The atmosphere in Cricket Chat - Suggestions & Discussion

[GIMH]

Sigh. No. But there was less active moderation, less forceful application of the rules.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yeah, fully agree; this is something I found particularly puzzling.

The member base as a whole has told us they'd like us to handle things a little differently, and then they dig up old posts to point out double-standards. We can't have long-term consistency and change. Obviously if we decide to make a change in the way we deal with something we'll try to be as consistent as possible from that point onwards, but we're not going to retrospectively re-do our evaluation of every post in Cricket Chat history; you have to take things into context.

It's only puzzling to you because you guys aren't focusing on what the point was. If a member digs up an old post and points out that there's an inconsistency in moderation, and the if the mod team has made a conscious decision to deal with things differently now on, all that was required was to state just that as the reason. There was absolutely no need to pretend that there was any sort of difference between the two offences, because that only creates the impression that the reason for the two instances being dealt with differently was not a recent change in moderation policy, but rather irrational assessment on part of the moderator. The entire situation could have been handled better by just being frank and not going on the defensive and pretending that the same policy was applied to both instances, and one received less censure because of a ridiculous bit of reasoning. Just cut out the fluff and be straightforward.

 

[Pratters]

GI Joe for President.

 

[Sir Alex]

I believe intelligent moderation is about steering the discussion in a thread with timely cues, opening new channels of discussion and gently but convincingly bring it back to topic should it meander due to some sensitive members. Moderation imho is not just moving deleting posts or the random warning issuance but active and proactive participation in discussions. The activities generally moderators take for being their job are actually pure housekeeping which given a chance 95% members can perform. But to be a good and respected member timely inputs and a gentle but firm hand on the trouble creating member's shoulder, a private message for him etc all these have proven to be much better an option or a deterrant than the schoolmasterly warning which essentially is reducing the member to the level of a mischief creating schoolkid.

I' had not copped any warnings on this site so far, and despite me being mistaken for an erstwhile member here several times, I've never reacted to such allegations with abuses. Yet when I got such a warning from a moderator when I called someone to be trolling (which to be honest I thought was acceptable because of the precedence) and still believe is one generally, I got rounded up and rebuked, individually and personally. Guys, please understand we too are reasonably grown ups and are capable of understanding the subtle message. But such blunt action may deter people from both developing respect for the moderation team and continue being active on this forum.

 

[Sir Alex]

By the way a word of appreciation for the initiative to encourage such views. 90% of online forums would have banned me for voicing my views against moderation.

 

[Sanz]

It's only puzzling to you because you guys aren't focusing on what the point was. If a member digs up an old post and points out that there's an inconsistency in moderation, and the if the mod team has made a conscious decision to deal with things differently now on, all that was required was to state just that as the reason. There was absolutely no need to pretend that there was any sort of difference between the two offences, because that only creates the impression that the reason for the two instances being dealt with differently was not a recent change in moderation policy, but rather irrational assessment on part of the moderator. The entire situation could have been handled better by just being frank and not going on the defensive and pretending that the same policy was applied to both instances, and one received less censure because of a ridiculous bit of reasoning. Just cut out the fluff and be straightforward.

Very Good Post GIJ.

 

[Pratters]

But to be a good and respected member timely inputs and a gentle but firm hand on the trouble creating member's shoulder, a private message for him etc all these have proven to be much better an option or a deterrant than the schoolmasterly warning which essentially is reducing the member to the level of a mischief creating schoolkid.

I' had not copped any warnings on this site so far, and despite me being mistaken for an erstwhile member here several times, I've never reacted to such allegations with abuses. Yet when I got such a warning from a moderator when I called someone to be trolling (which to be honest I thought was acceptable because of the precedence) and still believe is one generally, I got rounded up and rebuked, individually and personally. Guys, please understand we too are reasonably grown ups and are capable of understanding the subtle message. But such blunt action may deter people from both developing respect for the moderation team and continue being active on this forum.

Well said. Direct warnings in the threads should be avoided. PM a member if he is breaking a rule and if he keeps persisting, ban him. This way, the flow of the thread does not change or shift from being the discussion of A v B to Moderation Policy X.

Also, being rebuked publicly in the thread is very insulting and can irritate members, particularly if they do not have intention of creating mischief. It has a negative impact where a simple PM or email could have sufficed.

I became irritated myself and left the forum, brief though it was, and part of the reason ( was the moderators warning me without telling me the rules I was breaking and expecting me to know them automatically. A mature email specifying the rules broken given, the member won't take it personally or be aggrieved in all likelihood.

Now the reason I left mostly was my personal depression which I had for most of this week and a quarrel I got into on the forum which added to my voes. I am not calling for huge change in moderation policies. I calling for subtle inititatives which will smoothen the edges. Why create a situation where a member becomes aggrieved regardless of whether he breaks a rule or not.

 

[Cruxdude]

It's only puzzling to you because you guys aren't focusing on what the point was. If a member digs up an old post and points out that there's an inconsistency in moderation, and the if the mod team has made a conscious decision to deal with things differently now on, all that was required was to state just that as the reason. There was absolutely no need to pretend that there was any sort of difference between the two offences, because that only creates the impression that the reason for the two instances being dealt with differently was not a recent change in moderation policy, but rather irrational assessment on part of the moderator. The entire situation could have been handled better by just being frank and not going on the defensive and pretending that the same policy was applied to both instances, and one received less censure because of a ridiculous bit of reasoning. Just cut out the fluff and be straightforward.

