Timeline for Abrupt change in moderation staff?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 11, 2015 at 1:03 | comment | added | James | @BigHomie I actually cannot remember in the mix of actions tonight. I have been here a fair bit before, lurking - "member for 4 months". It was possibly one of the chat rooms. | |
| Apr 11, 2015 at 0:57 | comment | added | MDMoore313 | James, can I ask how you found out about this? It doesn't appear you've been here before, I'm glad you're here fwiw, just curious. | |
| Apr 11, 2015 at 0:48 | comment | added | James | I did read a fair bit, before posting an answer TBH. Will have a deeper poke. There are two sides of the story, and a lot of fluff and turds in between. :) | |
| Apr 11, 2015 at 0:43 | comment | added | MDMoore313 | Take an hour and read through, it's quite a read ;) Seriously though, no one but them knows what happened last night, but n00b eventually replied privately (and also posted his answer above), I can't type the rest cuz it's too long :) | |
| Apr 11, 2015 at 0:41 | comment | added | MDMoore313 | I understand. It seems from @Shog9's comments on his own answer above that he thought n00b might have been using grep'ing the site and autoclosing based on the appearance of the name of some web panels, which may or may not be true. Looking at his screen shot I don't see that, there were only a few questions that were within a minute of each other, and I can certainly read questions as fast as they were closed up there, there were no more than 2 questions closed per minute in his screenshot, certainly doable if you ask me. | |
| Apr 11, 2015 at 0:41 | comment | added | James | @BigHomie "I feel that if someone is going to oversee something they should take a minute to actually be involved in that thing" If this is the case then I have sympathy. Although it's not always simple to resolve such things. Also, from what info I have, n00b was asked what was going on. Was there actually an answer given, or was there a silence out of protest/frustration from even being asked it? I'm not speculating, just stating I (we) maybe don't really know the full story. | |
| Apr 11, 2015 at 0:33 | comment | added | James | @BigHomie Fair points."so to assume the worst of a person who was voted in by the community" that was the point of my answer really, I don't think that's necessarily the case, more just protocol and requirement. Although I see your point with the additional info. that's something which sounds like it definitely needs sorting out - tho I only have info from one side :) | |
| Apr 11, 2015 at 0:11 | comment | added | MDMoore313 | Finally, understand that this was nothing new for a portion of the core community. We are trying to restore SF to what it was, n00b helped a great deal with that, we didn't care how he closed questions, we knew he was closing them, we trusted they were off topic, and if 1 or 2 got caught in the crosshairs that's what a flag for reopen or meta is for. If the OP of the question didn't take that step, then why should we go making a thing out of it? rhetorical question. | |
| Apr 11, 2015 at 0:11 | comment | added | MDMoore313 | If they noticed and did nothing, it's a silent approval, and their actions should be called into question as well. In addition, this meta thing is a two way street. Yes, n00b could have posted an additional meta post to say he was explicitly closing webpanel questions. Nothing stops anyone from posting to meta to find out why their question was closed, or to find out if we have a rogue mod on the loose. I think the latter would have gathered the community's opinion on how it felt about the mass cleanup that was taking place. | |
| Apr 11, 2015 at 0:11 | comment | added | MDMoore313 | I feel that if someone is going to oversee something they should take a minute to actually be involved in that thing, if they are not going to trust the opinion of the people that oversee that thing from day to day. Also, it does not appear that anyone complained (at least from the core community) outside of the people who's questions were closed. I could be wrong about that, but if there was anyone who complained, I haven't read it in this meta post. n00b stated he has been doing this for 2 months, so either no other mods noticed, no other mods cared, or both. | |
| Apr 11, 2015 at 0:10 | comment | added | MDMoore313 | Next, there is the disconnect between the CMs and SF in general, not all but a good portion of them are not active in the chat or on main, so some of us feel that they wouldn't know how we want things done in the community. The fact that they swoop in when there is the threat of a rogue mod is fine, however they have a pretty good consensus here from the people who actually use and frequent the site that we requested this, so to assume the worst of a person who was voted in by the community who has interacted with the person before they were a mod is kind of insulting, at least to me. | |
| Apr 11, 2015 at 0:10 | comment | added | MDMoore313 | It's a little deeper than that James. The problem is/was the fact that the community attempted to inform the CMs that we in fact requested these moves by n00b, both implicitly when we elected him as mod, and explicitly when he told us what he was doing in various chat rooms and meta posts. | |
| Apr 11, 2015 at 0:04 | comment | added | Andrew B | No problem with a temporary suspension while facts are worked out. Plenty of problem with statements of malicious intent that are presented as facts. The only conclusions I can reach are one of the following: 1) no one is going to substantiate the statements of implied intent until a later date, 2) those who aren't grasping it are being perceived as dense and not worth spending the time on during the flurry of comment spam, 3) those who aren't grasping it are being perceived as cronies. | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 23:43 | history | answered | James | CC BY-SA 3.0 |