Discussion about mods closing threads

[Regal]

I could not agree more.

I understand that threads need to be searchable by topic but veering off topic here and there is how a conversation works. What I find to be rude (maybe the wrong word) is for a moderator to join in a debate, state their opinion as if it were fact and then close the thread when someone disagrees with them. Yeah the person closing the thread gets to have the last word but what's the point in discussing something if we only hear the moderator's opinion. Often the person that just joined Fishlore has a ton of experience that we could all benefit from.

 

[sirdarksol]

I could not agree more.

I understand that threads need to be searchable by topic but veering off topic here and there is how a conversation works. What I find to be rude (maybe the wrong word) is for a moderator to join in a debate, state their opinion as if it were fact and then close the thread when someone disagrees with them. Yeah the person closing the thread gets to have the last word but what's the point in discussing something if we only hear the moderator's opinion. Often the person that just joined Fishlore has a ton of experience that we could all benefit from.

Interesting. I'm curious as to when you've seen this happen. I know that there is an opinion among some people that this is happening, but that isn't our intention. When we close threads, it's because people can't stay on topic or can't discuss something without getting belligerent. I've never seen a thread closed merely because someone disagreed with anyone, moderator or otherwise.

 

[Meenu]

Interesting. I'm curious as to when you've seen this happen. I know that there is an opinion among some people that this is happening, but that isn't our intention. When we close threads, it's because people can't stay on topic or can't discuss something without getting belligerent. I've never seen a thread closed merely because someone disagreed with anyone, moderator or otherwise.

As far as an example of what Suemvb's talking about, I can give you an example: it happened in a thread by cichlidsyay about whether the fishkeeping hobby should be regulated. You made your point, told us to stay on topic, and we didn't. So you (or someone else) went in and deleted threads. The conversation that was deleted (that we saw) was not rude or inflammatory. The next day, Ken went in and closed the thread. I actually talked about it with Lucy, and she explained that there were other things said that made it so that you guys couldn't keep the thread open. But that isn't how it came across to the rest of us who were not "in the know." How it seemed was that you posted your off-topic opinion and then told us we weren't allowed to, and then soon after, you guys closed the thread.

I know that isn't what's really going on, but it is how it looked in that thread, and it is how it was perceived by at least me until I spoke with Lucy about it.

I know you guys have a job to do, and it is not easy and pretty thankless. But I'm glad you're willing to put some thought into the suggestions here because I think it would go a long way in alleviating some frustration that some members feel.

 

[sirdarksol]

As far as an example of what Suemvb's talking about, I can give you an example: it happened in a thread by cichlidsyay about whether the fishkeeping hobby should be regulated. You made your point, told us to stay on topic, and we didn't. So you (or someone else) went in and deleted threads. The conversation that was deleted (that we saw) was not rude or inflammatory. The next day, Ken went in and closed the thread. I actually talked about it with Lucy, and she explained that there were other things said that made it so that you guys couldn't keep the thread open. But that isn't how it came across to the rest of us who were not "in the know." How it seemed was that you posted your off-topic opinion and then told us we weren't allowed to, and then soon after, you guys closed the thread.

Suemvb was talking about us closing threads when we disagreed with a point. That wasn't what happened in that thread. As you said, that thread was closed because people couldn't keep the discussion fish-related. Mike has said that the only Hot Topics discussions to be allowed in the forum are going to be aquarium-related.
I just read through the thread, and I never registered an opinion on other animals. I gave an explanation to someone who was asking why the government kept coming up in the discussion. In all of my posts where I registered my opinion, I registered it on aquarium fish.

After my "let's get this back on topic" post, seventeen hours or so passed, during which time only one person made an on-topic post. Everyone else wanted to argue about other animals (one person even acknowledged that they were bringing the post back off topic), or to rag on a member for an issue that had already been brought up and dealt with. That's why the thread was closed.

 

[Meenu]

When we close threads, it's because people can't stay on topic or can't discuss something without getting belligerent. I've never seen a thread closed merely because someone disagreed with anyone, moderator or otherwise.

Okay, I wasn't going to say it, but I changed my mind. If you really, truly believe this to be true, can you please explain why my betta poll was closed? There was no discussion in that thread because Ken wouldn't allow it. So it wasn't closed due to off-topic or belligerance.

