AAM Moderators gone right wing?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you don't want the debate to continue between the three of you, than someone's got to give in/up or at least withdraw, no?
Click to expand...

I gave in/up and withdrew. As thick headed as I am even I can't crack a wall by banging my head against it.

Clubman for what it's worth I didn't say you were scheming together, only that I'm having a pointless argument with both of you simultaenously and even I can't be bothered trying to keep up with both of you.

I won't be around to repeat this 4 times so your just going to have to take my word for it.

-Rd
 
daltonr said:
I gave in/up and withdrew. As thick headed as I am even I can't crack a wall by banging my head against it.
Click to expand...
For the benefit of others I'd just like to make it clear that it was certainly not my intention that this would be the outcome and I would be grateful if daltonr's unilateral decision to withdraw from this discussion was not mistakenly cited some time in the future as an example of a contributor being persecuted or hounded out of a discussion or anything like that.

Clubman for what it's worth I didn't say you were scheming together, only that I'm having a pointless argument with both of you simultaenously and even I can't be bothered trying to keep up with both of you.
Click to expand...
Your "ClubMan/RainyDay tag team" comment certainly looked like it was designed to suggest that we were somehow colluding against you in this thread. This is not the case. For what it's worth I find the argument far from pointless and am disappointed that you are no longer bothered to pursue it having made certain claims that I don't consider tenable.

I won't be around to repeat this 4 times so your just going to have to take my word for it.
Click to expand...
As I've said before, in my opinion this sort of flippancy really serves no useful purpose and simply detracts from you arguments.
 
Im really going to throw the cat amongst the pigeons now....

I was thinking about this (thread) on my walk home yesterday.

On this board (AAM) there are a lot of people with strong persuasive opinions some are administrators, some are not. Interestingly, for me, compared to other boards the quality of threads here is higher, even the squabbles. Which doesnt say a lot about the other boards that Ive read.

There is a board called weddingsonline.ie (having just got married I spent some time there) on any given day that board has debates that are the thread equivalent of hair pulling and eye scratching but for some reason they dont seem to disintegrate down to the bickering and thread locking that has been more prevalent here of late.

So yesterday I on my walk home, this stress free life I lead where my biggest worry is why my AAM chums just cant get on, I tried to work out why this is the case and I could only come up with 2 answers.

1. weddingsonline is 99% female and its a known fact that women are more mature than men. Joking!!! Dont post asking me for urls/facts/stats....only messing.

seriously

2. on weddingsonline everyone has the same status. We have different titles (newbie, frequent poster, princess, goddess - i kid you not) but they only reflect how often you post and not your administrative, moderative abilities. The administrators never really post. Im not saying ClubMan, RainyDay, Brendan etc should not post. From the prespective of the financial threads they are amongest the most knowledgable contributors and its vital they post. I do feel however that in debates in non-financial threads the weddings-online model would work better. I think that when an administrator debates here with a frequent poster and another administrator edits the frequent poster or locks the thread, it creates this "them and us" feeling I refered to earlier. Even if, unfortunately, the latter administrator did the right thing. Unfortunately Ive no real solution to propose as if everyone posts anonymously without signing in (and therefore status is hidden) we're just opening the gates to Trolls (the real kind) which would be worse than now.

just my humble opinion.
cas.
 

My only experience of any board is AAM.

Administrators/Moderators on this Board like to contribute to all sections of AAM. I do not honestly believe that there is a “them” and “us” situation here on the Board.

The posting guidelines are very clear.

Posts are only edited/deleted by Administrators /Moderators when they breach the posting guidelines.

Marion
 
I appreciate that Marion, I clarified in my post that I wasnt sugggesting moderators/administrators should not post, nor did I say administrators edit outside the scope of the posting guidelines.

I think Stuart has the right idea. If people dont like the forums then they should just stick to the financial ones and steer clear of the non-financial ones.
 
Marion said:
I do not honestly believe that there is a “them” and “us” situation here on the Board.
Click to expand...

I believe that there is. Them=those who are not 'smart enough' to be members of AAM; Us=those who are.
 
