Locked Threads.

[johndibben]

No Alan, you can't call moderator's 'brown nosers', suggest the site is run differently, bring up an issue which concerned Jon Champ, who's well respected, and Richard, who is young and mention a moderator's action, cause a debate and then say you consider the matter closed.

You'd really do well as a moderator if you took the same approach.

For the record, the situation was resolved between those involved. Posting again would bring the issue to the fore. That would be an irresponsible thing to do.

The matter behind us, I made a joke of it only last night in a bit of banter. had I thought it was still an issue, I would hardly do that.

I've expained why the moderation is heavy and in case anyone isn't aware, the site was hacked, threads removed on a commercial forum, trouble attempted by opening the Moderator's Forum.

Clearly an attack on a commercial group and UKTS itself. Add to this 18 new users in one day which when checked, most accounts were duplicated and closed.

Now given all that and other matters which would benefit only the trouble-makers by posting them on the public forums and you have every reason for heavy moderation.

I would expect no other if I was a loyal member.

It's clear this thread would raise issues and it has.

To then say the matter is closed, leaving a potential row is not assisting the site.

Imagine a moderator had done the same thing. There'd be uproar.

This thread has served no purpose other than to rekindle old flames at a time which it is only going to benefit those who are attempting to wreck a commercial group and the site.

[duckweed]

Alan, without moderators all members would be involved without restraint and we've all seen where that leads. Post after post after post in any thread that is controvercial. The site is a much better place since Matt reviewed the moderation process, and I suspect if he hadn't stepped in when he did we may no longer have had this place to discuss our interest in railways and the computer aspects of them.

Regards,

~Terry~

[johndibben]

The thing is, Terry, Alan does want moderator's.

He wants them elected by usernames.

We all know people of people who have many usernames.

It would only take one moderator elected to rip through the site and destroy it. That's not being melodramitic, that could happen. That's what's being advocated.

[RedTez]

Hi ALL

Jon does not think an apology is forthcoming, or really necessary but he is satisfied with the action that Matt has taken: phat2003 is banned from uploading further content to the UKTS file library.

What a sad scenario and a sad outcome. I actually feel sorry for phat2003 in this matter, as in his attempt to bring forth to the community the best models he possibly can, he over stepped the mark and hurt deeply the model maker. I am sad they couldn't/didn't sort it out between themselves and that what might have been healthy competetiveness progressed into untolerable rivalry and the distruction of a working relationship. I wish they both could have been a little bit more charitable with their dealings with each other and come to an ammicable agreement.

Champy should have demanded phat2003 did 5 more repaints before allowing the offending item to be uploaded, well we get more great models and with any luck, the repainter is slowed down to the pace of the model maker, the 2 versions of the same repaint could then have been posted with a time delay between. Phat2003 might also have then seen that the effort to make a repaint the same as one thats been done was a waste of his valuable time and effort.

Sorry if i am oppening up the dreaded closed topic but as already stated - i feel very much for both of them. I also conclude that democracy or any other intervening would not have helped in this situation, as the only people who can resolve it is the two peeps involved, albeit with the help of the sites fantastic moderators. Taking the thread into the private area of the moderator's forums was the best thing they could have done. If the best outcome was not achieved it will be because the 2 parties involved cannot reconcile their positions, a public debate on the matter would not help, but in fact i think it would seriously compound their problems.

Never understood why we champion the beast that is democracy as the solution to the worlds problems, when most of the time, democracy has been the system that has failed us all the most. Democracy brought to the world the disastrous world wars of the last century, the flip flopping of each of the proceeding government's policy has brought our own economy to its knees on more than 1 occasion. The trade unions played it's part in the disastrous 80's causing them to have to be almost straight jacketed by the goverment in charge to prevent the complete destruction of the very fabric of society. All done with a concensus of the vote of it's particular members. Only my opinion but i for one dont trust the unions to either represent me or protect me, back handers and inner dealings just some of the memories flooding back to me.

I conclude the moderators did the best in an awful situation. I hope with time both phat2003 and champy can put this aside and realise we all are on the same side, striving to do the same things with a common goal and as such have a lot in common thus making us all 'comrades'. Lol

Best Regards ALL

PS SHOOT Me NOW - I'm Dun

[dkightley]

Gentlemen.

Does someone have a secret agenda to annoy as many people as they can?? If so, it look as though they're suceeding!! Or even worse....is someone trying to kill this forum off. Again, if so, are they starting to achieve their aim??


Could I ask everyone to stop being aggressive towards each other. We're supposed to be a community of users interested in train simulation. Let's get on with what the forum was set up by Matt to do.

Thank you.

