blonde poker forum

Ok, I have made a New Topic so the original thread (http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=16075.0 (http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=16075.0)) doesn't get bogged down.


I'm sorry, but when you are wearing the Moderator Hat, I think you have to do better than 'I don't care what you think'.  Yes, underlining 'volunteer' everywhere is very funny but it doesn't really address the issue at hand.

I know Blonde isn't a democracy, and I am not suggesting that Moderators are accountable to members.  But along with the privileges of being a Moderator surely comes some responsibility.  I think I made a valid point regarding link censorship on Blonde and I would be interested to hear your (or anyone else's) non-apathetic opinion.

oh dear here we go again...........batten down the hatches! rotflmfao

MrsLime, if you have issues with the way the Moderators moderate, discuss it with them via PM.

Threads like this bog down the entire forum.

:goodpost: ;iagree;

I think these sort of discussions are of general interest and therefore should be in public.  For example, other people might want to contribute their own opinions.

Why did you post your message above instead of PMing it to me?

MrsLime - stop it, you wont win.

Quite a few of your posts (to me) seem to be to get a conflict going - maybe I am wrong.

Anyways, some people on here can say/do what they like and some cannot - you I am afraid seem to be in the "cannot" catagory. So just let it go

 :goodpost: ;goodvevil;

As I understand it (there was a bit of techie language used there that I'm not sure i get fully) you're saying that you can't post a www.blondepoker.com (imagining that was some other site) but could write  blondepoker.com

You want for the situations where the mods remove a www.blondepoker.com, to instead just change it to a blondepoker.com, is that right?

If so, in that particular case, I dont see how the original poster can't go back and do that themselves if they're so inclined. If someone has posted something innappropriate, i don't see why the mods job should be to change it into an acceptable form.

John, all the while it looks like it's Mr Cat causing arguments. I don't think you should be messing with her good name. Just wanted to make it clear that these are not necessarily the cat's opinions. Just so everyone knows.

im lost. is mr cat mrslime and who is messing with his good name? im assuming mrslime is a man with a play on words name i.e mr slime?

Aren't we allowed to post names of sites on here?   As long as we don't actually post the link to the site?   is that what you mean?     I thought we could post the name of sites

his point is that the rules are not clear (i think) leading to the type of cunfusion you are in now sark......lol

ok,  :D   .  I am always confused Mad , lol

NB: This is not the view of The Mods as a body, this is my personal view from a position of being a relatively new Mod.


There may be nothing worse than inconsistent censorship in your view but to expect anything other than this is unrealistic.

As you know, the mods are part-time volunteers who browse the forum as and when they are able and take action when and where they see fit.  As a body we work to a broad range of guidelines but, like football referees, we each have our own 'take' on a particular stituation.

If something crops up which needs action taking urgently then the responsibility is largely down to the mods who are available at the time.  For those of us who are not available at the time there will generally be a record of the action taken for us to see when we next log in.

Sometimes I may see something that I may have responded to differently if I'd have been the one dealing with it.  However, my response isn't to immediately start berating the Mod concerned for doing what he/she did at the time.  I'm generally just grateful that action has been taken by someone in the first place.  Most of the time I'm 100% behind the action taken when I catch up with it, sometimes I see decisions where I would have done something differently but can see the validity of the action taken.  I am yet to encounter a situation where I am utterly opposed to the action taken in my absence.

The only way we will get consistent moderating is when we find a single mod who is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.  Much as Tighty Red-Dog anyone tries to be this person I don't think were going to find such a creature.  However, its not an ideal I ever expected to achieve when I signed up for this task.  I do it because I love being part of this forum and I'm determined to help it retain its unique identity among the countless other poker fora.  I don't expect that I will make moderating decisions that are '100% right' all the time, as very few decisions that we take result in a 100% consensus among those affected.  Similarly, I don't expect my fellow mods to be '100% right' all the time.  However, I do think as a whole we do a pretty good job in what is generally a fairly thankless task.  Simply put, people don't like having their posts deleted/edited and we are the people that do it.

If you want a simple 'take' on the situation, as I see it, then take a look at the efforts made over the years to have consistency among football referees by making their decisions more automatic in nature.  Has it made referees any less inconsistent than they were before?  I don't think it has.  In fact all that's been achieved is to take the element of 'common sense' away from the referees and made it far easier for them to have an overbearing influence on too many games.

Sheriff

to add to your reply sheriff, moderation also considers the context in which a post has been made. you may have 2 saying the exact same things but the context of one may be insulting or inflammatory. i think its better for mods to have moderation guidelines instead of fixed rules and regulations. makes for flexibility and judgement of individual situations.

mad

we do! flexible as we can be on a case by case basis using our best judgement as we see fit

i know you do do which is why there are different calls for different situations

thanks, I agree!

