The moderator is infact playing god!

[StreetShooter]

So we agree that this is not "rules" as we understand it (and as implied by Sulhan), but exercising judgement to make CS a Forum that promote all aspects of photography as well as a place to have some light-hearted moments.

What I am saying, and which you obviously know, is that judgement can err, and it will be good for moderators to be circumspect in their decisions. As I had mentioned many times, the moderators here have done a good job, although I myself was at the wrong end of a very hasty and unreasonable action by the Forum Admin, which was corrected by exercising some moral courage from the admin.

Regarding this thread, I myself feel much have been said, and now feels that some posts are unnecessarily antagonistic and unhelpful to the community at large.

Just for the sake of argument, OK? :

1. Mods are human. This means they are less than gods and liable to error.
2. Judgement calls are subjective.

What leads you to draw the conclusion that any errors in judgement are due to lack of circumspection rather than genuine subjective differences in opinion as to what is good for the forum? In other words, what is considered by yourself as a hasty and unreasonable action may in fact have been a circumspect decision arrived at after long deliberation. The fact that it was later reversed does not rule this out, as circumstances change all the time.

 

[zaren]

wait..wait...let me check the mod manual. is being objective a requirement? ;p

u have a manual? madmacs for MOD! :thumbsup:

 

[yanyewkay]

$ rm -rf post[1-160]

-bash: rm: command not found

 

[StreetShooter]

Rule number 1 for mods comes from a line which is present in EVERY Star Wars movie. What is this line?

 

[caseytan]

wait..wait...let me check the mod manual. is being objective a requirement? ;p

got meh ? can't find leh :dunno:

$ man mod
No manual entry for mod.

 

[yanyewkay]

A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far, Far Away...

 

[zaren]

Rule number 1 for mods comes from a line which is present in EVERY Star Wars movie. What is this line?

actually there are two...

"May the Force be with you."

"I have a bad feeling about this."

 

[kahheng]

Since CS started, many many threads beens closed without such detail explanation. Thus causes of frustrations are there.

There seems a very serious problem, in times past, for mods to closed threads without saying anything abt it.

This is after all, a public forum. To "pre-emptive" on anything is considered "AUTHORITATIVE"

Apart form the rights of moderaters to do this or that, mods must show some kind of explanation like what Roy had done, or should hv done much earlier.

Perhaps alot more misunderstanding, miscommunication and unhappiness could hv been resolved much earlier, if mods are alot more communicative in their action.

Heh heh, you think it's so easy to mod a forum and also have to reply to all enquiries as to why this and that thread got killed or closed meh? To type a long long explanation takes time, patience and effort (and sometimes I wonder why the mods even bother).

Don't like it don't use the forum lor.

Endless entertainment.........................

 

[nightwolf75]

actually there are two...

"May the Force be with you."

"I have a bad feeling about this."

nah, zaren. for the purpose of this thread, think this is more appropriate (right Master Togu?).

"Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

 

[roygoh]

I did not raise the issue when Wolfgang closed the original thread. I did feel he should have allowed the 'saga" to play out, so that the members know what had actually transpired. Is this our problem, no, but as I had originally indicated, it is a subject dear to many of our hearts.

It is the entire mod and admin team's position that the issue should be settled privately between the parties involved. We have followed this same policy as much as we can in handling previous disputes between members and we do not see the need for an exception here.

reachme2003 opened a new thread exactly because of the reason I stated above. If he had not, someone else would have.

The reason for closing reachme2003's thread is the same as the reason for closing the original thread. Contrary to your claim in your first post, I did not close it simply because I did not agree with him. Also, I would have closed such a thread regardless of the originator.

Is a moderator above the rest of the masses? Why can't we members, who is an integral part of this forum, challenge the action of a moderator? If the challenge is with merit, great, if not, it gets shot down. Is the moderator's decision sacrilegious, I don't think so, I hope not. I can understand that such challenges can be fustrating, but, that is part of the territory, for being a moderator.

If someone has an issue with the moderator's closing a thread, the person can always raise the concern stating the reasons in the feedback forum instead of going head on with the moderator by openning a new thread of the same topic.

