QRZ rules and moderation

Since the previous thread was closed with the following post:

It brought up the question in my mind of why there are not firm guidelines for moderators to follow. Basically what I'm reading here is that mods have free reign to do anything that they wish, with the blessing of the forum owner. IMO this isn't the best policy since it could ultimately lead to many more bright minds being forced out of participation here. Stating that insults towards ideas and comments are "fair game" regardless of the poster or his/her status doesn't seem to me to be a very sound plan if it results in less participation from people with a LOT of knowledge to give, but my opinion is of limited importance since QRZ belongs to it's owner, not me. I just thought that this reply raised more questions than it answered, so this is just my $.02 on that. What I'm getting from this post is that moderators are free to insult or attack any post as they see fit, and that there are no expectations placed on moderators in terms of behavior and tact. Am I misreading or misunderstanding something? Moderators, as I understand them from many other forums, are intended to help keep the peace and ensure that the content of the forum remains of good quality. Should they not lead by example then? Or am I way off base here..

Again, just curious if I'm understanding this. I haven't seen any guidelines as to what to expect from mods, nor have I had any problems with any of the mods. Having no behavioral requirements for mods just seems overly naive to me. Even the police have requirements that they are expected to follow in the course of performing their duties..

 

and they are also allowed "discretion" as to how they handle events.

if you (or anyone else) wants to write rules that cover EVERY POSSIBLE scenerio,..... then,.... have fun with micro-managing.

 

We are all human and we all have that seed in our craw....
Given the thousands of posts per month made here and the number of moderators required to maintain sanity here the fact such incidents that have occurred in the last forty eight to seventy two hours are as rare as they are is really remarkable.

The members of this group hold the mods to a higher standard, and that is only human. We like to think of our LEOs as being a cut above the average, but they are not they are just people like the rest of us. We have no information as to what transpired between the mods and Fred who closed the last thread on this subject. As a general rule the policies and guidelines of a group are not up for discussion by the members, that is a matter between the forum owner ahd his or her staff only. At this point the popular argument is "well the members make the group", and that is true; the members do make the forum. The reason we are all here has more to do with how the forum has been run; as apposed to me, Tom, Pat or any other single person.
The way the forum is run is what attracts members, it's what sets the guidelines for the content.

The only guidelines any of us are going to see are what is posted in each forum.
Policy and procedure for the management is generally not shared with the members, this is not unlike in the business world where management P & P (policy and procedure) are not shared with the hourly employees.

We as members have a contract with Fred.
Fred has a contract with his staff and it is really none of our business.


With that said the staff here has been remarkably consistent over the three years I have been a member of this forum.

 

@ND6M: Well, if the police forces of every city in the world have guidelines, then how is it too much to expect that there would be some sort of guidelines for forum police? The idea of covering every scenario was not mentioned by anyone that I've seen.

While the forum is solely governed by it's owner, many people here do donate so there is some support provided to QRZ by the membership. Again IMO, I would think that this support would be enough for the forum leadership to craft some guidelines for moderation so that members know what to expect rather than complete randomness which is how I understand things to be right now. Of course I could be misunderstanding or missing something.

 

I believe they do have guidelines based on;

1. The consistency in their enforcement of the rules.
2. How close some of us can approach the line between what is political and what isn't and not have our posts moderated.

Admittedly the situation you have brought up is exceptional in that a moderator was involved, for that I say keep in mind they are human like the rest of us. How Fred handles it really isn't our business. The mods are not cops in the sense of the word, we don't pay them and they don't answer to a constitution or have to adhere to Miranda rights when calling someone out. There is no due process here.


Tom and I made an appeal to have the thread Bob started opened, it was opened.
The discussion that some of us felt was cut short continued.
We even heard from the author of the article before the thread was closed by another mod.
I believe that thread had served it's intended purpose.

A new thread was started that questioned the wisdom of the decisions made by the mods, that thread was closed by the forum owner.

In my opinion that should had been the last word on the issue.

 

While I never did get an answer of what QRZ wants in forums, or pointed to guidelines, Fred did say this:

That is how I tell the difference between a personal attack, and a technical debate. If a post criticizes a person or group somehow, or addresses the motivations of a person or group, it is personal.

If a reply or statement is confined to an idea or statement, and not to the person or group itself, it is non-personal. I was always told some of us cannot tell the difference between the two, and need to be moderated so things don't go downhill. I'm trying to learn the guidelines.

Here is an allowed post in a technical forum of a typical style one member commonly makes against many people:

Here is a post by a moderator:

If we go back to what I gleaned from the other thread where Fred said:

Saying "Tom obviously felt" and "Tom could have prevented something" and Tom caused a problem "exactly because of money" in my view is not against an idea, it is against "Tom". The poster implies he knows what I felt and why I reacted as I did. All through life, I learned things like that are personal.

So now here is my puzzlement. Have I learned things incorrectly, and do I need to relearn it all?

l learned the way to tell if something is personal is if it calls a person or group names, implies or states a negative motive by a person or group, or tells a person or group they are something negative.

For example let's say Sue, looking at a blue barn, says "the barn is red". I can respond two ways:

"Sue obviously has some financial motivation to call the barn red."

"Sue was wrong, the barn is actually blue."

One is personal, one is technical.

To me, unless I have not learned the difference between personal and technical, we can disagree til the cows come home and it is not personal. The moment I start telling people what motivates people, what flaws they personally have, or using names, it is personal.

What have I missed?

73 Tom

 

Tom;
I don't think that is up for debate among the management anymore.
If you read what Patrick posted at the end of the reopened thread and what Fred said, the issue is settled.

The fact that Fred stepped in and said what he did in my mind puts this issue to rest.
I've had an experience three years ago where Fred stepped in, the problem was solved and everyone moved on.

Remember that commercial about the investment company....
"When E. F. Hutton talks, people listen"
Fred is the last word.
We can and should expect everyone to play nicely from here on out.

 

I agree with you Tom, which is actually why i started this thread. I'm interested in the same clarification you are. I get that this isn't a democracy, as I've said before, but the forum owner making a statement that seems to allow mods free reign to do whatever they wish and attack/insult whichever posts they want to seems a bit haphazard IMO.

@Sue: If no one asks for clarification, or if no one voices their feelings, nothing will happen. No clarification, no better understanding of how the QRZ system works, nothing. It did seem to me that there was a personal tinge to the posts from the moderator in question. Hence my joining the ranks in asking (politely) for clarification. I don't think that I'm out of line in doing so, and if members are not allowed to question the leadership I think that QRZ has very serious issues that should be dealt with. IMO of course.

 

and let me expand a little bit....

I stopped posting here not because of what someone said to me. I may complain about something personal to me, but that won't make me leave.

I stopped coming here because one fellow that has free reign to insult everyone got on a brand new Ham's back, calling him stupid or some other name, and no one except me bothered saying anything. That fellow is proud of his "free speech", even if it extends to calling new people who make mistakes names. My opinion was this was no way to treat any person who makes a mistake, let alone a new Ham.


73 Tom

 

I missed the post or I would had said something.

 

I certainly don't they need to be held to higher standard.

I think they represent the forum, and should follow the same standards expected from everyone else to set the proper tone.

I don't think anybody should call others names, say what they think motivates others, or make fun of anybody no matter who they are.

 

Pat;
I totally agree with you; what I see is what I see and what you see is what you see.....
Clarification is certainly a valid request.

We all what transpired and I guess the difference lies in how each of us feel it was resolved.

I certainly can't tell anybody what to think or feel but to me the issue has been resolved.

I've read a lot here well before I joined, I've posted a lot here and that includes 5100 posts that went into the ether when the Political Junkies forum was deleted. In my mind this issue is settled but I hope you get the clarification you need. There are worse places to post and exchange ideas with people, I know I have been there.

 

I agree with everything except for the standards mods are held to; you usually want them to present their best side, they are the side of management the members see most often.
Here they usually do live up to that, but we are all human, we all make mistakes.