The problem with that is ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

SOMETIMES it is seen as treating one person differently from another - which is bound to cause trouble

Which is why i said some people can say/do what they want and some cannot.

I personally think if a rule is good enough for one person, then it is good enough for everyone - but who cares what I think anyway

i agree and it also involves a lot of subjectivity. you can never get it entirely right with guidelines but fixed laws are difficult too

The mods look at individual situations not individuals making the posts.


Genuinely, there is no "one rule for one and one for another".

but you will agree that people are only human and may subconsciously make judgement calls, especially if they are on duty alone with no other mods to analyse with?

It is Human nature,,

EG :

2 people on here get into a slanging match and say things which ARE out of order

Now, one person is in the "in croud" and one person is not.

I would suggest that the person in the "in croud" would be treated differently to the person who wasnt.

Not a critisism, just human behaviour.

i agree

You mean like the one not in a crowd might get a two week ban ?  ;goodvevil;

of course, there is often no firm right or wrong answer. Judgement calls are unavoidable.


m3boy, I try my heart out not to favour anyone, whichever clique/group/crowd they are in.

Mr Geezeeerrrr, the person who got a two week suspension was someone I got/get along with well, respected and was in an "in crowd". I firmly beleive, in possession of all the facts, that it was the right decision...all personal considerations aside.

The position on awarding suspensions/bans is quite simple

After any problems, the people involved are sent PM's and warnings are issued... and the individuals are reminded of the way blonde works.

any further trouble is met with a final warning, explaining that the next step is a suspension of their account.

Therefor 2 people could be involved in a flaming war or whatever, 1 would be warned because it may be his first discrepancy, the other could be suspended because he has previously had a final warning ...

This should explain why sometimes it seems that one person is being treated less favourably than the other.

Short of posting on the forum every time we have to issue someone with a warning, the majority of the mebership will be unaware of what has happened previously.

decisions on warnings/suspensions etc are NEVER taken by 1 person, we work as a collective .

At the end of the day, as has been said more than once recently, you either trust us or you dont.

Celtic Geezer - my thoughts on this were in no way an attempt to start a war concerning a recent event, but just how I see human nature. Just wanted to make that VERY clear.

I do not envy the mods in anyway shape or form!!

It's not always the truth that matters but people's perceptions. If someone thinks that there is "one rule for one and one for another" then surely this reflects badly on blonde?

Consider some people may not see the difference between blondepoker.com and www.blondepoker.com (especially seeing as the latter is automatically turned into a link by the board) and if one gets removed and the other does not then you can see how they might get that impression. Especially if they haven't been around very long and don't know the rules. I don't think this is a product of bad moderating (I think that the mods do a good job) but of (an unwriten!) rule that may be unclear to some.

Yes, it may be unclear, but when we point out the difference (in a polite civil manner) some want to argue about it.

there are no arguments here. its just a friendly debate:)

i agree with you Bongo, and I work hard to try to battle that perception

I also believe, personal view, that moderation is USUALLY best done behind the scenes, unnoticed so it doesn't interfere with the public forums.

As we have seen recently this isn't always possible but all anyone needs to do if they perceive someone is treated favourably compared to another is PM us or ask us and we'll be straight down the line with our response

Would that not be easier for you if there were some guidelines in place so people knew what they could and could not do?  ;hide;

In response to the original post, there's a world of difference between a site we all know, www. vcpoker.com, getting a bit of publicity for sponsoring a charity poker comp, a link to get an affiliate link some hits,  & a link to www. disgustingstories.com.

We make judgement calls and they're not too difficult to make or understand with a bit of thought.


In response to the clique insinuations etc, get real. One of the most recent to get a suspension, Scottish Dave is very popular with the mods/admin, most of whom enjoyed his company at BB1 & BB2. Big contrast is his mates (me included) accepted it and to his credit so did he.

there are.

they aren't however public, its our job to use them and interpret them to help ensure this is the sort of forum we all enjoy

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear - I meant public guidelines to acceptable behaviour of members.

I'm not saying it should be a huge tome of rules - it could just be a written summary of the blonde ethos and a list of things that may not be obviously covered by that.

Thinking back to the new member who posted a link to a poker related webcomic that he enjoyed. The link was removed due to the advertising banner on the site, all fair enough so fair - but how was the newbie meant to know what he was doing was against the rules?

yes point taken

Either this is untrue or you have changed policy in the last couple of hours,

this sites is like euro 2008, mods in full riot police gear, rest of us are english hooligans, and theres plastic garden chairs being flung about and a few arrests. larve it.