Still Unresolved

[Panda-chan]

This topic is a continuation of the other one that got locked for... idk why. We hadn't even reached a concession and no one was causing drama... Anyway.

[quote="xLilacVixenx"]I'm alright with what has been going around with the rules here, but I do agree that people have a right to say why they were warned if they want to. Unless the staff oppose to it, of course.[/quote]
Because we must always agree with every staff decision, amirite?

Ivan, I'll be perfectly honest. I can understand where you're coming from but your logic doesn't make sense to me. You're saying that public discussions of moderator actions are bound to cause drama, but they aren't always as Simba pointed out. In fact, doing the opposite by putting red tape across the entire forum is much more likely to get people mad. What is so hard about giving us a chance to prove we can discuss stuff politely and maturely? If we started talking crap about a moderator on the forum, we would get an instant warning anyway because of another overlapping rule that states that we must be courteous to staff members.
This is like the religious/political debates rule that was changed yesterday. Instead of banning such potentially harmful (but also helpful) discussions from being posted in the first place, the mods have decided to change them so that only those topics that promote arguing will be locked. This was a very smart move imo and made everyone happy.
[quote="Moka"]We will allow religious or political discussions as long as they do not become arguments.[/quote]
So why can't the same be done in this case? This would make it easier to filter out and punish the trolls from the actual good members.
Also if we decide to handle these issues as privately as Ivan suggests (aka through pms), how can we even be certain they will ever be addressed? It is so easy for a moderator to just read a pm, delete it, and not do a thing to deal with the problem. Think about it, if a member has a problem with the way a moderator is doing something and sends them a private message voicing their concerns, what reason would the moderator have to even change their ways? It's not like the member is allowed to discuss it publicly, so no one would find out if the moderator decided to ignore the member and continue being dictatorial. If the member contacts the admin the same issue would arise. Without pressure from several forum members, the staff would have the final say in everything. However, if a concern is raised in a public environment, only then will we see results because the mods will be bound to listen to a collective voice of dissent instead of just individuals that might be too scared to pm a mod anyway.
I'm not saying the MLK staff would be so cruel as to ignore pms by members but we have to take all possibilities into account. Again, the above paragraph was not aimed at anyone in particular and I'm sorry if I offended anyone with this post.

BTW a lot of people are saying that we are overreacting because this is a TLK website on the internet and we need to stop getting so worked up over every minor thing. In that case, why bother with having any rules, right? Who cares because its just an internet TLK website.

[AustralianChaos]

While my instinct to lock this topic...again...is strong, I'm going to give you one chance here.

The reason we wish to deal with these issues privately is because we are trying to respect your privacy. Say you got a warning for some offence or another, how would you feel if that mod went and made a public announcement of the warning, and what is what for? I know I would feel humiliated by it.

This thing on privacy is all about common sense, really. If you have an issue with a decision a mod made regarding you, send them a PM. We have all said, on multiple occasions, that we will happily listen to member concerns, and that you are always free to PM us if you have an issue. I don't know about the others here, but I don't really get that very often, if at all.

Look, I can see where you're coming from on the public issue, but there's a simple solution everyone seems to have overlooked. If you have an issue with a warning you have received, tell the mod in question about it, I know most of the fellow staff, and we are all willing to listen and double-check our own decisions to make sure we did the right thing...but you need to tell us if there's a problem. As Flip has said many times already, we can't read minds.

As for public complaints about a mod's decision...I see that avenue as a last resort option, something that should only be done, if the mod in question, along with most of the other staff, are not listening at all, and only if you believe you are being rational about it. Publicly complaining because the mods won't listen when their decision was justified and fair is only going to make things worse. In Ivan's case, the member in question simply ran to the chatroom and started complaining there. To me, that smacks of attention-seeking and trouble-causing. Did this member ask Ivan to properly explain what he did, because I haven't heard of any such thing happening.

What many of you fail to see is that communication is a two-way street. We can not do our jobs properly if you won't talk to us...personally...about any issues you may have. Posting your complaints on the forum has a very high chance of starting an argument, which just causes more trouble.

By all means, discuss forum-wide issues in the public forum. But when the issue is only between you and a staff member, wouldn't you prefer it to be private? If you have an issue with the decision, at least attempt to discuss it with the staff privately first...all of us, not just the mod in question.