You raised your issue with my closing of reachme2003's thread, and this thread has not been closed.

yes, I was expecting a complete, but can be concise explanation to the closing of the thread. Closing the thread, you denied the members something they want to know, you denied the bride, the 2 photogs, and 1 innocent by-stander their right to air their sides of the stories, and to set the record straight. Yes, the closure of reachme2003's thread deserve a full explanation, it demands a full explanation!

Please read my post again. I did give concise but complete explanation for closing the thread. You ignored that and picked on the phrase "I do not agree" that I've said, and based the origination and title of this thread entirely on that.

Again, we have been following our policy of discouraging members from settling their personal disputes in the open, as far as I know. If that means that by-standers are deprived of the juicy details of such incidents as well as not have a chance to get involved and complicate the issue unecessarily, so be it. We believe that would help to maintain the well-being of the CS community and let us focus on what we are here for in the first place - promoting photography.

Not sure who is the "1 innocent by-stander" that you are referring to that somehow need to air his/her side fo the story. If this person is a by-stander then why should he/she have a story to air? If you are referring to kahheng, who seems to have been marginally involved due to the identity "confusion", I believe he has had his more than fair share of air time on that issue in the thread (no offence to you, kahheng).

You are quoting me out of contect! I said if a member can make a comments without reading through the thread, but the action reflects only badly on said member, and I did not say its ok. (The word CAN means the person can do it, you have mistaken is with the word MAY!) On the contrary, a moderator's action reflects not only on the moderator, but the entire CS administration. That is what I said.

Oops, my bad. That was an honest mistake on my part, and I appologize for that. But hopefully you can now understand how I felt when you quoted me out of context.

- Roy

 

[tOGGY]

Heh heh, you think it's so easy to mod a forum and also have to reply to all enquiries as to why this and that thread got killed or closed meh? To type a long long explanation takes time, patience and effort.

Agree. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Moderator's job is to moderate with a focused objective. To explain their action is a good bonus - but should not be a taxing requirement exerted on them. However, if they are not up to the mark, somebody better can take their place.

 

[zaren]

nah, zaren. for the purpose of this thread, think this is more appropriate (right Master Togu?).

"Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

what about.... "do, or do not, there is no try". ?

 

[kahheng]

If you have a close look at top forums like Rob Galbraith (RG) or Fred Miranda, over the last few months both these forums were exceptionally firm to keep the flow on track. Please do a search on either or both forums and you will understand why firm moderation was needed. And at RG, posts get deleted if they are not within acceptable forum conduct/rules.

The thing about Rob's forum is that it's largely used by professionals to share info and you'd find that there is very little tolerance for crap talk by the forum members themselves, not just by the mod and admin (and yes, they are tough, rightly so). So in effect, there is also a large component of self-regulation going on. (I don't use Fred Miranda's forums so no comment.)

Clubsnap is way different. It's a place where, how do I say, most talk and discussions are generally of the flippant variety, by mostly unserious folks for basic chit chat. BTW, DPReview's forums are seldom any 'better', if you consider them as a whole. I think I said once on DPReview that most of the forums there are like pubs. You usually pop in for nothing more than chit chat and camaderie, which is perfectly fine. Of course, every now and then something serious gets discussed, just like in a real life pub. Rob's forums are for technical exchanges, hence less aimless banter gets around.

 

[togu]

nah, zaren. for the purpose of this thread, think this is more appropriate (right Master Togu?).

"Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

No more training do you require. Already know you that which you need. Remember, a Photographer's strength flows from the Force. But beware. Anger, fear, aggression. The dark side are they. Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.

Now you are the Master.

* togu bows

 

[student]

Just for the sake of argument, OK? :

1. Mods are human. This means they are less than gods and liable to error.
2. Judgement calls are subjective.

What leads you to draw the conclusion that any errors in judgement are due to lack of circumspection rather than genuine subjective differences in opinion as to what is good for the forum? In other words, what is considered by yourself as a hasty and unreasonable action may in fact have been a circumspect decision arrived at after long deliberation. The fact that it was later reversed does not rule this out, as circumstances change all the time.