[NeutronIC]

Hi Folks,

Just to add my tuppence to the matter.

Moderators are chosen by me, possibly recommended by other moderators but ultimately they are chosen by me. They are chosen because they are people that I've grown to trust the opinions of, that isn't to say they are the only people who I trust the opinions of but I did post a request some time ago for moderators and I chose these out of those that kindly offered their time.

Without the moderators, it'd just be me doing the moderation and it was proven quite clearly that I am not up to the job (not sure any *one* person ever would be). I can get wrapped up in things just like anyone else and it's the best for everyone to have a number of different views, and trust me, we all do have a slightly different take on a situation. We bounce the ideas off each other and come up with a way forwards.

When a topic is locked while we discuss what is best to do, it's because we don't want it going any further until we have had a chance to nip something in the bud or make sure all moderators are aware to watch the topic. If it doesn't get unlocked it could well be that whatever was going on was simply resolved through other means, it could be that it simply got forgotten - there's a new issue or ten to deal with every day on this site - or that we decided to leave it locked and to add a further post would simply bring the topic back to the fore again.

People are of course more than welcome to post a PM to myself (politely) requesting an update on a particular issue and I will do my best to get a response to you to let you know what's happening.

I am exceedingly grateful to the moderating team for their help.

Why isn't there a voting process for moderators?

Warning: You've just got me on my soap box about politics...

Frankly I think the current system of democracy is completely worthless! It's a popularity contest! The people that get voted in are the ones that make the best claims and perhaps look the best or whatever. The people that end up getting the job are NOT necessarily the best people to DO the job.

I don't care if the moderators are popular, it makes no odds to me. I have selected the moderators from their offers of assistance to reach a broader spectrum of views and interests. To pick one example, as John Dibben says, he's first and foremost a Trainz'er these days and I think everyone knows that he and I have had our "moments" in the past - the reason he is a moderator is because I value his different view point. There's no value in the moderating team all thinking the same, that offers no real benefit over just me doing it.

My aim is not for a popular moderating team, my aim is for a functional and working one - and I think we've got that, and got it in spades.

There's no "brown nosing" going on - moderators have (and are encouraged) to tell me when I have (or anyone else has) got something wrong. Again, brown-nosers wouldn't do the site any good, I wanted a strong group who would think of the best for the site first and everything else second.

As far as locking plenty of topics and the claim of heavy handed moderation - locked topics are discussed in the moderating forum, there's very little knee-jerk reaction going on. The sad fact is that we have learned to spot a growing number of signs of a dispute that is not likely to be resolved. People are very inflexible in their views and once we feel that the points have been made we lock it, previously when I've let these things run they have got out of control and everyone's walked away feeling bruised, insulted and wronged.

Everyone wants to have that last comment - "he said some things and I have the right to reply to them", but then the other people say the same thing and there is NEVER a last comment.

This site isn't a democracy, but it's not a dictatorship either. My aim is for everyone to enjoy their time here, and not for that enjoyment to be at the detriment of anyone elses.

For those that like the system, i'm glad. For those that don't, learn to like it.

Matt.

[boeing126]

Matt the thing is that the moderators system has i feel brought a "them and us situation" to the forums and i cited last weeks locked thread and subsequent message as an example.I do not know either of the parties involved in last weeks spat so therefore have no axe to grind in that direction.
I think it was a lot better when you had the sole right to pull a thread or issue a ban,Its your site.After all who gets all the stick when for whatever reason the site goes down,Its you not the moderators.I was not going to keep this issue going but from what i read John seems to think its wrong of me just to walk away.Maybe John would like to "lock the thread while mods discuss the best course of action to resolve this issue"
P.S regardless of whatever definitely my last post on the matter.

[250787]

If we had no moderators or just Matt then the forums would quickly fall apart. It is impossible to moderate the forum with just one person. Although at time it may seem them and us but the moderators do a good job.

Cheers

[jimmyladd]

I don't envy the moderators for one minute. Trying to keep these forums under control has not been easy for the last few months, there seem to be a growing tension between members for some reason thats not obvious to me. Cetainly that "atmosphere" has changed a great deal since I joint 11 months ago. I think on the whole the moderator team to a good job, some you hear very little of, others are allways in the thick of it. It appears that some of them are very heavy handed, I must admit at times feeling that they are abusing there power, but if you take a step back, and look, they are only trying to keep the lid on things. Various members have been very aggresive towards each other of late, and I'm sure that if a moderator has spent several days chasing them arround stamping on fires there going to get a little short tempered. Unfortunatly this has spilled over to been a little short with newbies who have posted something a little silly, but we have all got to remember that it takes a while to learn how to use these forums and not post daft questions. We must be as helpfull as possiable to them because they are the future of this site. Without them there is no future.
Jim

[250787]

Unfortunatly this has spilled over to been a little short with newbies who have posted something a little silly

I would agree with that. If we encourage new members then more content may be produced although being stern will encourage them to find out things by themselves by reading previous topics.