No-one seems to want to communicate to us, and then seem surprised when this kind of stuff happens. Wake up, people! We are not robots! We're willing to listen to you, but you never talk to us directly! We can't help you if you won't talk to us!

[MalibuTrashDog]

[quote="Amanda"]Also if we decide to handle these issues as privately as Ivan suggests (aka through pms), how can we even be certain they will ever be addressed? It is so easy for a moderator to just read a pm, delete it, and not do a thing to deal with the problem.[/quote]

There is also the off-chance that they won't like your PM and either hand out a warning or instaban you then and there. PM's aren't even a safe zone anymore.

[Panda-chan]

I still don't get why locking this topic is even crossing anyone's mind at the moment. The discussion is far from over as long as someone has something legitimate to add. I'd like to say my piece peacefully and civilly before being shut down by the lock button. Ugh...

Dude, your second paragraph is completely unrelated to what we're arguing about. We are NOT asking the mods to make public announcements about anything. We're just saying that it's unfair that talking about staff actions with or without the intent of starting drama warrants a warning here.

[quote="AustralianChaos"]Look, I can see where you're coming from on the public issue, but there's a simple solution everyone seems to have overlooked. If you have an issue with a warning you have received, tell the mod in question about it, I know most of the fellow staff, and we are all willing to listen and double-check our own decisions to make sure we did the right thing...but you need to tell us if there's a problem. As Flip has said many times already, we can't read minds.[/quote]
Hey, I completely agree with you here that this needs to be done first. We SHOULD be talking it over with the mods as soon as we feel like we need to, but that doesn't give you a right to limit our ability to talk about it anywhere else we choose. As long as we do so without misrepresenting the situation or talking crap about the offending moderator, it hurts nobody. Basically, we should have the right to bring up any issue in an ordinary conversation, perhaps to simply talk about it or maybe to resolve it peacefully. As I said in my previous post (which I'm sure no one really read, judging from the responses), this would make it so much easier for the moderators to separate the trouble makers from those that are able to maturely talk with their friends about an issue they may have.

This:
Member 1: omg the mods are so stupid they gave me a warning for cussing!
Member 2: wow what a retard MLK is so evil
Member 1: Yeah seriously they are such nazis

is not the same as:
Member 1: Hey the mods just gave me a warning for cussing
Member 2: Oh that sucks.
Member 1: But I already pm'ed them because I didn't agree with their decision
Member 2: ok

In the first example both members should get warned for being rude to the mods and trying to stir up drama. But in the second example, they are simply acknowledging that a mod gave one of them a warning for cussing. What's wrong with that? It's a completely innocent conversation that isn't going to cause trouble at all. The first member already pmed the mod about the concern and was simply telling this to the other member. The issue has already been dealt with privately so why can't it be talked about casually to a friend?

[SnowyCheetah]

AC I'd like to point out that someone might have other reasons to post about a staff action than to gripe. We do say positive and neutral things here, you know.

[Moka]

Quoted from page 2 of the other topic...

[quote="Moka"]As I said when the new rules were put into place, revisions were definitely going to be made in the coming weeks. This is one of those revisions (I bet there will be more) that will have to be made because they are new rules and they are not perfect. The rule in question was put into place to try to have members discuss such issues with staff, instead of bringing them up in the middle of discussions. I can see where it needs revision, or possibly removal, and I will discuss it with the other staff members.[/quote]

We already agreed to look into it.

[FlipMode]

Yesterday I posted saying that religious discussions and what not should be allowed because (as has been proven) we can discuss them maturely and respectably. I also said the same should apply to this rule; be able to discuss staff decisions respectably and not in a way that forces people to change their opinion on that member of staff. Like if saw someone talking about me giving them a warning, asking their friends what they think they should do etc... I would not have a problem with that. But of course I am only speaking for myself here *vanishes*

[SnowyCheetah]

While you are looking into it, Moka, I find it beneficial for the members that will be affected by the decision to have their say in the matter for the very reason that they will be affected by said decision.

[Moka]

@Flip - Well yeah I agree with that. I think aside from the obvious taboo stuff (discrimination, vulgar, yadda yadda), members shouldn't be prohibited from discussing specific things just because they "might" lead to a flame war.

@Snowy - I agree, but it seems to me like the best solution would be to simply remove the rule in question.

[SnowyCheetah]

@Moka, in reply to my post: I wholehearted agree.