Suemvb was talking about us closing threads when we disagreed with a point. That wasn't what happened in that thread. As you said, that thread was closed because people couldn't keep the discussion fish-related. Mike has said that the only Hot Topics discussions to be allowed in the forum are going to be aquarium-related.
I just read through the thread, and I never registered an opinion on other animals. I gave an explanation to someone who was asking why the government kept coming up in the discussion. In all of my posts where I registered my opinion, I registered it on aquarium fish.

After my "let's get this back on topic" post, seventeen hours or so passed, during which time only one person made an on-topic post. Everyone else wanted to argue about other animals (one person even acknowledged that they were bringing the post back off topic), or to rag on a member for an issue that had already been brought up and dealt with. That's why the thread was closed.

I know! I talked it over with Lucy. I'm just telling you how it was perceived. By me. You asked for an example, and I gave one. I'm not saying I was right, I'm just saying that maybe what you guys see and what we don't see make our perception of your decisions skewed.

 

[Regal]

Perhaps the person moderating the thread should not participate in the discussion. Imagine if that happened in political debates or even high school debates? In the thread that Meenu is referring to I'm guessing, correct me if I'm wrong, that Ken was asked to close the thread. I say that because Sirdarksol just said he realizes that people have the impression that mods are closing threads because someone disagrees with the mod's opinion.

I don't know what makes a person want to be a mod. I would not want to be in that position and I suspect that it’s not a paid position right?

In the thread about the ASPCA I asked Meenu to explain to me how such a group may or may not have the authority to act in cases of abuse. Meenu is an attorney and as a paralegal myself I thought we were lucky to have her expertise in the discussion. I valued her personal knowledge on the subject. I have to assume that the OP, having asked if we need an ASPCA for fish, did too. I already know that dogs are terrestrial animals.

 

[Jaysee]

I also recall the betta thread being closed, though there were no posts.

 

[btate617]

Perhaps the person moderating the thread should not participate in the discussion. .

That may be the single best thing ever said by a member on this forum.

I said mods are also members, but being one or the other in a single thread would be an improvement.


Brian

 

[sirdarksol]

Okay, I wasn't going to say it, but I changed my mind. If you really, truly believe this to be true, can you please explain why my betta poll was closed? There was no discussion in that thread because Ken wouldn't allow it. So it wasn't closed due to off-topic or belligerance.

No need to be afraid to bring it up.
That one was a very difficult decision. It was thought about for several days before it was actually closed. The problem with it was that it wasn't objective. This was not your fault. It's the nature of a poll that made it pretty much pointless for its purpose. That's the reason I started the discussion thread. Because people on the forum were insisting on using horrible logic in that entire argument, we needed a good, logical discussion (which went very well, with only a few hiccups).

 

[allibobs]

Perhaps the person moderating the thread should not participate in the discussion

A very well made point.

 

[allibobs]

Originally Posted by Meenu
Okay, I wasn't going to say it, but I changed my mind. If you really, truly believe this to be true, can you please explain why my betta poll was closed? There was no discussion in that thread because Ken wouldn't allow it. So it wasn't closed due to off-topic or belligerance.

I now know what happened to this. I personally found it to be most interesting and I myself was following this post with great interest, I could not understand where it had gone!

 

[Regal]

Suemvb was talking about us closing threads when we disagreed with a point. That wasn't what happened in that thread. As you said, that thread was closed because people couldn't keep the discussion fish-related. Mike has said that the only Hot Topics discussions to be allowed in the forum are going to be aquarium-related.
I just read through the thread, and I never registered an opinion on other animals. I gave an explanation to someone who was asking why the government kept coming up in the discussion. In all of my posts where I registered my opinion, I registered it on aquarium fish.

After my "let's get this back on topic" post, seventeen hours or so passed, during which time only one person made an on-topic post. Everyone else wanted to argue about other animals (one person even acknowledged that they were bringing the post back off topic), or to rag on a member for an issue that had already been brought up and dealt with. That's why the thread was closed.

Wow! I better go back and read that thread again. That's not how I remember it at all. There was arguing? I asked about the "government" and I think someone else did too. I was hoping for an answer from the person or people who mentioned government. I don't know how anyone could expect you to be able to explain what the person who first brought up government was thinking.

The original poster asked specifically about the ASPCA and fish. The ASPCA looks out for terrestrial animals, that's what they do. How do we discuss the ASPCA without saying the word dog?

