SPLIT TOPIC: on moderating
Mama, can you clarify the rules for behavior on here? I find the moderation to be quite random.
Comments
-
danielle123 wrote: Mama, can you clarify the rules for behavior on here? I find the moderation to be quite random.
They are at the top of every page of this site. Just click the tab on the upper right labeled "RULES."
If you'd like to discuss it more, please post on the "Ask Brooklynian" board, and let this thread get back to noise at the Montauk Club. -
Also, for danielle and others...there's a lot of discussion among mods going on behind the scenes at any given time, and warnings and/or time-outs (in more aggressive cases) given via private message that no one else sees.
So it's safe to assume that, although you may not see things happening in public in real time in the thread, there is a process behind the scenes that sometimes results in immediate results (like mod redactions or moves of extremely offending items).
Other times certain items (in all fairness) require mod discussion of the best agreed recourse, resulting in later edits to content that few go back and see when following at the evolving/latest edge of any given thread.
And in some cases, it is occasionally agreed among the mods that the best course is to let the common sense wisdom of the crowd prevail (as it often does) and not just dive in with editing and censorship.
We do try to keep this as free a forum as possible after all, within reason.
Anyhow, hope that makes the process at least somewhat more transparent for you.
Thanks for asking, it's actually a good (and frequent) question. -
Thanks, Jeffrey. I appreciate your answer. I wasn't going to bring this issue up at all, let alone, here, but then I saw Mama's post, above, about moderating.
I recently posted that I don't like a restaurant because I had bad service there:
http://www.brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=52849&highlight=
It's difficult for me to believe that Pitu is a moderator based on his posts in this thread. Among other things, he characterized me as "seeth[ing]" and "embittered" (why didn't he just call me "bitchy" or ask if I was "PMS-ing" while he was at it). I've re-read my posts and I don't see what I wrote that would have prompted him to think me "seeth[ing]" and/or "embittered". (Also, he doesn't exactly disagree that the restaurant has bad service so, again, not sure where he was coming from). I even tried to be conciliatory by saying that I was glad he liked the restaurant and his response was that I "had it out" for the place.
If there is a limit to how many times one can post on a topic, please let me know. I may have I missed that in "The Rules". -
1. Pitu is a woman.
2. As is clearly stated in the rules, if you feel you have been treated unfairly by a moderator, either in their official capacity, or just as a poster, you can contact an admin. -
^Pitu is a woman, FYI.
-
Women can be sexist towards other women, too.
-
Pitu ain't no "he".
Say what you wanna say and if your post gets edited or whatever....I don't know. Just whatever. Try not to take things on here too personal if someone pisses you off or talks shit , then take care of it.
My advice sucks , I know. -
Damn , I'm slow.
-
Em26 wrote: Pitu ain't no "he".
Say what you wanna say and if your post gets edited or whatever....I don't know. Just whatever. Try not to take things on here too personal if someone pisses you off or talks shit , then take care of it.
My advice sucks , I know.
Em
Good morning!
To be clear, Danielle's posts were not edited or removed. There is no limit over how many times someone can post about a subject, but your fellow users may get sick of it and say something.
When a mod is writing as a mod, we use the notation "Mod Note: " and usually change the color of the text. For example, in that thread, I moderated the OP.
Most of the time, mods post as members of this site. In that capacity, I made fun of Danielle for posting "they're horrible" every time a certain bar was mentioned. That's all in the thread. Danielle called me a shill, which is when I mentioned she could rest assured that I was not, since I am in fact a mod and known to many of the people here. -
Besides mama, who are the mods? I know sweettea is, but until this thread had no idea that Pitu was, is there a list somewhere?
-
Wow! Discovering that Pitu is a she totally ruined the image I had of him (errrr.. her). :oops:
-
Jamzer wrote: Wow! Discovering that Pitu is a she totally ruined the image I had of him (errrr.. her). :oops:
The first time I went to a Brooklynian gathering, all the women already assumed I was a woman, but all the guys were shocked. Who did you think I was, Jamzer? Please continue to think of me outside of gender . . . I don't know which you are either.
The site admins are Mamacita, Emily, Appollonia666, and Daily Heights
Mods are alafairnadia, BigGuy, Boygabriel, Candicissima, Carnivore, homeowner, jaha127, jeffrey, lostingreenwoodheights, pitu, steve, sweet tea, vanilla, 8thandPrez
Most of what we do is behind the scenes.