Cheers

[jimmyladd]

Unfortunatly this has spilled over to been a little short with newbies who have posted something a little silly

I would agree with that. If we encourage new members then more content may be produced although being stern will encourage them to find out things by themselves by reading previous topics.

Cheers

or drive them away with a grudge......

[lolaholic]

As Matt has said, all moderators, were chosen, by him, from the requests he received.

On a personal note, everything I do, with regards to moderation, I ask the opinion of the other moderation staff, OR, if no moderators are online, I go directly to Matt.

The moderating team is staffed by a broad collection of people, from all over the world. Different opinions, views, experiences on these very forums, and styles of moderating, all form the moderating team we have at the moment.

I share no interest in trains, or anything to do with the hobby, and I'll fully admit that, as I have done, on many occasions before. I first posted here as a DearDiary user, and i'm now, more than likely, the last DearDiary user left posting.

The main reason I still post is simple. I don't want to see something Matt has spent, time, effort, and money, pulled apart, by a small minority of members, that, supposedly, share the hobby every single one of you joined UKTS to participate in..

To let this happen, would be a small disaster for your hobby. Sure, you can download files from other sites.

Ok, so now ask yourselves this.

Why do people interested in MSTS join UKTS, before joining other sites?

It's not for the forums, Atomic Album, or Atomic Mail.

It's for the vast collection of UK specific downloads, created, for the benefit of the UK community. I'm not aware of a collection of UK specific downloads, as large as this, elsewhere on the internet, and i'm not even involved in the hobby.

People also come here for the help and support offered on the forums. If these forums did not exist, where would people be able to ask for help?

I was part of the original moderating team, which looked after Open Forum (Chatter as it was formerly known), which was a fairly easy job. Matt took care of the rest of the forums.

We volunteered to keep an eye in Site Admin as well, primarily, to give Matt a hand.

At this time, arguments were popping up all over the forums, between respected members of the community.

For Matt to moderate the other sections, and keep everything else running like clockwork, was simply unreasonable.

I can perfectly understand why Matt asked for more help with moderation.

If things hadn't improved, the UKTS forums, would, have been removed, and along with it, all the help provided by members since the forums started, which, would harm UKTS, more than it'd harm you.

Ok, a large percentage of users signed upto UKTS, will never entertain the idea of the forums, which is fair enough.

But for the percentage that do, with new users making the decision to visit the forums everyday, moderation helps to keep the beating heart of the forums alive, for every single one of you.

I totally support Matt's decision to use moderators.

In my opinion. the same community spirit is present now, with moderation, as was present 2 years ago.

What people seem to forget is that the moderting team, were regular members, just like everybody else, before offering time to Matt, to moderate.

What makes us different, is the small image that appears under our avatars, and the permission, given by Matt, to take action, when needed.

There is no head moderator, we all hold the same status, and communicate with each other, to reach a solution.

Moderating, definately is not a popularity issue, between ourselves, or the community. I don't moderate, with intent to agravate members, or incense them in anyway. I moderate to keep the forums void of arguments, for the benefit of every member, not just myself.

We are not paid. We receive no special treatment from Matt, just his thanks and gratitude. We don't ask for special treatment from the community. The only thing we ask, is that you allow us, to do what we're here to do. To carry on keeping the UKTS forums, a pleasant place for the MSTS community.

Love it or hate it, Moderation, will be here, as long as UKTS exists.

[markw]

As an ex Union rep and ex Moderator I feel I should add something here.

I can understand where Alan is coming from but I think he perhaps misinterprets the "Moderator's Arms" private forum.

Alan, I don't know how you did things in (sorry, memory span of a Goldfish - was it Aslef or the NUR?) but when I was a Unison shop steward there were frequent discussions about disciplinaries, and other member issues at the Branch Executive, so as the other stewards knew what was going on, and could be aware of any issues that may impact on their area. But the Branch Exec was completely private, and rightly so, and such discussions were priviledged. I see the Moderation forum as a Branch Exec where issues can be discussed. It's actually very positive - when I was a moderator one of my worries was I sometimes would have what some would call a "politically correct" but what is actually respectful of others attitude, and might react to something which others wouldn't find so bad. Discussing it in private, rather than just deleting, was a way of getting a second opinion from a wide range of ages and backgrounds, and the current moderation team are a broad church from teen to old fart, which would either agree, or sometimes disagree. In the latter case, the thread could be reopened with perhaps a general warning - better than the chop in the long run.