 

[Meenu]

From what I understand from being on this site for almost a year (and being obsessively frequent in my posting), the moderators are pretty close-knit and work as a team rather than individuals. And so although a mod may be participating in a discussion, it seems to me that in the highly contested sort of threads we're talking about, these decisions are group decisions rather than one mod deciding on his/her own to shut down a thread. So I'm not sure how practical it is to ask a mod who is part of a team to step out of a group decision.

 

[sirdarksol]

Well, considering the fact that the moderators moderate all discussions, I don't think that the "moderators can't take part in discussions they're moderating" would ever work out.

However, something that you aren't going to see, because it happens in PM or in the Mod section, is that, when we're needing to moderate something in a thread we're also debating in, we will almost always get the opinion of another moderator before taking action. I get and send several messages a day that are something like "My opinion of this thread is this, am I off base here, or does it need to be fixed?"
Ninja'd by Meenu.

Lastly, in the thread we're talking about, no, Aquarist wasn't asked to close the thread. It was his decision, backed by another mod, to do so.

 

[JRDroid]

I do not think we should ask mods not to participate in discussions. Mods are not assigned specific threads. They are on this site for their enjoyment and are mods as a service to keep things running smoothly. If it was a paid position it would be one thing, but its not. It is a service, not a paying job.

 

[btate617]

From what I understand from being on this site for almost a year (and being obsessively frequent in my posting), the moderators are pretty close-knit and work as a team rather than individuals. And so although a mod may be participating in a discussion, it seems to me that in the highly contested sort of threads we're talking about, these decisions are group decisions rather than one mod deciding on his/her own to shut down a thread. So I'm not sure how practical it is to ask a mod who is part of a team to step out of a group decision.

I don't think it is unreasonable to ask them to stay out of it. Or if they join in have another mod close it if it needs to be closed and or edited. Because sometimes they too make the mistakes we make which cause the thread to be closed.
I think that is where a lot of the frustration comes from when a mod does what we are expected not to do then the thread is closed.

They are members also but I think if they contribute as a member in a thread then someone else can wear the mod hat for that thread to avoid any misunderstandings.
Just my opinion.


Brian

 

[jclee]

No need to be afraid to bring it up.
That one was a very difficult decision. It was thought about for several days before it was actually closed. The problem with it was that it wasn't objective. This was not your fault. It's the nature of a poll that made it pretty much pointless for its purpose.

I kind of wanted to sit on the sidelines for this discussion, but I feel too tempted to react to this. I kind of feel like the objectivity/relativity of a poll is up to the posters in question. Otherwise, it seems a little bit like mods making a value judgment about a posting's quality or purpose, rather than letting members bring it up in their own time and way. Had the poll been allowed with commentary to go with it, and had the merits of the poll been questionable, another member may have brought that up in time. (And if comments weren't allowed because it had all been done before, then why was the poll allowed?)

I guess I don't really mean to critique the mods -- you guys have a seriously difficult job -- but I do think that part of the value of forums comes from members' freedoms and interactions, even if/when that's the freedom to make a mistake or call someone out (politely) on one. Bypassing the possibility/likelihood of error by closing or deleting a thread can raise more questions and problems than it solves.

Again, all of this is said with the kindest of intentions. I really do dig this site, partly because I feel like I can write responses like this without fear of being banned, mocked, publicly reprimanded, or cursed at, which, frankly (and sadly), cannot be said of all forums.

 

[btate617]

Well, considering the fact that the moderators moderate all discussions, I don't think that the "moderators can't take part in discussions they're moderating" would ever work out.

However, something that you aren't going to see, because it happens in PM or in the Mod section, is that, when we're needing to moderate something in a thread we're also debating in, we will almost always get the opinion of another moderator before taking action. I get and send several messages a day that are something like "My opinion of this thread is this, am I off base here, or does it need to be fixed?"
Ninja'd by Meenu.

Lastly, in the thread we're talking about, no, Aquarist wasn't asked to close the thread. It was his decision, backed by another mod, to do so.

I do not think we should ask mods not to participate in discussions. Mods are not assigned specific threads. They are on this site for their enjoyment and are mods as a service to keep things running smoothly. If it was a paid position it would be one thing, but its not. It is a service, not a paying job.

My above post is about this...... like sds said they do talk in pm quite a bit. So if you do participate in a thread how much trouble would it be to pm another mod and let them moderate that thread?

mods, like us make mistakes, but also like has been said it sucks when a mod makes a "mistake" while participating as a member then 8 posts later gets onto a member for making a similiar mistake that a mod has made in the same discussion.