8) -
pitu wrote: [quote=Jamzer]Wow! Discovering that Pitu is a she totally ruined the image I had of him (errrr.. her). :oops:
The first time I went to a Brooklynian gathering, all the women already assumed I was a woman, but all the guys were shocked. Who did you think I was, Jamzer? Please continue to think of me outside of gender . . . I don't know which you are either.
Hi Pitu. Why did I assume you were a man? Good question! I hope I did not insult you. I think it mostly has to do with the handle Pitu. I just assumed only a man would use a name like that (sounds a little like Pit Bull????). Once I assumed you were a man, that was the image I had for you. I've learned a lesson. :oops:
Anyway - I am a (mostly liberated) man. -
in my other life when i maintained a blog, the majority of my readers assumed that i was a gay man. i never figured out why, but i found out that a friend of mine (also a girl) encountered the same thing. our writing style was similar, probably, because we were similar. it made me wonder what anyone bases those perceptions on. you could probably derive a pretty interesting sociological/psychological experiment from it.
-
danielle wrote me about this.
danielle123 wrote:
It may be true that pitu used the words "seething" and "embittered", and while that language is exagerrated for effect, I hardly think it's a personal attack. Also, it seems like this was in response to you calling her a "shill", which is not exactly friendly talk, either. Am I getting that part right?
I recently posted that I don't like a restaurant because I had bad service there:
http://www.brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=52849&highlight=
It's difficult for me to believe that Pitu is a moderator based on his posts in this thread. Among other things, he characterized me as "seeth[ing]" and "embittered" (why didn't he just call me "bitchy" or ask if I was "PMS-ing" while he was at it).
Nobody is going to win the "you started it, no you started it" game... best advice is to let it go and move on!
There's no rule against that... just like there's no rule against your fellow Brooklynians (mods or not) observing that you are posting repeatedly on the same topic.
If there is a limit to how many times one can post on a topic, please let me know. I may have I missed that in "The Rules". -
Jamzer wrote: Hi Pitu. Why did I assume you were a man? Good question! I hope I did not insult you. I think it mostly has to do with the handle Pitu. I just assumed only a man would use a name like that (sounds a little like Pit Bull????). Once I assumed you were a man, that was the image I had for you. I've learned a lesson. :oops:
I believe the name comes from the brand of Brazilian cachaça (the spirit used in a caipirinha) and has nothing to do with pit bulls.
Anyway - I am a (mostly liberated) man. -
dailyheights wrote: danielle wrote me about this.
It may be true that pitu used the words "seething" and "embittered", and while that language is exagerrated for effect, I hardly think it's a personal attack. Also, it seems like this was in response to you calling her a "shill", which is not exactly friendly talk, either. Am I getting that part right?
[quote=danielle123]
I recently posted that I don't like a restaurant because I had bad service there:
http://www.brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=52849&highlight=
It's difficult for me to believe that Pitu is a moderator based on his posts in this thread. Among other things, he characterized me as "seeth[ing]" and "embittered" (why didn't he just call me "bitchy" or ask if I was "PMS-ing" while he was at it).
Nobody is going to win the "you started it, no you started it" game... best advice is to let it go and move on!
There's no rule against that... just like there's no rule against your fellow Brooklynians (mods or not) observing that you are posting repeatedly on the same topic.
If there is a limit to how many times one can post on a topic, please let me know. I may have I missed that in "The Rules".
WOW. Excuse me?? You "hardly think", "seething" and "embittered" are personal attacks?
I didn't "start" anything. I posted about my service at Sheep Station and I got nastiness and vitriol in response. I did not ask for this type of response and actually (I guess, foolishly) thought this forum was for people to post their opinions. In fact, Mods have butted in for less than this type of ad hominen attack.
My understanding is that you are the founder of this website. The fact that you have read Pitu's response to my posts and think there is nothing wrong with them is ASTOUNDING!!
Seriously - do you really think her NASTY posts were appropriate? I emailed the admins directly (you, I suppose) and have not yet gotten a response (directly). Do you think posting here is a response to me, directly? If so you were brought up differently than I was.
Here is your #1 rule for MODs:
Rules for Moderators
1. Take the high road. Mods have to stay neutral and judicious on issues of board behavior and etiquette, and be an example for other users. It's bad form to post mean or sarcastic comments in response to another user, no matter how stupid or callous the user is being.
