StarGateWars Forums

Consider this the Ombudsman thread of the Galactic Colosseum.

Next time a mod decides to issue a warning for a post, issue the warning when the post is removed, not 3 days later.

Tetrismonkey wrote:Next time a mod decides to issue a warning for a post, issue the warning when the post is removed, not 3 days later.

I've instructed my mods to remove the content first, to prevent the continuation of spam or the existence of a rule-violating post, and then to issue the warning.

In the case which you mention, the mod was sidetracked by RL after moving the posts and issued the warning when they were next available. While that is certainly not optimum, the importance is that the offending posts were removed from the public eye; so long as the post(s) which you were warned for were 3 days old rather than 3 months, I see no real problem here.

~Psyko

Psyko wrote:

Tetrismonkey wrote:Next time a mod decides to issue a warning for a post, issue the warning when the post is removed, not 3 days later.

I've instructed my mods to remove the content first, to prevent the continuation of spam or the existence of a rule-violating post, and then to issue the warning.

In the case which you mention, the mod was sidetracked by RL after moving the posts and issued the warning when they were next available. While that is certainly not optimum, the importance is that the offending posts were removed from the public eye; so long as the post(s) which you were warned for were 3 days old rather than 3 months, I see no real problem here.

~Psyko

I disagree. If you do NOT have the time to do the job right, instruct or find someone who can. To allow a post to sit for 3 days and then issue a warning on it is absurd and an insult to injury. I won't contest that what I was posted wasn't a warn able offense, but FFS, don't half ass the work. If you can't staff full time employees to handle such simple work, then perhaps a clean house and a nice motivational speech is in order. I would have had my ass chewed by my Section Head and an Admin for allowing a post to lapse for 3 days and then issue a warning.

/End Rant

Tetrismonkey wrote:

Psyko wrote:

Tetrismonkey wrote:Next time a mod decides to issue a warning for a post, issue the warning when the post is removed, not 3 days later.

I've instructed my mods to remove the content first, to prevent the continuation of spam or the existence of a rule-violating post, and then to issue the warning.

In the case which you mention, the mod was sidetracked by RL after moving the posts and issued the warning when they were next available. While that is certainly not optimum, the importance is that the offending posts were removed from the public eye; so long as the post(s) which you were warned for were 3 days old rather than 3 months, I see no real problem here.

~Psyko

I disagree. If you do NOT have the time to do the job right, instruct or find someone who can. To allow a post to sit for 3 days and then issue a warning on it is absurd and an insult to injury. I won't contest that what I was posted wasn't a warn able offense, but FFS, don't half ass the work. If you can't staff full time employees to handle such simple work, then perhaps a clean house and a nice motivational speech is in order. I would have had my ass chewed by my Section Head and an Admin for allowing a post to lapse for 3 days and then issue a warning.

/End Rant

What I say to my mods about their individual behavior is not public knowledge, nor should it be. I contacted the Mod in question and handled the issue. That is all you need to know; I'm not going to publicly flog or shame someone for a mistake they may or may not have made just so your outrage can feel validated.

You also know full-well that this is a voluntary position held by people who do not get paid for their time, effort, or work, because we all have lives outside of this forum and the internet. So, aside from the few unemployed hermits who've nothing better to do, we cannot actually staff "full time employees" for such simple work which you know damn well takes longer than most would assume.

The only difference between your posts and those for which others are warned is that your posts were moved by a mod immediately with action taken a few days later, which is far better than letting your post sit for 3 days in a public space before a Mod even noticed it and to have multiple people respond to the comments you made at the time, thus creating more work and allowing for spam/flaming which could have otherwise been avoided.

Point is. A mistake was made. I handled it internally. The outcome was the same. The delay made zero difference on how the matter was handled.

You're making this a bigger deal than it actually is.

~Psyko

Psyko wrote:

Tetrismonkey wrote:

Psyko wrote:

Tetrismonkey wrote:Next time a mod decides to issue a warning for a post, issue the warning when the post is removed, not 3 days later.

I've instructed my mods to remove the content first, to prevent the continuation of spam or the existence of a rule-violating post, and then to issue the warning.

In the case which you mention, the mod was sidetracked by RL after moving the posts and issued the warning when they were next available. While that is certainly not optimum, the importance is that the offending posts were removed from the public eye; so long as the post(s) which you were warned for were 3 days old rather than 3 months, I see no real problem here.

