeing their side of the story (similarly they may be biased being moderators - but they have the experience of knowing when to take action and what to do). They aren't right 100% of the time, but to say that they abuse their powers and start tripping over what they can do is wrong. Nor do they have infinite power, they are limited by what David has coded as well as David himself and the OB (though that does seem to do fuck all), as well as what they have to agree on together to perform certain actions (such as a DoS).

When it comes to making comments here, most of the time I'm looking at it from my point of view. I've been here a while and I don't criticize or argue with Mods just to get my jollies, no matter what SOME of them may think. But some of them do abuse their position, some of them do let their ego get in the way, that blue name, for some, means they
don't have to answer for what they do. The OB, I've been on it several times, it's a total joke. I don't know where you came up with "infinite' power, that doesn't make any sense and doesn't apply here anyway. But as far as 'answering' to David... another joke. That 'they' have to agree on a DoS or "certain other actions", please... I've observed what that takes.

I don't make that argument. What I do think is that they better know how to moderate this site with their understanding of the rules than normal members. I'm not saying all of them are sage and wise to the infinite degree, what I am saying is that they know how to do their jobs better than those that have never held the position. It's also worthwhile to note that most of the topics in this forum are a waste of space anyway because members simply can't read the PM they get when an action is taken against them or they don't understand it. I feel frustrated when a person PMs me after removing their reply, once again having to explain what they did wrong when it's in the bloody automated message. Their upset at members not understanding when they've been told so is understandable, hence their replies may not be eloquent.

What do you consider 'normal' members? I will agree that a lot of members, even the the ones who have been here awhile, don't actually know all the guidelines by heart, but I'd bet that some Mods don't either. I've mentioned this a couple of times to Mods... "That doesn't fit this situation" "We have the right to use our own judgment on that, it's not specific enough" Yeah, they are SO much wiser that the normal member.

Yes, they do, that doesn't make it any easier to put up with. People apply to be police officer knowing full well that they may have to deal with abusive and restless members of the public, that doesn't mean they enjoy putting up with it or that they find it any easier to deal with. Sometimes they will get seriously annoyed and they use their powers, such as using tasers, baton or CS gas against the person to control them. Yes, it can be excessive at times, and sometimes it may only appear to be excessive, we can't really judge unless we are in their situation fearing our lives.

Where did I say it was 'easy to put up with'? The point is, if you can't do it, don't take the job. And I'm not suggesting someone has to be perfect and never make a mistake, only recognize that when you make a mistake and get called on it, acknowledge it. And when faced with an irate member, do it with grace (if you wish, read 'superiority' but not 'arrogance') and the supposed wisdom that your position implies that you have.

It may not say don't argue with the mods, but when a member is just refusing to accept the fact that they're wrong, or nothing will change and they constantly whine doing nothing productive it is understandable they'd get fed up. This website has changed a lot and so have the members, the guidelines haven't been updated in 3 years, sometimes they have to do things which may not be specified, but it helps them do their job. Maybe that means intimidating a member, though I'm basing this on your words and not my experience, but if it gets a member to realise that they're wrong and gets them to shut up, perhaps its for the betterment of LiveWire. It may not be right, but David is (or should be) there to take action if he deems them to be acting incorrectly. "our moderators retain the right to act in their best judgment, even if their actions do not fall neatly within the scope of the guidelines" A lot of people fail to realise or understand this sometimes, which is where arguments erupt. Moderators aren't saints, neither are policemen, and you can't expect them to be perfect even if they're supposed to be. They are human and they do make mistakes.

I think I'm getting a little 'something' that I can't even think of the word for... so I'm going to make this short and pick a phrase that caught my eye... "the guidelines haven't been updated in 3 years"... and my answer to that is "so what?" It's up to the Admin and the Mods, especially the Admin, to take care of that situation. As long as the members follow or are admonished when they don't, the published guidelines, why do the Mods have any right to run roughshod over members who are not aware of the 'unwritten' guidelines that are known only to the Mods?

If I've missed any pertinent points that you would like me to expand on, please let me know. With less verbosity, though, please.

-------
"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstein
"God does play dice" - Stephen Hawking

Pectus Pectoris Memor