OK, SS, just for the sake of argument. No emnity meant.

We are off topic now. Were you aware of the reasons/circumstances I was deregistered without warning? Were you aware of the reasons why I was re-instated the very same day with a personal apology from the CS admin?
I believe it takes some moral courage to admit wrong, and I applaud the CS admin for this.

But it does illustrate the problem with humans and their minds. Sometimes people do not think straight, even they may believe they were. And I certainly do not think my experience was a result of "long deliberation" and circumspect thinking.

My point of writing all this is to remind moderators, while doing a difficult and thankless job, to remember that even after so called long deliberation, can and do make erroneous decisions and actions.

Regarding this reachme's thread. While I personally would not stop it, I will not want to quarrel with the mods for deleting it. I am just voicing my opinion as to how I would prefer to do things.

 

[Hommie]

Dear Gods, Mods, ans Sages
Grant me my wish to strike Toto or 4D and upgrade my lenses to 'L' so that I can go shoot more and post less! Thanks all! :angel: :bsmilie:

 

[freelancer]

The thing about Rob's forum is that it's largely used by professionals to share info and you'd find that there is very little tolerance for crap talk by the forum members themselves, not just by the mod and admin (and yes, they are tough, rightly so). So in effect, there is also a large component of self-regulation going on. (I don't use Fred Miranda's forums so no comment.)

Rob did mention that the pros are the ones that needed more moderation.

Crap talk is fine. BUT I am certain any forum is not a place to be rude or the world owes you an explanation for every single situation.

I remember this mentioned many times at Rob's forum

"You have the right not to reply to a discussion but you do not have aright to be rude".

Foor for thoughts

 

[kahheng]

Crap talk is fine. BUT I am certain any forum is not a place to be rude or the world owes you an explanation for every single situation.

Personally my take is that crap talk is NOT fine when the talk is meant to be about tech. There are lotsa other forums for crap talk.

 

[hazmee]

This long-discussion reminds of my meeting with my boss. Nerve-wrecking. Its like watching an action movie. However, like most blockbuster movies(e.g Star Wars) I hope the good overcomes the evil. Anyway... I wasted an hour reading through this thread. The only thing I learn from it, my Star Wars complete set DVDs having gone missing. Oh cr*p.

 

[litefoot]

It is the entire mod and admin team's position that the issue should be settled privately between the parties involved. We have followed this same policy as much as we can in handling previous disputes between members and we do not see the need for an exception here.


The reason for closing reachme2003's thread is the same as the reason for closing the original thread. Contrary to your claim in your first post, I did not close it simply because I did not agree with him. Also, I would have closed such a thread regardless of the originator.



If someone has an issue with the moderator's closing a thread, the person can always raise the concern stating the reasons in the feedback forum instead of going head on with the moderator by openning a new thread of the same topic.

You raised your issue with my closing of reachme2003's thread, and this thread has not been closed.


Please read my post again. I did give concise but complete explanation for closing the thread. You ignored that and picked on the phrase "I do not agree" that I've said, and based the origination and title of this thread entirely on that.

Again, we have been following our policy of discouraging members from settling their personal disputes in the open, as far as I know. If that means that by-standers are deprived of the juicy details of such incidents as well as not have a chance to get involved and complicate the issue unecessarily, so be it. We believe that would help to maintain the well-being of the CS community and let us focus on what we are here for in the first place - promoting photography.

Not sure who is the "1 innocent by-stander" that you are referring to that somehow need to air his/her side fo the story. If this person is a by-stander then why should he/she have a story to air? If you are referring to kahheng, who seems to have been marginally involved due to the identity "confusion", I believe he has had his more than fair share of air time on that issue in the thread (no offence to you, kahheng).



Oops, my bad. That was an honest mistake on my part, and I appologize for that. But hopefully you can now understand how I felt when you quoted me out of context.

- Roy

Some how I have this uncanny feeling that Roy is enjoying doing long replies.