Pitu, acted like a nasty, immature bully. It's shocking that you think her responses were fine. -
If anyone didn't see it, here is one of Pitu's replies (and, I've printed it out in case there is an "edit" which changes the tone or language). According to Brooklynian mod rules (#1), it's inappropriate to post "mean or sarcastic" comments. I think this qualifies as "sarcastic":
"Danielle, it was ONE experience AGES ago where you report a bartender ignoring you for five minutes. You appear to bear a grudge for this vast humiliation, this egregious breach of the ettiquette, this scarring experience that denies you forevermore the possibility of enjoying a lamb sandwich on 4th Ave. You can post about it all you want, but I'm probably going to make fun of you for doing so, or at least note my own more recent experiences."
So over-the-top rude. -
Danielle - I don't always agree with the approach of all mods all the time, but as was pointed out, they are volunteers and you are here voluntarily as well. If you don't like the tone or the vibe here, nobody is making you post.
I also remember you specifically telling me to "Fuck off" in a fairly light-hearted thread, which is definitely against "the rules" (http://www.brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=52523)......so, best to start looking in the mirror and ensuring that you check yourself before calling out others. Mods are not your mommy and daddy. If you don't like the approach, speak with daily heights off-line. If you don't like the response, then just either live with it or leave. -
I did email Daily Heights off-line and I got a response on this forum (not off-line as I would have expected since I contacted DailyHeigh off-line).
If a Mod wanted to tell me that I was out-of-line for my post to you, I would have accepted that (although I would have thought I was in my right based on your posts to me. You and I can disagree about that forever and I am happy to tell you my reasons for my response to you off-line).
You can't always tell someone's "tone" online. Your tone and Pitu's tone (and my response to your tone) were cleary out-of-line. Why is it that Pitu's over-the-top posts are okay? I really cannot reconcile that with what I've seen with regard to moderating in the past or the moderating rules.
If I'm blocked form this forum, I think that will be very telling (but I have the printouts). -
BTW - putting aside your personal experience with me - did you think Pitu's posts were appropriate (please read her posts - which got increasingly rude - before responding)?
-
the rules wrote: "Moderators" are the people who make sure these boards stay fun and useful. They have their own set of rules too (see below). Keep in mind they are human, just like you. Have patience. If you really feel a mod decision merits a second opinion, please contact an admin (see above). Complaining publicly about the mods is NOT going to solve anything - the conversation will be deleted, and repeat offenders will be warned or put on timeout.
-
Carnie,
I contacted an admin OFFLINE. I was responded to ONLINE - see Daily Heights' post, above (not offline as I would have expected). Therefore, pointing out to me that I shouldn't be posting on this forum "publicly" about mod behavior is kind of hypocritical, don't you think?
I've been contacted by a regular here that her post about the moderation on this forum was deleted before it was posted. What am I - in Russia, for Pete's sake?
Words that come to mind - "class," and "integrity".
I have yet to hear from anyone (publicly) besides DailyHeights about whether Pitu was rude/sarcastic or not. I think there's a reason for that.
Danielle -
Hi.
Everything that was said in the original thread remains in that thread. Anyone who wants to can read it. In terms of tech, you'll see that edits are noted automatically in all but the final post of each thread.
Maybe (speaking as a mod now) I can clarify a few things.danielle123 wrote: I've been contacted by a regular here that her post about the moderation on this forum was deleted before it was posted.
It is not possible to delete posts before they are posted. We don't see what anyone posts until they post it. The rules linked at the top of every page explain the circumstances under which posts are moved off-site.the rules wrote: Mods have to stay neutral and judicious on issues of board behavior and etiquette, and be an example for other users. It's bad form to post mean or sarcastic comments in response to another user, no matter how stupid or callous the user is being.
The mod rule against "mean or sarcastic" specifies how mods write while acting as moderators. You will find many examples where mods use sarcasm, satire, ridicule and hyperbole like any other poster, because they are in conversation like any other poster. We also sometimes swear. The mods are all regular users of this site, and have to respect the same rules as other users.the rules wrote: If you really feel a mod decision merits a second opinion, please contact an admin. Complaining publicly about the mods is NOT going to solve anything - the conversation will be deleted, and repeat offenders will be warned or put on timeout.
