# A request for moderators (and others.....)



## ZipperHead (1 Mar 2005)

I'd like to make a request that the posts not get locked down everytime somebody causes a stink. By doing that, you are closing a conversation that other's may want to join, but get shut out of just because some juvenile has spouted off. Not all of us are glued to the computer 24/7, and sometimes we get to the threads a little late to put in our bit. Then, as was witnessed, another thread pops up, in a similar vein, and the cycle continues.

May I suggest stopping the group punishment, and punishing the individual instead (sound familiar????). I know that a lot of people have tricks and exploits around this, and seeing as how many people are too sissy to use their real name and hide behind nicknames (with minimal info in their profiles, to boot) (though I would advise changing your email address, if you really want people not too know who you are.... particularly if you use a bloggins.IM@forces.gc.ca account  :, you'll never be rid of them.

I'm not sure how the punishments are meted out (haven't received a warning yet (other than friendly ones) and I've strayed outside of arcs on occasion), but I think "1 week in cells" is enough to cool people off, and alllow others to contribute their comments, even if they go against the grain. I find that by using my real name, I am less tempted to get into flaming wars, though I still speak my mind (using what little tact and diplomacy skills I have, mind you).

Far from wanting to keep it a huggy-kissy forum where everybody gives each other a hug and a reach around, all points of view should be welcome, as long as common courtesy and the basic rules of forum etiquette are followed.

The people who drop in, piss people off with half-baked "I speak for the silent majority" (OK, Jimmy Swaggart, I've found you out!!!) and proclamations of how great the army would be if they were in charge, will always be around, and are a great source of amusement, as they show that no matter how far we've progressed, the Village Idiot job is always available.

Anyway, I'm just a little huffy because the "Women in Combat" thread got shut down before I had a chance to ask Mo-Litia how much combat experience he has to back up his claims. And how he all of a sudden became the voice of 51% of the CF....I suppose he has the biggest mouth in his Mess, so he automatically speaks for everyone else (good leadership potential in that fella (not) ..... and a smear to the fine history of the LER, IMO).

Al


----------



## Gunner (1 Mar 2005)

Allan, you make some valid points.  However, sometimes threads become a forum for 2-3 people to argue and the discussion sharply digresses from the initial posting.  Moderators try to stop these threads from becoming an argument but sometimes the thread cannot be saved and a moderator has to step in and lock the thread.  There is the option of deleting posts made by members army.ca but that is usually a last resort related to OPSEC, PERSEC, or simply to maintain order within the forums.

Please note that this doesn't stop you from taking some of the pertinent points and starting a new thread on the same topic (Or you can PM the person you have a beef with).

Hope this answer some of your concerns.

Cheers


----------



## Michael Dorosh (1 Mar 2005)

Gee, Allan, how sorry we are you didn't get to wade in and make personal attacks of your own.  

Was the issue in that thread Mo-Litia's experience, or was the real issue something a little more relevant to the rest of us?

My advice is that if you have something truly significant to contribute to the board, start a new thread.  Starting a new thread in the example you describe, in order to outline your own experiences or opinions, would have been appropriate.  Starting a new thread to slag someone else probably less so.  That being the case, I wouldn't complain too long and loud about not being able to do so.

I had thought the goal of this site - any site - was to discuss actual issues of interest to the membership, not compare personal resumes or start petty fights with each other.  Mo-Litia's credentials (or lack thereof) spoke for themselves.  I frankly don't see what good playing Perry Mason would have done anyone.

If you have something substantial to say about women in combat, you are more than free to start a new thread.  Bear in mind some topics will always attract heated discussion and aggressive posters; the disbandment of the Airborne was another hot topic recently.  Given these aggressive posting styles, it seems to me, speaking individually, that such matters will probably not be resolved to anyone's satisfaction no matter what kind of discourse is followed.


----------



## Pieman (1 Mar 2005)

> Anyway, I'm just a little huffy because the "Women in Combat" thread got shut down before I had a chance to ask Mo-Litia how much combat experience he has to back up his claims. And how he all of a sudden became the voice of 51% of the CF....



I was also a little disappointed that particular thread was shut down as there were some points I wanted to add to it (in a constructive manner) and I had a couple of questions. Mind you, it is clear why it was locked as it was going no where. 

I can think of a couple of threads that were extremely productive and interesting, and then got shut down because the discussion got too heated, or some yahoo would not back down on a point.