 

[Meenu]

I kind of wanted to sit on the sidelines for this discussion, but I feel too tempted to react to this. I kind of feel like the objectivity/relativity of a poll is up to the posters in question. Otherwise, it seems a little bit like mods making a value judgment about a posting's quality or purpose, rather than letting members bring it up in their own time and way. Had the poll been allowed with commentary to go with it, and had the merits of the poll been questionable, another member may have brought that up in time. (And if comments weren't allowed because it had all been done before, then why was the poll allowed?)

I guess I don't really mean to critique the mods -- you guys have a seriously difficult job -- but I do think that part of the value of forums comes from members' freedoms and interactions, even if/when that's the freedom to make a mistake or call someone out (politely) on one. Bypassing the possibility/likelihood of error by closing or deleting a thread can raise more questions and problems than it solves.

Again, all of this is said with the kindest of intentions. I really do dig this site, partly because I feel like I can write responses like this without fear of being banned, mocked, publicly reprimanded, or cursed at, which, frankly (and sadly), cannot be said of all forums.

In that thread, responses weren't disallowed because it had been done before. They were disallowed because Ken didn't want to deal with people flaming one another, which happens with that topic A LOT. At least, that's what I got out of it. And then, when the results started rolling in, and responses hadn't been allowed, I think the mods realized that the results were VERY skewed in one direction, and decided to open a heavily-watched and controlled discussion on the subject so that there would be explanations, and my poll would not be misleading (the results were highly in favor of successful betta communities).

All of this is just my take on what happened, not anything the mods have told me in particular.

 

[btate617]

Originally Posted by sirdarksol
No need to be afraid to bring it up.
That one was a very difficult decision. It was thought about for several days before it was actually closed. The problem with it was that it wasn't objective. This was not your fault. It's the nature of a poll that made it pretty much pointless for its purpose.


I agree with jclee.

Tough to make a poll objective when no discussion is allowed. She made the poll with the rule of no discussion will be allowed, as she was instructed perhaps who knows.

Meenu took the time to make a poll so to say her time and effort is pointless is a tad harsh. Pointless to you maybe but how do you know there was no meaning for her?
I don't think anyone broke a rule in that thread, as I don't recall any discussions being made maybe I am wrong. But if she made a poll and said no discussion is allowed and none was, why is her gathering information or whatever Meenu's point of her doing the poll in the first place pointless. Or maybe I have it all wrong.


Brian

 

[Meenu]

Meenu took the time to make a poll so to say her time and effort is pointless is a tad harsh.

In all fairness to SDS, I was pretty harsh in my first post in the other thread first.

I actually agree that for the mods to decide what has value to me or you and what doesn't isn't very fair. I honestly believe that poll was shut down because the mods didn't like the results (I didn't either), and that people can try to justify it until they are blue in the face, but the justification doesn't fly with me any more than it flies with you.

That being said, I hadn't brought it up with the mods previously because in the end, Mike's given them authority to make these calls, and I can respect that and walk away from it.

Is it how I would have handled things? No, absolutely not. Am I offended by how they handled things? Nope.


And Brian, yes, I was instructed by Ken that he would shut down the thread if there was any discussion. I was not allowed to open it without that stipulation. (I don't like to be oppressed any more than I like to be censored, but it is the price of being a FL member.)

 

[Meenu]

Suemvb,
I just read your last post in monmouth's thread. That would have been way more on-topic here in this thread, or even in a PM directly to SDS, in my opinion. That being said, I see no reason at all why you would feel the need to leave Fishlore for speaking up. SDS's responses in these two threads haven't been censuring in any way, in my opinion. He's done nothing more than defend and explain the actions of the moderators, which is what we called on him to do.

SDS has responded maturely in this discussion, and I see nothing that would warrant your feeling you can't be a part of FL anymore. I hope you'll change your mind. You've been around this forum for much longer than I have, but I can tell you that the mods don't ban you for disagreeing with them, or I would have been gone long ago.

 

[Regal]

He asked for examples of when he went off topic. He was the one that went off topic in the ASPCA thread. As far as which thread it was posted in, the thread was split up from the original thread. Sorry if I should have posted in the other thread. I was actually thinking if I was going to post I had better do it fast before the thread was closed.

I see no reason why it should be discussed in a PM. The things we are talking about take place for all to see so why shouldn't this?

I didn't mean that I would leave Fishlore. I meant that I would get kicked off Fishlore for crossing SDS.