You asked about this topic publicly and privately. The site owner already responded to you that the thread in question was reviewed - he gave his response, and it's over. He has the final arbitration - it's his site. You have his opinion here.dailyheights wrote:
It may be true that pitu used the words "seething" and "embittered", and while that language is exagerrated for effect, I hardly think it's a personal attack. Also, it seems like this was in response to you calling her a "shill", which is not exactly friendly talk, either. Am I getting that part right?
Nobody is going to win the "you started it, no you started it" game... best advice is to let it go and move on!
There's no rule against that... just like there's no rule against your fellow Brooklynians (mods or not) observing that you are posting repeatedly on the same topic.
If there is a limit to how many times one can post on a topic, please let me know. I may have I missed that in "The Rules". -
pitu wrote:
The mod rule against "mean or sarcastic" specifies how mods write while acting as moderators. You will find many examples where mods use sarcasm, satire, ridicule and hyperbole like any other poster, because they are in conversation like any other poster. We also sometimes swear. The mods are all regular users of this site, and have to respect the same rules as other users.
[quote=the rules]Mods have to stay neutral and judicious on issues of board behavior and etiquette, and be an example for other users. It's bad form to post mean or sarcastic comments in response to another user, no matter how stupid or callous the user is being.the rules wrote: If you really feel a mod decision merits a second opinion, please contact an admin. Complaining publicly about the mods is NOT going to solve anything - the conversation will be deleted, and repeat offenders will be warned or put on timeout.
You asked about this topic publicly and privately. The site owner already responded to you that the thread in question was reviewed - he gave his response, and it's over. He has the final arbitration - it's his site. You have his opinion here.
I brought this subject up publicly and then Carnie said that if I didn't like your posts to me that I should contact an admin OFFLINE. I emailed an admin offline and DID NOT get a response offline. Daily Heights responded ONLINE (above).
Since DailyHeights moved the discussion back ONLINE, I responded to Daily Heights online. If Daily Heights had responsed to my private email, privately, the discussion would have stayed offline.
My posts after that were in response to other people's posts on here. (See above.)
Here is one of the rules listed on Brooklynian for "regular" (non-mod) posters listed on Brooklynian which you (and everyone) are supposed to follow when posting:
"Be nice. If you can't be nice, go to a different website. "Nice" does not mean kittens and rainbows. More like, "general level of civil decorum." It's OK to argue and disagree, and in fact we encourage it, but don't stoop to personal attacks, name calling, shouting wild generalizations like "YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF GENTRIFYING YUPPIES", or other childish behavior."
I think in your previous posts to me, you went against just about every phrase listed in this rule. -
danielle123 wrote: If anyone didn't see it, here is one of Pitu's replies (and, I've printed it out in case there is an "edit" which changes the tone or language). According to Brooklynian mod rules (#1), it's inappropriate to post "mean or sarcastic" comments. I think this qualifies as "sarcastic":
You're complaining about that comment? IMO, that's on the 'milquetoast' side of the Scathing Scale.
"Danielle, it was ONE experience AGES ago where you report a bartender ignoring you for five minutes. You appear to bear a grudge for this vast humiliation, this egregious breach of the ettiquette, this scarring experience that denies you forevermore the possibility of enjoying a lamb sandwich on 4th Ave. You can post about it all you want, but I'm probably going to make fun of you for doing so, or at least note my own more recent experiences."
So over-the-top rude. -
Not the point, Whyfi. The point is that the mods should be held to a higher standard, set an example, etc. My post on Pitu's inherent nasty attitude was already deleted from this thread so I won't bother to elaborate more.
-
Anastasia Beaverhausen wrote: Not the point, Whyfi. The point is that the mods should be held to a higher standard, set an example, etc. My post on Pitu's inherent nasty attitude was already deleted from this thread so I won't bother to elaborate more.
She asked for an opinion, I gave mine.danielle123 wrote: I have yet to hear from anyone (publicly) besides DailyHeights about whether Pitu was rude/sarcastic or not. I think there's a reason for that.
-
danielle123 wrote: If I'm blocked form this forum, I think that will be very telling (but I have the printouts).
PRINTOUTS ????
:shock: -
Garfunky wrote:
Yeah, I'm a .pdf man, myself... greener, much greener.
PRINTOUTS ????
:shock:
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds