Tweet
I've always heeded your opinion, Lee, but on this occasion and for clarification, I'll need to quote from the FAQs again:
"What are administrators?
Administrators are the people who have overall control of everything that happens on the board. They oversee how the board is styled, what forums to create and how to organize them, what information to require from members and who to appoint as moderators."
Nothing in there changes my view that forums are NOT democracies. Consensus is, therefore, irrelevant - there are rules - end of story - no discussion needed or required. I can obey rules and I certainly don't need or appreciate any other spin on them as I believe this topic was intended to provide.
I'm not trying to be either confrontational or obtuse here, but where something is brought up in this way which - given the above - I can only view as unnecessary, then it could also be viewed as attention-seeking.
As I've already said, I believe that a forum is not a democracy and should not, therefore, be run by consensus. If it were, then I would have been challenging many previous Mod and Admin "decisions" in the past. I haven't, because I can stick to rules, whether I totally agree with them, or not.
That's the entire point of what I'm saying - if a post-holder can't administer the established rules without seeking public consensus approval, the job's probably not for them, IMO.
Changes to forum rules are a matter for the owner and staff in private, not dealt with in a public, off-the-cuff, free-for-all amongst the membership. I've seen several similar voluntarily-staffed organisations go astray and under because of this type of gratuitous "fiddling about" and this thread has rung a warning bell for me. Hopefully, however, my long-standing, ingrained cynicism means that I'm the only one to hold such a view.
Ray
"What are administrators?
Administrators are the people who have overall control of everything that happens on the board. They oversee how the board is styled, what forums to create and how to organize them, what information to require from members and who to appoint as moderators."
Nothing in there changes my view that forums are NOT democracies. Consensus is, therefore, irrelevant - there are rules - end of story - no discussion needed or required. I can obey rules and I certainly don't need or appreciate any other spin on them as I believe this topic was intended to provide.
I'm not trying to be either confrontational or obtuse here, but where something is brought up in this way which - given the above - I can only view as unnecessary, then it could also be viewed as attention-seeking.
As I've already said, I believe that a forum is not a democracy and should not, therefore, be run by consensus. If it were, then I would have been challenging many previous Mod and Admin "decisions" in the past. I haven't, because I can stick to rules, whether I totally agree with them, or not.
That's the entire point of what I'm saying - if a post-holder can't administer the established rules without seeking public consensus approval, the job's probably not for them, IMO.
Changes to forum rules are a matter for the owner and staff in private, not dealt with in a public, off-the-cuff, free-for-all amongst the membership. I've seen several similar voluntarily-staffed organisations go astray and under because of this type of gratuitous "fiddling about" and this thread has rung a warning bell for me. Hopefully, however, my long-standing, ingrained cynicism means that I'm the only one to hold such a view.
Ray
That is why I posted his title. It's up to him to get a consensus or not depending on the situation or issue. Some governing functions are not up for debate. Others can be. The ultimate decision of course, rests with the Admins. I am certain they take the results of such debate or discussions into account.
This particular issue had repercussions for Members in the long run and IMO had every right to be debated amongst us all.
As Mods or Admin's, it is impossible to please everyone every instance. I personally and I feel the others as well, try to find a middle ground on most issues. Interpretation of statements and deciphering intent of a poster is part of a Mods job. With almost every issue though, there are at least two sides or points of view. In between, there is a lot of area for consideration. If one issue is clearly toward one side or another, that narrows the scope of a decision a Mod may have to make. The closer a post gets to breaking a rule or being taboo, the easier the job becomes. The decisions made will obviously sit wrong with some. Nature of the beast.
Essentially, I try to remember the rules, read what was posted, take past events into account, discuss between mods, then a decision will come about. This is generally how decisions involving everyday posts come about here.
Blatant issues need little in the way of discussion and are hopefully dealt with swiftly, but sometimes either left undone or unseen by Mods. Members alerting us helps out for sure, but regardless the system can never be perfect and will always need to be monitored. A little understanding and tolerance can go along way to providing a better atmosphere for us all. Thanks.
Comment