 

[TedsTank]

Well folks, we have 25,296 members now. The mods and everyone has been doing a great job, but we also have 25,296 different personalities too.

This is a great forum but there will be incidents from time to time, we are lucky enough to have MODS who care enough to help us to try to stay organised, of course once in a while somes toes may get stepped on or at least we think they have. Good job, mods, and thank you.

 

[Lucy]

H
I see no reason why it should be discussed in a PM.

Because perhaps it would be more polite to discuss disagreements in private with the person (whether it be another member or a mod) you are having a disagreement with?

 

[Regal]

Because perhaps it would be more polite to discuss disagreements in private with the person (whether it be another member or a mod) you are having a disagreement with?

My point was that the disagreements I was referencing took place in the thread for all to see. Look at the conversation in the link I posted. Is there any way that should have been said in the thread? I don't think it should have been said at all.

To be fair I am responding to something that you and Meenu said in your last posts about whether something should be said in a PM. I know I'm going off topic by responding.

Thank you for all of your hard work Lucy. It's greatly appreciated.

 

[JRDroid]

I see no reason why it should be discussed in a PM. The things we are talking about take place for all to see so why shouldn't this?

Because when you are talking about groups its one thing, when you start with an individual its best to move to PM. Be that a mod or a regular member.

 

[Regal]

I'm not talking about groups of people. I'm talking about a personal attack made by one person to another person on a public thread. Did you see the link I posted and read comments 19 and 22?

So if this is my thread now can I close it. I could just take my ball and go home

 

[Meenu]

I didn't mean that I would leave Fishlore. I meant that I would get kicked off Fishlore for crossing SDS.

Seriously? I know I'm kind of arguing both sides, but it's because I can easily see both sides. I don't agree with SDS's recollection of how cichlidyay's thread went down either, but he's not going to ban me for it. I can say that with absolute certainty. The mods on FL do not ban members for having an opinion, even if you're crossing them. As long as you remain polite and make your point, they'll take it.

As far as why over PM versus publicly, because it isn't fun to be called out publicly for the mods any more than it is for us. If someone has an issue with me, I'd prefer it to be resolved privately, which is why I brought that up. At this point, this isn't about the moderation at FL in general, it's become about a specific thread and against a specific mod.

I've disagreed privately and publicly with every mod here except on the saltwater forum and Butterfly. They haven't banned me because I (try to) keep my comments mature and polite, like you and SDS have in this thread.

 

[sirdarksol]

I think it’s always good to have a touch of humility. Another example:


Check out post 19 and 22. I don’t think Treefork was looking for validation here. In my opinion he was saying that it’s frustrating to even try to have the discussion because a moderator can simply state their opinion in the last thread and close the thread. The response to his comment was used to twist his words around and imply that Treefork had admitted to some personality flaw.

And yes I realize I’m probably going to be done on Fishlore for this…

It's still open, and someone other than me has the last post there. Yes, I am able to do that, but I'm also able to randomly ban people just for posting a smiley I don't like. All of the moderators can. The thing is, we don't.

And the comment in 22 was not an insult, it was a commendation of someone's maturity. The most difficult thing for someone to do is to admit that they can't do something. Treefork did just that.

 

[Treefork]

Even if you are moderately impolite like me it still takes a bit to get banned. I assume since I'm still here.

Joe

EDIT: lol I just realized I got mention in a thread before I even joined it. Nice.

 

[Kupcake]

I would just like to point out that the OP in this thread talks about Mods themselves going off topic and then closing a thread with the last word, like no one can disagree with them. A perfect example is the thread that started this one.


Here the OP closed the thread and a Mod reopened it to argue his point and then closed it again. **EDIT** it seems that the Mod deleted his last post...lol

I have only seen one Mod do this, it urks me, and I have seen it more than once.

I have nothing but respect for the mods here on this forum and I really appreciate the mods for doing their jobs and making this forum someplace that I like to call 'home' Ken and Lucy specifically have been of great help to me and I have never seen anything done by them that has seemed inappropriate.

 

[Meenu]

My three cents (inflation, used to be two), guys? I really think we should keep this to general moderation. I hate seeing the people here on a witch hunt against a specific person, whether it be a moderator or a regular member.

 

[JRDroid]

I am glad that the post after I closed the thread was deleted. I closed the thread to try and save the mods grief, and felt that doing that subverted my attempt. I do commend the mod for realizing their error and correcting it. This is all we can ask of them. We are all humans and will make mistakes, but not everyone will step up and correct their mistake.