Might I make a suggestion to the moderators: If a thread that is locked for whatever reason that the thread be reopened after a cooling off period? I don't know...say two or three days? (This would apply to threads with overall good content, and that have the potential to be productive)


BTW:
Allan, with regards to using real names etc. I consider it to be a very bad idea on the internet these days, IMHO. Should you cross someone with a little ire and a little know how, they could do some real damage to your life with Identity theft and other tactics...there is a small risk of that happening. I realise that opinons about he risk of using personal information varies,   but personally I choose to operate under extream caution on the internet when I can. Also, when it comes to discussion, when someone posts anonymous it forces you to take what they write at face value, which also has its advantages/disadvantages.


----------



## ZipperHead (1 Mar 2005)

Michael, you make quite a few good points, and again, I was in a bit of a huff when I wrote the post. There should be a cooling off period (like gun registration) before you post  :threat:.

I feel, and you disagree, that a thread (such as one that is titled "Women in Combat") should be restarted whenever it gets derailed by a few yahoo's. I can see the merit sometimes (ie. when it goes completely off-topic), but when someone does a search of "women in combat" to see if there has been a thread related to it, and they see it is shut-down, proper protocol (in my mind, anyways) is to not start another one. 

Pieman, I understand (in theory) anyway, why some people don't use their real name (personal security, identity theft, etc) but I have a hard time buying that one. If I had the "skillz" I could figure out who you are, where you live, etc. As soon as you log in here (unless you take ridiculous steps) you can be traced. If you say something treasonous, hateful, or threaten someone's life, the authorities could step in and find out the info. If a kid could hack into the Pentagon, NORAD, name a big company here.... your identity is small fries. 

I use pseudonyms on other forums (for various reasons  : ), but IMO, reading a nameless, faceless person's  opinion would be like reading a letter to the editor signed by "Irate Pyschopath": disregard all after "Dear sir, .....".
This forum  is usually quite stellar, until it becomes a pissing contest (and I have been guilty of going down that path....), and I have read a lot of insightful opinions of issues that aren't normally discussed at work or home. That is the point of this forum, but to turn it into a FAQ based deal would be kind of pointless as well: "Don't ask that, that was brought up 3 months ago". "We talked about that last week, go away....". I have been to those boards, and it is an old boys (or girls) network of people who don't like anybody coming in and sniffing around, and bothering them with things they have already talked about.

Anyway, I made the suggestion, and got my left and right of arcs, so I will go with that.

Allan


----------



## 1feral1 (1 Mar 2005)

I reckon when a thread gets locked its by a mod who has something called commonsense. I am for the way things are. lets keep the PC to a mininum if not at all here.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Zoomie (1 Mar 2005)

I've got to side with Allan on this issue.  I believe that he brings up some very saliant points that should be addressed.  By locking a thread, all we've done is let the perpetrator win.  Most times there are forum members who can significantly contribute to one side or another of a particular discussion, but don't live on Army.ca and therefore can't catch the thread in time.  I have also found that a great deal of these out of control threads have been escalated through Moderator comments - a good Mod lurks not flames.  Case in point:



			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Gee, Allan, how sorry we are you didn't get to wade in and make personal attacks of your own.



It's a good thing that Allan decided to take the low road when it came to his retort Michael - he would certainly be justified in giving back a blast of merde for such a comment.  I know that I would have...

In the past year I have seen excessive "moderation" and biased actions by senior members - a sad state indeed.  Mayhaps we need to sit back and address our addiction to Army.ca and let the board naturally moderate itself - as most first world nations have a tendency to do.

Peace


----------



## Infanteer (2 Mar 2005)

A few points:

1)  Don't judge the post by who is posting it but rather the content (whether it be *General Hillier* or *The Masked Bandit*).  People have their own reasons for whatever level of PERSEC they wish to maintain here.

2)  As a rule, I try to "nip/tuck" threads that still have promise and only have a bunfight on the side going - this has been the approach since Mike Bobbitt gave the staff a little more leeway with deleting posts.  I've done it before and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

3)  When we lock threads, its generally because the thread has become something of an "empty calorie" on the Forums - full of content but having no nutritional value.  The "Females in the CF" thread is a good example; I failed to see anything new coming out of it (it was a Spin-Cycle Thread) - all it contained was 
"Chicks can't physically do the job", 
"Well, I've seen some that can",
"Well, I watched a bunch fail", 
"Girls don't mesh socially", 
"Yes they do, act professional", 
"yadayadayad"

This is stuff that seems to get thrown out on the forums every 6 months or so, and nothing really ever gets proven/solved.  To top it off, people started throwing "sexist" and "PC panzy" around, which really drag it into the mud and just lead to trouble - so we locked it.

Keeping a thread open for you to come on and blast someone on their operational experience (which was done to some extent on that particular thread) is not a justifiable enough reason to keep a "Spin Cycle/Glue Factory" running.

