Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sometimes I wonder what I'd do if I were moderator. I seldom think to myself, "I would totally put up with that gak".

This is one of those things. Having been in a similarly dissatisfied state at another site, I railed against the established order. It didn't change anything, and I doubt that the approach would actually work anywhere.

So what I can advise to the OP is to try the rest of the internet for a better fit. It's like any bad relationship. You feel invested, you want it to work, you want the other person to change... but sometimes you find greater happiness elsewhere.

Please don't take this as a "Like it or GTFO" post. The intention is to share my genuine experience with liking a forum, but disliking the management. I like the way Dakka is run (for the most part, occasional grumps but that's life) and I wouldn't want it to change... much.

So if you want a change, and you can't accept things as they are you may be better served by putting your energy into a different site. It is easier to move house than to change the town around you, if you catch my drift. Best wishes.

I would suggest something from my own experiences and my job: it is better to be involved in the decision-making than to have it inflicted on you: be active and participate.

One day if I feel I don't have enough to do, I will request to become a MOD however than process works.

I am content to observe the rules and try to point others in the same direction.

I will interact with the MODs politely and to give my own feedback (in moderation, they probably have enough to read...).

I am "happy" to get into the odd controversy, at the very least it demonstrates people care about a subject if they are willing to argue about it.

Every person can be a force for change with what power you have.

Again, see my second post.

It is taken as read that I'm pissing in the wind.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Again, see my second post.
It is taken as read that I'm pissing in the wind.

So you think what you say will have no impact?
Why post then?
What measure of satisfaction is there to raise this thread? Revenge? Poking the bear?
You raise the issue hoping however slight for change.

You have a moderator attending and participation in this forum.
I see little argument for bringing about a nebulous change.

What would you want as a "guide" to preventing whatever you did not agree with?
The real "honey" is not to suck-up or sweet words, it is to get to the point and possibly point to some best practices that could make things better.

Anything else appears to be complaining because you did not agree with something but have no clue on how to proceed.
This is the other viewpoint that makes me wonder if I am "pissing in the wind" on this interaction.

It's a process, innit? Agitation is step one, but goes nowhere by itself.

Allegedly, there already is a guide to how mods conduct themselves. The confusion arises when they ignore said guide, insist upon ridiculously subjective interpretations of the guide based on their personal politics (which we're not allowed to discuss) or - as in this case - insist upon it for the sheer bloody-minded technically correct sake of it.

The spirit of the rule was not infringed, even if the strict letter of it was. The mischief that threadomancy rules are designed to obviate was not in play and there was a new pronunciation thread created within minutes of this topic being posted.

It was an utterly pointless exercise of power that achieved nothing; done solely because the power to do it existed.

The problem with assuming your opinion is factually correct is that you've assumed correctness, rather than asking a question.

Which will generally rub people the wrong way.

Asking a question indicates that you're looking to determine the "truth" such as it is. It also doesn't immediately raise defences on the "questioned" side, like an accusation does.

Communication tends to falter when accusations are made. It becomes us vs them. Questions tend to lead to a, "What's the best thing for *us*? How can *we* come up with a better solution?"

Right now, it's just a battle of wills. And you have no leverage, other than appeal to the masses... and I'm going to say that the masses don't care about your problems. To quote one of my favourite bits from a stand-up comedian...

"You know who cares less about your problems than you do? Everybody."

Because we all have our problems, and sympathizing with your "Big brother is bad! Abuse of authority!" speil here is not getting very far.

In genuine care for another human being, you should try your luck elsewhere, and come back if you prefer this place. Get some perspective. It is probably the best solution for you, given your opinions and circumstance.

*spiel

Again, pissing in the wind.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
It's a process, innit? Agitation is step one, but goes nowhere by itself.

To "arouse public concern" still looks like it needs to be established.
I am not seeing a problem with the issue you outlined, I may be a less sensitive sort.

Allegedly, there already is a guide to how mods conduct themselves.

I thought it was the one we all follow:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp
I am sure they may have something expanded on "best practices" on how to moderate the forums.

The confusion arises when they ignore said guide,

By your own words these rules are "alleged" and your are stating as fact they are not following them.
You cannot say both and be "correct".

insist upon ridiculously subjective interpretations of the guide based on their personal politics (which we're not allowed to discuss)

There are personal motivations we can explore (like your own) not so much actual "politics" to do with government since that gets into all kinds of confusion with no good ending.

or - as in this case - insist upon it for the sheer bloody-minded technically correct sake of it.

Which on occasion may happen and is within their "right" as a rule (RAW vs RAI).

The spirit of the rule was not infringed, even if the strict letter of it was.

Is it just me or did your prior sentence contradict with this one?

The mischief that threadomancy rules are designed to obviate was not in play and there was a new pronunciation thread created within minutes of this topic being posted.

Do you know the actual rule intent by those who run the board?

It was an utterly pointless exercise of power that achieved nothing; done solely because the power to do it existed.

Everyone has a reason for their actions.
Did you ask?
So far, you are running only on conjecture.
I have from previous experience found MODS to be "happy" to explain things further if asked.
It is FAR easier to do nothing.