 

[sirdarksol]

Even if you are moderately impolite like me it still takes a bit to get banned. I assume since I'm still here.

Yeah, but we've got our eyes on you. If you sneeze while you're typing, we'll know and you'll be gone. ;D

No, seriously, we don't like banning people. It's not pleasant, and it's time that we could spend doing other things. In fact, I dislike banning people so much that I actually will put up with less pleasant discussions and waste much more time, just to avoid having to ban someone.

I am glad that the post after I closed the thread was deleted. I closed the thread to try and save the mods grief, and felt that doing that subverted my attempt. I do commend the mod for realizing their error and correcting it. This is all we can ask of them. We are all humans and will make mistakes, but not everyone will step up and correct their mistake.

Sorry. That bit of discussion needed to happen, in my opinion, and I forgot that you can actually quote across threads, so I quoted and posted in that thread, then moved it here. I was hoping that I'd do it quickly enough that it wouldn't even be noticed.

 

[JRDroid]

Sorry. That bit of discussion needed to happen, in my opinion, and I forgot that you can actually quote across threads, so I quoted and posted in that thread, then moved it here. I was hoping that I'd do it quickly enough that it wouldn't even be noticed.

That makes sense. Thank you for letting us know what was up :-D

 

[sirdarksol]

I have only seen one Mod do this, it urks me, and I have seen it more than once.

Another thing that maybe you should know, then. In addition to the fact that we usually talk about it prior to closing threads like that, I am often asked, by the other mods, to be the one to post explanations.

 

[Lucy]

I have kept fairly quiet in both these threads and quite frankly, I am sick of it.

If any other group of people or person (besides the mods) were being bashed like they are in this thread....betta keepers, cichlid keepers ect, this thread would have been closed and probably deleted in an instant.
I guarantee it. I would have done it myself.

And yes, sds is called on quite often as we appreciate him for it.

From now on, may I suggest anyone that has an issue to pm the moderator or anyone of us.
If you're not comfortable with that, pm Mike.
Until you do that please do not presume you know the whole story as we will not intentionally embarrass anyone in open forum.

 

[btate617]

Interesting. I'm curious as to when you've seen this happen. .

I see what you are saying Lucy..... but sds did ask where this was happening.

I think they are just trying to give examples like he asked for. That's the way I was reading into it anyhow.


Brian

 

[Lucy]

I see what you are saying Lucy..... but sds did ask where this was happening.

I think they are just trying to give examples like he asked for. That's the way I was reading into it anyhow.

Brian

The question was answered posts ago, #'s 4 and 9 I believe.

Anything other examples after that could have gone into pm especially after my post #25.

 

[Regal]

It's still open, and someone other than me has the last post there. Yes, I am able to do that, but I'm also able to randomly ban people just for posting a smiley I don't like. All of the moderators can. The thing is, we don't.

And the comment in 22 was not an insult, it was a commendation of someone's maturity. The most difficult thing for someone to do is to admit that they can't do something. Treefork did just that.

You asked for examples and this thread was one that came to mind for me.

Treefork:
Another opinion I have is this: We will never have a "productive" discussion about this. People will just get worked up one way or the other and the thread will be closed. So I bid you all good day and take my exit from this thread.

SDS:
It's too bad that you feel that way, but I commend you for realizing that, because you do, you wouldn't be able to take part in such a discussion.

Treefork:
Well just for that I'm coming back in. Veiled insults won't keep me away.

Nowhere in this sentence does Treefork say that he can't do something. He was not admitting that he would, due to some personality flaw, be unable to participate in the discussion. He says that people will get worked up and the thread will be closed. It was unfair to imply that he said something that he did not say. I don't understand the confusion. It's right there in black and white. It would be equally unfair if I implied that you admitted you were wrong when you had not and then praised you for it. It would be nice if you would take the time to consider that with this many of us saying the same thing there might be something to it.

I have kept fairly quiet in both these threads and quite frankly, I am sick of it.

If any other group of people or person (besides the mods) were being bashed like they are in this thread....betta keepers, cichlid keepers ect, this thread would have been closed and probably deleted in an instant.
I guarantee it. I would have done it myself.

And yes, sds is called on quite often as we appreciate him for it.