4) 


			
				Zoomie said:
			
		

> In the past year I have seen excessive "moderation" and biased actions by senior members - a sad state indeed.   Mayhaps we need to sit back and address our addiction to Army.ca and let the board naturally moderate itself - as most first world nations have a tendency to do.



Tried that before - utter mess.  An active and publically open forum needs "hands-on" moderation or the idiots quickly take the spotlight and the quality posters (in our case, professionals) take their internet time elsewhere.  Keeping the signal:noise ratio down on this site is a constant mission of the staff, and if there is a few bumps on the road ("excessive moderation") then so be it.  Start reading through threads from 3 years ago and the change in the level of debate and discussion is quite clear.

We're always willing to "go with the flow" and change our approaches to moderation, but the general goal remains the same.

Cheers,
Infanteer (a sissy hiding behind a code-name)


----------



## LF(CMO) (2 Mar 2005)

"Keeping a thread open for you to come on and blast someone on their operational experience (which was done to some extent on that particular thread) is not a justifiable enough reason to keep a "Spin Cycle/Glue Factory" running."

 I always find the above 'amusing' as Canada hasn't been in a real combat situation since Korea.  With the possible exception of a few very isolated instances.

 I was frustated with the 'lock out',  but I can see it from the Staff's prespective as well.  As was mentioned, there is always the option of starting another thread!


----------



## sigpig (2 Mar 2005)

I'll have to agree with Allan that the moderators can be too quick on the draw at times. Twice I've started typing replies and found after I clicked 'post' that the thread had been locked. Do you know how frustrating that is?     And, as also mentioned, there are times when by the time you've logged on and noticed a thread it's already closed.

I think the cooling off for a day or two idea has some merit. Would throw water on a current flame war and still allow discussion to continue.

How can moderators say start another thread about a topic when they are the first ones to jump down the throat of someone who's started a topic and say "That already exists, go here?"


----------



## Gunner (2 Mar 2005)

> How can moderators say start another thread about a topic when they are the first ones to jump down the throat of someone who's started a topic and say "That already exists, go here?"



Sigpig, reread my comments.  I said take the perintent points from the original thread and repost a new thread.  Keep the focus on topic instead of letting it slide into a bitch and moan contest.  None of the moderators are going to jump down your throat if you are not doing it to be a shit disturber.  If you run into these problems have you tried PM one of us to discuss?


----------



## Gunner (2 Mar 2005)

Moderator guidelines:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/3616.0.html


----------



## Michael Dorosh (2 Mar 2005)

LF(CMO) said:
			
		

> I always find the above 'amusing' as Canada hasn't been in a real combat situation since Korea.  With the possible exception of a few very isolated instances.



I always find it amusing when people don't realize that operations like Medak Pocket, Afghanistan, and others were indeed combat situations.....


----------



## camochick (2 Mar 2005)

I know that warnings are given out here when people get out of line which is a good thing, but i am part of other forums and they have a system where they block you for a few days or a week if you get out of line, kind of like a "cooling off period". Perhaps that is something Army.ca could try if they don't already. That way people might have time to think about their posting issues and maybe come back with something constructive. JUst a suggestion. I think the mods do a fairly good job. They certainly keep my loud mouthed arse in line haha >


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (2 Mar 2005)

All,

Some good points on both sides of the debate. Moderation, like leadership, isn't simply right or wrong in that there are many ways to go about it. Good moderation, like good leadership, takes into account the current situation, and adapts to meet changing needs. Some segment of the visitors here are going to disagree with the moderation style no matter what the Staff do. However, disagreement is not a bad thing, and discussions like this allow us to examine our current methodology and see if it is indeed still the most appropriate choice. As Staff, we continue to learn, and as the site grows, we may need to adjust our style. (February, despite being a short month, still saw a notable increase over January, and March is forecasting a 25% increase over that!)

Infanteer's method of removing or editing posts and allowing the thread to live gives us all maximum flexibility. The side of this that is not often seen by users is that it takes a great deal of time. Each post in a topic must be read, considered, and possibly edited. Further, since the topic isn't locked, Staff have to keep a close watch over it to ensure that it remains on track, monitoring each new post. So while this may be the preferred approach as far as users are concerned, it is *considerably* more time consuming from the perspective of the Staff.

To sum up, we continue to learn and adapt our moderation style as the situation and resources dictate. We recognize that not everyone is going to be happy with every decision, but we do make efforts to be consistent and reasonable in our approach.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## McG (3 Mar 2005)

camochick said:
			
		

> I know that warnings are given out here when people get out of line which is a good thing, but i am part of other forums and they have a system where they block you for a few days or a week if you get out of line, kind of like a "cooling off period".


Our warning system does work that way.  If you are interested, you can look up the details in the Conduct Guidelines thread (which was updated just this morning).

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html


----------