If people perceive there to be some sort of "them and us" situation then there is not much that we can do about that other than to reassure them that this is not the case. I certainly don't think that moderators/administrators should be constrained in what or where they can post in their role as regular contributors. Obviously the moderators/administrators have privileged access in order to moderate threads and keep the site running but other than that everybody is equa. As I have mentioned before posts by individual moderators have sometimes even been edited or removed by other moderators where necessary. I am certain that no moderator has ever exploited their moderator privileges for personal or nefarious purposes or because s/he had some sort of run in with another contributor. Were this to happen s/he would be soon pulled back into line by the other moderators or contributors. Similarly the vast majority of contributors abide by the posting guidelines, accept moderation decisions where necessary and help to maintain the high quality of the site overall. A few arguably overreact to certain aspects (e.g. moderation, challenginf/robust debate, sporadic spats etc.) and ever fewer cause a genuine nuisance of themselves and have to be banned. Some people (moderators/administrators or others) contribute more than others and some people have a more robust/direct style than others. That is neither here nor there in the greater scheme of things. Basically we seem to have a pretty healthy cross section of contributors/characters and discussions such as this are further evidence that people can generally discuss any matter in a reasonably mature and constructive fashion. Constructive criticism is always welcome/useful but is subject to the same rules as any other topic (i.e. some people may challenge others on the matter robustly). Naturally we have our moments and from these we can maybe learn some useful lessons for improving things. However, overall I think that the site is really useful and a credit to all of the people over the years who have been involved in any capacity. As in any walk of life there's no harm in always striving for improvement no matter how good things seem to be already. However I certainly don't believe that we have any fundamental or serious problem with how things work right now that needs significant or urgent remedial action.

Unfortunately Ive no real solution to propose as if everyone posts anonymously without signing in (and therefore status is hidden) we're just opening the gates to Trolls (the real kind) which would be worse than now.
Click to expand...
I posted anonymously (well pseudonymously) for a while and everybody knew pretty soon that it was me. Peoples' styles are pretty easy to spot regardless what name they post under.
 
I don't think there is a "them and us" mentality here at all.

I like that assertions by contributors are often requested to be backed-up. It often highlights false assumptions of the poster or me and I think it is important if there are to be any kind of debates rather than just fighting or (worse!) a mutual appreciation society. It also makes people think twice before posting the first thing that pops into their head and raises the game for us all.

I've been a member of plenty of boards in my time and I think this is by far the most mature. Whatever disagreements there are, they always seem to be quite "sportsmanslike" and nothing gets too personal (or maybe I miss the best fights!!). Lots of boards stay away from tricky subjects altogether to avoid conftontation and prefer a fluffy feeling in their community. I don't. On the other hand, I've seen far worse bickering/bitching on boards than this. Apart from the odd troll, AAM definitely has fewer nutters than an average busy board. Sometimes I look in on rollercoaster.ie and some of the guff posted in the "Depths"-type boards are so juvenile (bitchiness of the hair-pulling variety, multiple aliases, general havoc and the odd blue joke thrown in for good measure) I blush on behalf of the contributors and this from a parenting board!

Having said all that, I don't like the threads where Clubman and daltonr pull each others' posts to pieces scrutinising every word written because they are just too time-consuming/boring to read. I know if I trawled threw them that for every 10 nit-picky bit there would probably be 1 really good point but it doesn't seem worth the effort to find the 1 or 2 good ones anymore. I enjoy the contributions by both of these guys as they are usually well thought-out and sometimes even a bit entertaining (!) just not the ones with all the little quotes and retorts.

Rebecca
 
I would have to agree with Rebecca. Answering sentence by sentence with the original post quoted makes the answer difficult to read. Also, picking a post apart and answering sentence by sentence may lose the feel of the original post. I'd rather read a response that flows.
 
The problem with not quoting the part(s) of a preceding posts which are being addressed is that the context can be lost and the response may not make sense otherwise. Sometimes I read posts (especially in busy threads) and I haven't a clue what the person who posted it is referring to (often because between their post and the one which they were responding to others posted further contributions) whereas if they had quoted the part of a previous post to which they were responding it would be much easier to understand.
 
I've had an epiphany thank's to Rebecca's post. She's absolutely right. The discussion's between myself and Clubman are absolutely boring for anyone other than the two of us. And my reason for pulling out of the one on this thread is that truth be told they are absolutely boring for me too.

For some reason I got it into my head that I had to correct something that I thought was wrong. E.g. Rainyday's request to back up a statement that was true on the face of it, and that I knew he already agreed with.

When I'm 80 I'm not going to give a damn about my adventures/arguments on AAM. I might care about the fact that I sat in a hotel room writing this crap instead of going out into the sunshine and driving around Florida with the roof down.

Since the change from EZBoard I've written 401 posts. Hundreds more in the years before that. If we take 1000 posts at 5 minutes per post (Conservative) I've spent 3.4 DAYS writing stuff on AAM (not counting time spent reading). A lot of it seems to have been tit for tat arguments with as few as two or three other posters.

Did I have points worth making? Probably
Did anyone other than the people involved care? Probably Not
Was it a productive use of my time? Absolutely Not.

Needless to say I won't be responding to any picking apart of this post.

Thanks again Rebecca. Excellent post.

-Rd
 
Since my infamous post on Clubman’s posting style a couple of months back I have called time on my posting career in the LoS forum, and actually pretty much any thread in which an opinion, and not advice on specific things (like kitchen appliances etc.) is required. I still use the financial and DIY forums for requesting advice and sharing it whenever possible.