From now on, may I suggest anyone that has an issue to pm the moderator or anyone of us.
If you're not comfortable with that, pm Mike.
Until you do that please do not presume you know the whole story as we will not intentionally embarrass anyone in open forum.

I don't think that it's reasonable to compare a group of people that keep a certain type of fish to a group of people that control the conversations of the entire forum. I have been annoyed on more than one occasion by SDS taking control of the conversation to prove a point. I should have had the nerve to say that in the beginning of the thread or just keep my mouth shut. It was completely unfair on my part to keep saying “mods” with an s on the end. It was bothering me the whole time and I should have said so. The mods do a great job of keeping the forum family friendly. I appreciate the effort you put in to the forum. I certainly wouldn’t want the extra tasks added to my fishlore time. Sorry the thread got out of control. I’m also sorry that it looks as if I started the thread when in reality I just commented on someone else’s thread.

I plan to take a step back and consider that I just spent a large portion of my free time this evening arguing over a fish forum. From now on no more comments from me on whether threads should be closed.

 

[btate617]

The question was answered posts ago, #'s 4 and 9 I believe.

Anything other examples after that could have gone into pm especially after my post #25.

No worries Lucy..... I was just trying to give another perspective of how it looks. My bad.

Not saying who is right or wrong.

Brian

 

[sirdarksol]

As I pointed out above, and as Lucy backed me up on, the stuff that people are pointing at me for is the mod team as a whole. We don't act alone. We act in concert.

People continue to point a finger at me, as if I'm a problem. The thing is that, in these instances where the mod team has decided to close threads, it was because there were problem members who felt that they had some right to run rampant, ignoring moderator requests to stay on topic, or to not insult people. In many cases, other members started the process by reporting these people. As Lucy said, we're not going to be rude and name names here, but I will say that those who are arguing here are not all innocent of this.

Those who are causing problems have been playing the victim, stirring up more problems, and generally giving us headaches because they feel that they should be allowed to forgo both the forum rules and basic netiquette.

As with Lucy, I'm sick of it. So are some other people who spoke up, only to have their words and ideas co-opted into an attempt to bash the entire mod team. Aside from such statements made in the thread, I have received PMs, not only from other mods, but from members, saying that they think that this thread has gone too far. I know other mods have received similar messages.

Several times a week, if not daily, I receive positive PMs from members, thanking me for doing my job. Some of these PMs are thanking me for work that some members have condemned here. I receive a handful of negative PMs a year, usually from people who are mad that the mods decided they should get a warning. Of all of the problems that have been dredged up here, some of which are from a month or more ago, we heard only one negative peep, from one member. The rest remained quiet, while other members were thanking us for keeping the forum running smoothly. That is, not until the mob got its torches and pitchforks together. Then it was open game on the mod team.

As I've pointed out several times in the past month, specifically because of that one person speaking up, If you have a problem with something the moderator team does, contact us or Mike. Otherwise, you have no right to be upset when it happens again. I am certainly not saying that we're going to bend over backwards and let people walk all over the rules or basic politeness. If someone wants to have a discussion that Mike has said is not allowed on Fishlore, then too bad. You'll have to have it via e-mail or on another forum. However, if a complaint is reasonable and polite, it will get through to us. There are at least two members in this discussion who have seen that tonight.

Treefork:
Another opinion I have is this: We will never have a "productive" discussion about this. People will just get worked up one way or the other and the thread will be closed. So I bid you all good day and take my exit from this thread.

Nowhere in this sentence does Treefork say that he can't do something.

His statement is that nobody is able to. He was speaking for everyone, including himself. I happened to believe he was wrong about everyone else. Certainly there are some people who are incapable of having that discussion, but as has been said, the rest of that thread is testament to the fact that people can have the discussion.

As Lucy pointed out in the thread, and as I pointed out here, I was commending him for his maturity. Anyone who has a problem with that is looking for problems to argue about, to try to pick a fight.

 

[Lucy]

I don't think that it's reasonable to compare a group of people that keep a certain type of fish to a group of people that control the conversations of the entire forum.

Of course it is.
Bashing is bashing no matter what group of people you're refering to.

Yet at the risk of being called unfair (once again) we left this thread open to whom ever would like to take a jab.
Where in fact, no other thread like this would be allowed to continue.

I have been annoyed on more than one occasion by SDS taking control of the conversation to prove a point.

Was this taken up privately with him? With any other mod or Mike if you didn't feel comfortable asking sds?
I'm assuming the answer is no, otherwise this thread would not exist.