~Psyko

I disagree. If you do NOT have the time to do the job right, instruct or find someone who can. To allow a post to sit for 3 days and then issue a warning on it is absurd and an insult to injury. I won't contest that what I was posted wasn't a warn able offense, but FFS, don't half ass the work. If you can't staff full time employees to handle such simple work, then perhaps a clean house and a nice motivational speech is in order. I would have had my ass chewed by my Section Head and an Admin for allowing a post to lapse for 3 days and then issue a warning.

/End Rant

What I say to my mods about their individual behavior is not public knowledge, nor should it be. I contacted the Mod in question and handled the issue. That is all you need to know; I'm not going to publicly flog or shame someone for a mistake they may or may not have made just so your outrage can feel validated.

You also know full-well that this is a voluntary position held by people who do not get paid for their time, effort, or work, because we all have lives outside of this forum and the internet. So, aside from the few unemployed hermits who've nothing better to do, we cannot actually staff "full time employees" for such simple work which you know damn well takes longer than most would assume.

The only difference between your posts and those for which others are warned is that your posts were moved by a mod immediately with action taken a few days later, which is far better than letting your post sit for 3 days in a public space before a Mod even noticed it and to have multiple people respond to the comments you made at the time, thus creating more work and allowing for spam/flaming which could have otherwise been avoided.

Point is. A mistake was made. I handled it internally. The outcome was the same. The delay made zero difference on how the matter was handled.

You're making this a bigger deal than it actually is.

~Psyko

Whether this is a big deal or not, it was something that needed to be addressed and responded to. I understand that the job of a Forum Moderator is voluntary, however, when you apply and join, it is a commitment. If you cannot honor that then you have no place moderating. If someone is going to be gone for a few days or just busy, they are suppose to post about it so that way they can be covered.

Tetrismonkey wrote:

Psyko wrote:

Tetrismonkey wrote:

Psyko wrote:

Tetrismonkey wrote:Next time a mod decides to issue a warning for a post, issue the warning when the post is removed, not 3 days later.

I've instructed my mods to remove the content first, to prevent the continuation of spam or the existence of a rule-violating post, and then to issue the warning.

In the case which you mention, the mod was sidetracked by RL after moving the posts and issued the warning when they were next available. While that is certainly not optimum, the importance is that the offending posts were removed from the public eye; so long as the post(s) which you were warned for were 3 days old rather than 3 months, I see no real problem here.

~Psyko

I disagree. If you do NOT have the time to do the job right, instruct or find someone who can. To allow a post to sit for 3 days and then issue a warning on it is absurd and an insult to injury. I won't contest that what I was posted wasn't a warn able offense, but FFS, don't half ass the work. If you can't staff full time employees to handle such simple work, then perhaps a clean house and a nice motivational speech is in order. I would have had my ass chewed by my Section Head and an Admin for allowing a post to lapse for 3 days and then issue a warning.

/End Rant

What I say to my mods about their individual behavior is not public knowledge, nor should it be. I contacted the Mod in question and handled the issue. That is all you need to know; I'm not going to publicly flog or shame someone for a mistake they may or may not have made just so your outrage can feel validated.

You also know full-well that this is a voluntary position held by people who do not get paid for their time, effort, or work, because we all have lives outside of this forum and the internet. So, aside from the few unemployed hermits who've nothing better to do, we cannot actually staff "full time employees" for such simple work which you know damn well takes longer than most would assume.

The only difference between your posts and those for which others are warned is that your posts were moved by a mod immediately with action taken a few days later, which is far better than letting your post sit for 3 days in a public space before a Mod even noticed it and to have multiple people respond to the comments you made at the time, thus creating more work and allowing for spam/flaming which could have otherwise been avoided.

Point is. A mistake was made. I handled it internally. The outcome was the same. The delay made zero difference on how the matter was handled.

You're making this a bigger deal than it actually is.

~Psyko

Whether this is a big deal or not, it was something that needed to be addressed and responded to. I understand that the job of a Forum Moderator is voluntary, however, when you apply and join, it is a commitment. If you cannot honor that then you have no place moderating. If someone is going to be gone for a few days or just busy, they are suppose to post about it so that way they can be covered.

As stated, I handled the issue in question.

~Psyko