A good post.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I don't wish to pour petrol on any flames, but I was rather surprised to see my name crop up in relation the Murali thread as my only contribution to it was to say he's a great player and a tribute thread isn't the place for anything else.

The quotes where I used somewhat unparliamentary language to Migara have rather been taken out of context. He was suggesting that groundless accusations of racism were justified because Hair had imposed a five-run penalty for ball-tampering:

If he can make ball tampering allegations can be made without an evidence, why others cannot allege racial discrimination without a base. a tit for tat.

Which is probably the sort of post anyone fitting any of the nouns I used would make, tbf.

 

[GIMH]

Well said. Direct warnings in the threads should be avoided. PM a member if he is breaking a rule and if he keeps persisting, ban him. This way, the flow of the thread does not change or shift from being the discussion of A v B to Moderation Policy X.

Completely disagree. Doing it in the thread ensures that all members know where the line is. The flow of the thread wouldn't shift if posters (note to Sir Alex this isn't about you) didn't act like little children when they received warnings.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't wish to pour petrol on any flames, but I was rather surprised to see my name crop up in relation the Murali thread as my only contribution to it was to say he's a great player and a tribute thread isn't the place for anything else.

The quotes where I used somewhat unparliamentary language to Migara have rather been taken out of context. He was suggesting that groundless accusations of racism were justified because Hair had imposed a five-run penalty for ball-tampering:



Which is probably the sort of post anyone fitting any of the nouns I used would make, tbf.

When that post was dug up I remembered reading it and wondering why it hadn't appeared a bit harsh at the time. Cheers for the reminder.

 

[Furball]

Well said. Direct warnings in the threads should be avoided. PM a member if he is breaking a rule and if he keeps persisting, ban him. This way, the flow of the thread does not change or shift from being the discussion of A v B to Moderation Policy X.

Not sure I agree with that.

In terms of openness, it helps other members to see where the line is being crossed, particularly if it's not a blatant case.

Each situation is different, sometimes the correct call will be a private word in the ear via PM or email, at other times a public "you shouldn't be doing this, cut it out" is needed. If it's a borderline case, publically warning in the thread can be necessary because it draws a line for everyone, not just the person concerned.

edit: besides, if you want to discuss moderation policy, you can discuss it with any of the mods in private.

 

[andyc]

Well said. Direct warnings in the threads should be avoided. PM a member if he is breaking a rule and if he keeps persisting, ban him. This way, the flow of the thread does not change or shift from being the discussion of A v B to Moderation Policy X.

Also, being rebuked publicly in the thread is very insulting and can irritate members, particularly if they do not have intention of creating mischief. It has a negative impact where a simple PM or email could have sufficed.

As others have intimated, it's much better IMO to give a warning out publicly. A warning is there both for the poster in question and the rest of the board to understand what's crossing the line. And besides, if it's a long-term member that's going to be embarrassed by being warned publicly, then they should have known when they wrote the post that it was going to cop a response from the mods anyway.

 

[Johnners]

Well said. Direct warnings in the threads should be avoided. PM a member if he is breaking a rule and if he keeps persisting, ban him. This way, the flow of the thread does not change or shift from being the discussion of A v B to Moderation Policy X.

Also, being rebuked publicly in the thread is very insulting and can irritate members, particularly if they do not have intention of creating mischief. It has a negative impact where a simple PM or email could have sufficed.

The problem with just sending a PM to a member, is that all it generally does is create angst among others if there is no public warning due to the perceived idea that nothing was done.

EDIT: Heh, basically what Andy says

 

[pasag]

A good way to counter this is to delete posts but put a vbulliten mod in that lets people see where a deleted post was and the reasoning for it being deleted ie "off-topic, personal abuse" so people can see action was taken, but at the same time the thread's not a mess. Then if needed they can PM them a warning.

 

[Johnners]

Guys, please understand we too are reasonably grown ups and are capable of understanding the subtle message. But such blunt action may deter people from both developing respect for the moderation team and continue being active on this forum.

Disagree with this. If anything recent events that have led to this thread suggested that members were often incapable of acting like grown adults, or understanding subtle messages. Blunt action has often been the only way to make people actually listen and understand that they're in the wrong, and that it has to stop.

That you were provoked etc. is most certainly regrettable, and something that in hindsight should have been acted upon much earlier than it was. It's the sort of thing that we absolutely want to avoid again, which brings us back to the main point in that the feedback we've received in general was that members wanted more active moderation in order to improve the atmosphere in Cricket Chat. As Prince has said, we can't do that, and not actually change anything.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Cricsim atmosphere > Cricketweb atmosphere.

Discuss.

 

[Sanz]

IMO The atmosphere in CC has become worse since this thread was opened. I have very strong feelings about some of the things but I would rather keep it to myself. I have composed couple of posts on it, before posting, went and drank cool aid, came back and decided against posting them.

 

[Pratters]

IMO The atmosphere in CC has become worse since this thread was opened. I have very strong feelings about some of the things but I would rather keep it to myself. I have composed couple of posts on it, before posting, went and drank cool aid, came back and decided against posting them.

Yeah I have said the same before. Agreed. We are dissecting too much IMO. We need to just play our natural games.

 

[Pratters]

Re: PM v Message on thread: I don't feel strongly about it but I feel it can be done in a more subtle manner. Nightprowler once suggested to me the idea of warning through PMs saying they do it in Planetcricket and it works tremendously well for them not liking the way it is done on CW. If Nightprowler can discuss the technique they follow on planetcricket, maybe we can assess if there are pointers we can take from there.