The reason I have done this is I simply find it too much hassle to post here. I have no problem with (in fact I welcome it) people being taken to task when they make outrageous remarks and pass them off as fact, but I just feel that certain posters here (not only Clubman) seem incapable of what I believe to be the normal ability to extract the essential meaning of someone’s argument without the need to dissect it line by line where it is reasonably clear what the person’s point is. This doesn’t mean that I want to only post in a place where noone will challenge me, it just means that its too tiring to have to return to previous statements to explain the nitty-gritty over and over again, and I don’t think that every opinion needs to be backed up by a (often subjective) government report. As I mentioned before – wasted time focusing on the nitty-gritty stuff detracts from the debate and reduces the opportunity to debate the actual notion of the issue at hand (though I am well aware that specific examples are often needed to substantiate a point – it just seems that here ALL points seem to be challenged unless links to facts are provided, and I don’t have time for that).

I also make a habit of not entering into a debate with people that are not prepared to change their views – i.e. people who are more interesting in their being right, than learning what IS right. For me, an open mind is a pre-requisite for entering a debate – I form my opinions based on what I believe to be correct, but if someone can convince me otherwise I have no problems changing my opinions. I apologise for picking out an individual here, but (disclaimer: what I believe to be) Clubman’s overbearing, confrontational, and overly-defensive posting manner detracts from the overall debate and causes some posters to say ‘I just won’t bother’, and the sheer number of posts he makes warrants individual attention. The evidence here is a substantiation of the exact scenario I predicted in that infamous thread a few months ago and clearly suggests that I am not alone in this view. Clubman’s overall contribution is wonderfully helpful to many people but I think his posting style scares off some posters, and as anyone who has ever worked in customer services is aware, for every customer/poster who complains, there are 9 others who walk away without taking the time to complain.

By making a slight adjustment to his manner I think Clubman could continue to be just as helpful to people while being regarded as a more friendly character. This would only require the use of judgement to ask ‘do I need to dissect this specific point or can I make effectively the same point while focusing on the broader question in hand?’ before dissecting posters’ views. By all means he could continue to challenge outrageous views and can continue to perform a valuable service in doing so, but I really feel that by giving the people the benefit of the doubt in marginal, less controversial cases, the overall level of debate would be enhanced and posters would regard the forum as more approachable and less intimidating.

Of course, I expressed a very similar viewpoint in that thread a few months ago and, as is his wont, this has clearly been ignored, which in my view is to the detriment of AAM. The usage figures I requested were never presented and the limiting of the LoS forum to experienced posters obviously renders the comparison to the vBulletin AMM irrelevant, but I feel that AAM will suffer long term if this atmosphere remains. The people that hang around AAM, and they knowledge they hold, is the main asset of AAM. The more people hanging around, the more knowledge there is to be shared. The more friendly the atmosphere (which can be maintained without accepting ludicrous statements being passed off as fact) the more people that hang around, and the more knowledge there is to be shared which is a win-win situation. The LoS forum could be the first place where new posters post, and as they become comfortable with the place they may start to contribute valuable knowledge in other forums. I know it had its problems, but I really feel the 50 post limit, combined with the (perceived or otherwise) intimidating and unfriendly atmosphere in LoS will have negative effects on AAM in the long run and I feel these should both be changed.
 
Why apologise in advance but then launch into a personal attack based on your subjective opinion of another poster's style. Please note the .
Attack an opinion by all means, but please don't attack the person expressing the opinion.
Click to expand...
As ever when I am attacked in this way, so as not to be accused of any bias, I will not moderate the offending comments myself but leave it to another moderator to decide on their appripriateness or otherwise? However I find this personalised attack extremely offensive!

Yes - I made it clear at the time that I was ignoring your "advice" and saw no need to change my posting style, something that I wish to reiterate clearly once again. I also disagree with you that my posting style (and/or frequency?) is necessarily or obviously to the detriment of AAM as a whole.

The usage figures I requested were never presented
Click to expand...
I'm sure that I pointed out that the required usage figures were not available due to (a) ezBoard only keeping one month of stats (which, at that stage were useless) (b) the intervening move from ezBoard to vBulletin and (c) the fact that similar stats to those available on ezBoard are not readily available on vBulletin. I suspect that Brendan may have posted some stats that he had but I can't be certain.

and as anyone who has ever worked in customer services is aware, for every customer/poster who complains, there are 9 others who walk away without taking the time to complain.
Click to expand...
I've worked in "customer facing" roles in the past and I never came across that statistic. Maybe the other 9 are satisfied customers?

For those who are can cope with the boredom that such discussions seem to induce in certain others this is the thread to which OhPinchy was referring to above. I can't see where in this thread OhPinchy asks for statistics to show whether or not activity on AAM had reduced over a particular time period or in response to any specific event or contributor's style. However this thread does deal with the issue of AAM stats and alleged fall-off in activity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register