Punitive exercise of power would indicate a degree of randomness that is rarely tolerated on a systemic level.
I am sure if you wanted to take that same thread to the "next level" it may be more appropriate somewhere that is dedicated to that subject, it can always be fun to do a gamer cross-over take on things but that tie-in is rather limited.

Excom, the best you've got is to point out a spelling mistake?

Come on. You're getting good advice here. Good life advice, at that. You may be pissing in the wind, but the smell travels and let's just agree not to eat asparagus anymore, ok?

This thread seems like it's just trying to create conflict

Since you keep referring this post:-

 Excommunicatus wrote:
While it's true you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, the thread is not going to be reopened regardless and nothing will change.

The mods investigate and clear themselves.

I felt one of Insaniak's old answers in a similar thread is probably the best response:-

We'll consider feedback from any source if it is felt to have merit. But here's the thing : a visitor to your house tells you that your house would look better painted a different colour. Are you obligated to consider that feedback if you like the house just fine the colour it is?

Now consider that two visitors have told you that your house would look better repainted.. But one of them is a long time friend who has spent time helping you build the house into what it is now, and the other has wandered in off the street, got into a fight with the first friend, and then declared that your house is the worst house in the street, that you're horrible painter, and twists your words into the worst possible interpretation and dismisses any explanation as being 'defensive'...


Whose feedback are you going to be more receptive to?

I think that more or less summarises things.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
. Again, the fact that you think "eh, I might help out if you're nice to me" is an acceptable answer is illustrative of the entire problem.

It is, but not in the way that you seem to think.

The fact that you think being polite is optional is the actual problem.


The issue that started this thread was you having a problem with a moderator's decision to follow a standard site procedure exactly as we've been doing for years. The way to resolve that is to discuss it. The way to discuss it is politely. That's not just a rule of the site, it's simple, basic, common courtesy.

Your behaviour affects how people will respond to you. If you want a positive response, insulting people is rarely the answer.

Asked and answered. See my second post.

Insisting that shining a light on staff over-reach is impolite is a ludicrously naked attempt to cloak yourself and misdirect the point, yet again. Nothing I have said is objectively impolite. It maybe just feels like that 'cause it cuts close to the bone.

Also, this thread was bumped after almost a month of inactivity. Deliberately. It wasn't locked, even though the new post (deliberately) added nothing to the topic. You didn't lock it. You responded. We're still here. So, about following "standard site procedure" which you have "been doing for years" then...

What constitutes impolite behaviour is a social construct; it is impossible to be "objectively" impolite. Having said that, the fact that you made the first post in this thread a snarky whine against the moderators and still can't fathom why you're being called impolite is mind-boggling. Like, I'm pretty bad at social interactions, but acting offended when you create a thread to moan at the moderators instead of giving constructive criticism?

It's a testament to the patience of the very mods you decry that you're still posting on Dakka at all considering how many rant-threads like this you generate.

 Ketara wrote:
Since you keep referring this post:-

 Excommunicatus wrote:
While it's true you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, the thread is not going to be reopened regardless and nothing will change.
The mods investigate and clear themselves.

I felt one of Insaniak's old answers in a similar thread is probably the best response:-

We'll consider feedback from any source if it is felt to have merit. But here's the thing : a visitor to your house tells you that your house would look better painted a different colour. Are you obligated to consider that feedback if you like the house just fine the colour it is?
Now consider that two visitors have told you that your house would look better repainted.. But one of them is a long time friend who has spent time helping you build the house into what it is now, and the other has wandered in off the street, got into a fight with the first friend, and then declared that your house is the worst house in the street, that you're horrible painter, and twists your words into the worst possible interpretation and dismisses any explanation as being 'defensive'...
Whose feedback are you going to be more receptive to?

I think that more or less summarises things.

Holy crap, I missed that one.
That was very well done.
Exalt for quoting that.
That does hit the nail on the head: no matter how much it is "politically correct" to take everything at face value, in matters like this we do have to consider who is most impacted by a proposed change.
Unfortunately, I have not really heard anything "proposed" yet.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

It was an utterly pointless exercise of power that achieved nothing; done solely because the power to do it existed.

It wasn't an exercise in power at all. That's the part of this that's so ridiculous. You're seeing a mod locking a thread as some sort of frenzied power trip for them. It's not. It's simply locking an old thread to avoid confusion for people responding. I can guarantee you the mod who locked it wasn't feeling particularly power-infused afterwards.

The reason the new thread was ok was precisely because it was a new thread. The topic was fine. The two-year-old thread was better left at the bottom of the box to make way for the new.


That's really all there is to it. You've tried to turn an everyday moderator action into some giant, fascist power-trip for jollies, which is utterly, utterly ridiculous.

Take a breath, dude.



And yes, you caught me with your clever trap. My leaving the thread open to allow further discussion on a topic that you clearly have some strong feelings about was another clear sign of the overbearing, fascist leanings of the moderator team. Vive La Resistance!



We're done here.