Text 44549, 129 rader
Skriven 2006-12-23 00:11:44 av Jeff Smith (1:14/0)
  Kommentar till text 44539 av Matt Bedynek (1:106/1)
Ärende: The moderator here????
==============================
Hello Matt.

22 Dec 06 22:24, you wrote to me:

 MB> Hello Jeff.

 MB> 21 Dec 06 13:53, you wrote to me:

 JS>> My question was to get a feeling for other people's opinions on
 JS>> the subject. I know that goes against the Elist concept. But I
 JS>> think this particular echo was one of a few exceptions to the
 JS>> Elist.

 MB> Excuse me for saying so, but I got the impression that it was asked to
 MB> lend legitimacy to "the cause".


     Not really. If there is a "cause" for me it is to help get this echo
and Fidonews back to what it was meant to be. I know I have spouted off
alot lately. But it was and is important to me to know how others feel
so that I can achieve or maintain the right perspective.


 MB> The truth is, there is no guarentee
 MB> for a moderator anymore.  That is why I dislike organizations within
 MB> organizations.  You have fidonet and backbones.  The backbone can do
 MB> whatever they wish with your echo regardless of what you -or- the
 MB> echolist says.  There are examples of this in the past, if you
 MB> investigate, or ask the right people.


     I used to get a chuckle out of the different distribution systems
(Backbones) each with there own agenda that were seemingly designed to
conflict with each other.


 JS>>      I think that both concepts can work. Active moderating can
 JS>> work given the right type of person (Communication skills,
 JS>> temperment, fair minded, Etc.) doing the moderating.
 JS>> Alternatively the people in an echo can help in maintaining
 JS>> order. For active moderating to work the users need to have some
 JS>> degree of respect for the moderator.

 MB> For any degree of moderation to work, the users must either respect or
 MB> fear the moderator.  A user who respects himself and the moderator
 MB> will likely never need to be moderated.  That user may occasionally
 MB> slip up but a polite reminder is all it takes for common sense and
 MB> decency to resume it course.


     I think that the majority of people require little in the way
moderation. Often times correcting themselves and occasionally offering
subtle reminders to each other.

 MB>  A person who has no self respect often requires a third party to act
 MB> as their conscience and intervene at every turn can only be moderated
 MB> through fear of losing their access.

     In a worse can scenario yes. But I have found that most people will
listen to reason if approached in the right way. There is always the
possibility of someone that feels that they need to prove some point and
will only go if led away kicking and screaming. With the alternatives
available to users today. The options open to moderators are getting
fewer and fewer. That is why I am glad that in the years that I have
moderated I have had to request only a few feed cuts. Cuts which were
granted by the closest possible feed to the system/node in question.


 MB> If that fear is eliminated you have people swearing all sorts of vile
 MB> utterances, attacking one another, including any image of authority.
 MB> Think of Kohlberg's theory of moral development, if you're familar
 MB> with psychology.  To me, it seems, those demanding someone moderate
 MB> them by shouting "hey, asshole, moderate me!" are saying a lot about
 MB> themselves and their personality, and I wonder if they realize how
 MB> negative it really is.


     I can't help but think that those that behave or act in a manner
that would demand moderation will never reach Kholberg's third level
of developement. But Kholberg also believed that people developed better
through social interaction and conflict. It's the people that become
torpid in their developement that end up being the hardest to work with.


 JS>> Yes there is always the chance of someone in an echo that NEEDS
 JS>> to refuse the moderator at all costs to prove some point.

 MB> You and those among you who share the concept this moderator is bad
 MB> could always go after them instead of attacking the moderator.


     I don't feel I am attacking the moderator for what the users are
doing. I would like to think that I am trying to show the moderator
what his behavior in addition to his lack of actually doing much of any
moderating is having on the users. Specifically his attacking of people
based on their religion, country of origin, political view, or zone. Not
of that has any business in this echo. Users are and should be responsible
for their actions just as much as the moderator should be. The moderator
should be held to the same standards that (s)he applies to the users. That
doesn't appear to be the case here as the moderator seemingly condones
the behavior of his supporters that he will critisize those that he dislikes
for whatever reason. There are similar issues as editor also although I
think he is technically proficient. Those are the things that concern me. I
have tried on a number of occasions to talk and reason with him and his
supporters. The general response was that things are being done "the Z2 way"
and also that "we like the chaos, it's fun". It's bad enough to get that type
of attitude from users. One shouldn't expect to see it from the
moderator too.


 MB> Perhaps you all could use a "social contract" to exact a "user
 MB> instituted feed cut"; imagine if you will, someone who is so bad that
 MB> you call agree to simply deny access to your system for a feed?
 MB> Hmmmm... Isn't that what a feed cut basically is anyway?



 MB> Matt

 MB> em: matt [at] thunderdome.us | icq: 16568532 | yahoo: mbedynek

 MB> ---
 MB>  * Origin: ..::[ high speed feeds - http://fido.thunderdome.us/ ]::..
 MB> (1:106/1)

Jeff

--- FMail/Win32 1.60
 * Origin:  Twin_Cities_Metronet - New Hope, MN USA  (1:14/0)