I’m also sorry that it looks as if I started the thread when in reality I just commented on someone else’s thread.

Your comment was off topic from the original thread.
Wasn't that one of the concerns of that topic? That we sometimes delete OT post?
In this case, it was moved, not deleted.
Is there a 3rd option we missed that we could have chosen to make the members satisfied with the job we try to do?

I just spent a large portion of my free time this evening arguing over a fish forum.

So have we along with keeping an eye on the entire rest of the forum.

From now on no more comments from me on whether threads should be closed.

We don't mind anyone asking why something was deleted, edited, moved or closed as long as it is done privately and politely.

 

[JRDroid]

I know this is off topic but...
I <3 the mods and their job! I feel a little responsible for this poop chute of rage that has been unleashed because it was my thread that started, and I don't even agree with what people are saying. I have already apologized in PM to two mods, but to the rest of you I apologize!

I have never seen a thread where everyone was staying on topic and being polite where the mods of stepped out and closed the thread or deleted posts. It is only when people refuse to stay on topic (especially when the OP or a mod has asked people to stay on topic) or people start getting rude. That is when they step in and do the job that mike picked them for. It is a thankless job but I appreciate it.

I for one wouldn't hold it against the mods at all for voting to close this thread. Very little productive talking has gone on. It has been about 90% mod bashing 10% actual suggestions for how to improve. Constructive criticism is one thing and if they closed a thread that was actually constructive that would be bad. However this thread is just dogging on them and I don't think people should be doing this and it is probably against forum rules, meaning they would be completely within their rights to close it, but haven't. Which I think disproves many of the attacks they have received.

As I pointed out above, and as Lucy backed me up on, the stuff that people are pointing at me for is the mod team as a whole. We don't act alone. We act in concert.

People continue to point a finger at me, as if I'm a problem.

I think the other mods are trying to make you look like the bad cop so that we will all love them more because they are jealous of you

 

[Nick G]

Wow, that was quite a discussion. I've been a member here on Fishlore for about two years now, and think that all the Mods on this site do a great job and should be applauded for it. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Kupcake]

I totally understand closing threads because they are offtopic or people are being impolite.

The problem that I have personally had was the fact that SDS gives his 2c, and then closes the topic. I have seen Ken close many a topics and he just said, this topic has gotten out of hand and its time to close it, or its old...or what ever.

I am not joing the mob, and I do not have a pitchfork. I was meerly giving examples of situations where I understand this happens, including today in the other post. I didnt bother me enough to send a PM or even care much, but it does happen and as there is a thread about it, I feel that I could shed light that I have seen the same as other people.

 

[Nick G]

This is why the Mods are Mods though, surely? Mike has obviously chosen people who he trusts, and feels to have good judgement to choose when a thread should, or should not be closed, etc. That is the Moderators job at the end of the day.

 

[Tigerfishy]

Wow, I have just read this thread, and it seems a bit.....strong at times. I can't even think of the words (strange for me I realise!).

I don't see a problem with sending a pm (to mod or member) if you feel something is not justifed, if you want an explanation, if you feel like action should be taken etc... I myself have done it, I have reported posts that I feel are inappropriate, or that are advertising spam. I have also gotten answers when I need them from whoever can provide them. I have also conducted conversations in pm that have resulted from a thread but would be off-topic if I actually posted there.

It is a very tough job (Ken is on very early in the morning just to catch the changes in timezone so that there is a mod on at all times, and I always wonder how he manages it so early.). Due to this, I would normally go to Ken first as I am in UK and he is always there to help in my morning time. Any other time (later on in my day, but morning for you guys) I go to any mod that's there!

Seriously, they want to help, I've always gotten it when I needed it even though they are busy. I even like it when SDS clarifies something as I can understand it then as well!! I used to be scared of him to be honest, but I see where he comes from now so the fear has gone... Shhh, don't tell him though

Suemvb, please don't feel picked on or anything, no-ones going to ask you to leave!

Finally, as with all these discussions, I've just given my opinions without referencing anyone to avoid anyone feeling singled out by my opinions when they don't necessarily share my view.

 

[Aquarist]

Good morning,

I highly recommend that everyone refresh yourself with Fish Lore Rules:



Please pay particular attention to Rule #10.

Well, I'm implementing Fish Lore Rule #10 and I'm closing this thread. If you are unhappy with my decision then you may send a Private Message to MIKE, or an email to Mike at the address below:


Ken