What I find really strange is that many of the users that voted in favour of forum moderation are now heavily disappointed because the mods do their job.
The result of moderation is not what I wanted, but what I expected, especially with (as already pointed out) non-transparent (reproducable) decisions of the mods.

Sorry to say so, but you wanted it, you got it, stop whining.

Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
I see great crying and gnashing of teeth over some users allegedly being driven off by other users.

There is no allegedly to it. richierich explicitly said why he was leaving. There is no room for doubt.


Quoting goblinsdoitall:

Quote:
What I find really strange is that many of the users that voted in favour of forum moderation are now heavily disappointed because the mods do their job.
The result of moderation is not what I wanted, but what I expected, especially with (as already pointed out) non-transparent (reproducable) decisions of the mods.

Sorry to say so, but you wanted it, you got it, stop whining.

I voted for moderation, and I am still 100% for it. But there's a huge difference between "whining" and suggesting ways to make it work.

It's possibly not you who "whines" about moderation. It's just that within a very short period of time this is the umptienth attempt to start a thread moaning about the quality of moderation. These threads are now to be found in almost all remotely fitting forums.
Just take into consideration the"options" of the poll of this thread, one obviously supporting the point of view of the OP the other dripping of sarcasm (not that I don't like sarcasm  ).
Up to this post I haven't seen any suggestion (in this thread) how the system could work properly, it's more like in kindergarden: "moderation is biased - No it's not - Yes it is - No, Yes".
Sorry, but if this doesn't at least come close to "Whining" ...

I wanted to vote "these choices are silly" but I couldn't find that choice. 

Quoting goblinsdoitall:

Quote:
Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
I see great crying and gnashing of teeth over some users allegedly being driven off by other users.

There is no allegedly to it. richierich explicitly said why he was leaving. There is no room for doubt.


Quoting goblinsdoitall:

Quote:
What I find really strange is that many of the users that voted in favour of forum moderation are now heavily disappointed because the mods do their job.
The result of moderation is not what I wanted, but what I expected, especially with (as already pointed out) non-transparent (reproducable) decisions of the mods.

Sorry to say so, but you wanted it, you got it, stop whining.

I voted for moderation, and I am still 100% for it. But there's a huge difference between "whining" and suggesting ways to make it work.

It's possibly not you who "whines" about moderation. It's just that within a very short period of time this is the umptienth attempt to start a thread moaning about the quality of moderation. These threads are now to be found in almost all remotely fitting forums.
Just take into consideration the"options" of the poll of this thread, one obviously supporting the point of view of the OP the other dripping of sarcasm (not that I don't like sarcasm  ).
Up to this post I haven't seen any suggestion (in this thread) how the system could work properly, it's more like in kindergarden: "moderation is biased - No it's not - Yes it is - No, Yes".
Sorry, but if this doesn't at least come close to "Whining" ...

I need to make a quick correction to the above.

I was not one of those who voted in favor of moderating this forum! My main concern was my feeling that exactly the moderating we are experiencing now, would occur. So your "whining" attack on me is completely unwarranted. A retraction from you would be nice at this point. But, not to worry, I really don't expect one. Those who use blind generalizations like the one you used above, rarely exhibit the character required for such a thing.

As far as your accusation of this poll being biased is concerned:  if the moderator were being fair and unbiased they would be doing a great job. You see, in order for a moderator to be fair and unbiased, they must be both thorough and timely. An untimely moderator winds up leaving posts up when they shouldn't. This gives the impression that some arguments are allowed to linger when others are removed quickly. Also, when a moderator neglects to be thorough, one side of a given argument remains. Therefore, a lack of being thorough smacks of a clear bias. Allow me to restate; in order to be fair and unbiased, a moderator must be thorough and timely.

With that, at least you see why I feel my poll is a fair one.

I'll buy that, dan.

Skip

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
I can assure everyone that the moderators arrived with no personal bias - they are neither users of the program nor posters to the site.  The reports of bias I receive are generally pretty well balanced.  User A complains user B is getting preferential treatment equally as much as user B complaint the same about user A.  That means to me they are being unbiased.

Bias asside, they certainly are far from perfect.  I think all can agree that they have a difficult job.  Let's say a post is detrimental to the discussion at hand.  Removing the post entirely has downsides - the user can't learn from their mistake, the thread is interrupted, etc.  Editing the post has a downside as well - the user can feel like they're being "called out" in front of the group.

They're learning, and I think we've finally got a team that is more or less permanent, so keep the feedback coming, directly to me via PM or email.

So Michael's last attack on me remains and has to go without a reply. Thanks, Ken, for that "unbiased" decision!