As for moderator elections, we don't know enough about each other to run elections even if they were practical. Leaving aside the multiple idents which could easily rig votes (and imagine how easy it would be for the previous "hacker" to cause trouble with the Moderator's extra commands having got elected by himself, his multiple idents and his friend and his multiple idents) if you are comparing the moderation with the activites of say a Union rep, on the whole the rep will be known to their workmates and trusted. (And as an aside, again I can't speak for the railway Unions but in Unison I was invited to stand as no-one would volunteer and was elected unopposed. In fact only one steward had to fight a contested election - and because we had an officer vacancy we ended up inviting the defeated member to stand for election to the officer role. In our branch it was less a case of democracy (although we were all voted in at the end of the day, even if unopposed, someone could have stood) and more a case of "Thank Christ someone has come forward". When I left to take up another job, it took two months to find someone willing to take on the role. Apathy, yes, but no different in the final analysis to volunteering to be a moderator) Holding elections for a moderator, when we don't know them face to face, albeit the role is less "priest" like than a Union rep, would not be something that could work easily, in my opinion.

All the moderators are volunteers, and whilst I have myself - privately - expressed concerns that post the "hack" things seem to have become lock first, think later, at even the slightest whiff of a spark, let alone a flame, I can understand why it is so, and I personally, with one or two exceptions, don't really have a problem. Ultimately it's not the moderators fault the arguments broke out, it's mouthy argumentative gobsh***s who post first andd think, if they do, later.

Like me on occasions, we've many of us been there.

Finally to the 'erbert who was sneering about trades unions and democracy. Just start thinking for yourself, find out the truth before you speak and stop spouting Daily Mail . based on the seventies. UK Unions are now amongst the most democratic institutions anywhere, having to have member ballots on just about everything, and if they don't, they can be taken to court and have their assets taken from them. All strikes, to be legal, have to be balloted amongst the membership, all leaders, and officers have to be elected, and there have to be periodic membership ballots on political activities and funds. Not even the Tory party, that "bastion of free speech and democracy" has a full membership-only ballot for their leader. All Unions must in law.

[ash888]

I hope i am not too late to add my views. But to be very truthful i like the idea of what Matthew Peddlesden (NeutronIC) has done for these forums by recruiting extra moderators. Firstly at that time - These forums needed the extra moderators because of the troublemakers and pretty harsh topics being made about things by those that were here do nothing more than just cause trouble and flame every user that they personally didn't like. The extra monitoring and recruiting the extra moderators were needed at the time. And believe me i did see some harsh posts in the past on here - i would say the word hostile would be more appropiate than harsh. Secondly, about the locked topics - some people think that the mods just lock up the topics just for the sake of it because they don't like the person's opinion or their views or they don't like them personally - its not at all like that. Everybody on this earth has a right to say their views either in real life or the forums like this one . But there is a right way and a wrong way of doing this. Flaming and swearing at a user in public on the forums is not the correct way to do it. It just causes grudges and enemys . The correct way is to word your views without the need to be malicious or use hostile flaming . I support the moderators here and i think they are professional people and do their job very well - even though i am not a mod myself on this particular forum but i do own and moderate some yahoo groups so i know roughly what moderators do and what is all about and its to keep the forums running smooth and generally trouble-free . I have had troublemakers on my group in the past and generally i either moderate their posts before allowing them to go "live" on the group. If their posts are aiming to hurt another member - then i (or one of my moderators) delete their message and keep them on moderation until they post appropiate messages - not insults etc. But some of the users in my group have gave little choice other than to ban them from my yahoo group because of their offensive actions towards other members. I always leave banning a member as a last resort because i want to be fair and equal to everybody that chooses to join my group and also i treat everyone fairly and take complaints about abuse to another member very seriously. I've also recruited some moderators for my MSTS group too. Hence that i can't monitor the group 24/7 because of my work and my private life as well . I have had more members join my msts group since that i banned the troublemaking members off my groups. I also think this forum is a nicer place to be since the clampdown on flamewars and trouble has been in action and i support it 100%. If matt (NeutronIC) needs to recruit anymore moderators for the forums here in the future - i would be more than willing to assist with moderating the forums in my free time. Maybe matt could consider my status for a possible candidate to be a mod here in the future . Or maybe a senior member .

[johndibben]

When I said Alan couldn't decide when the matter was closed, that wasn't a request for for more criticism of the site.

Who knows what percentage of new members are real but there have been enough 'hit and run' tactics using usernames for mods to be cautious. The situation has been explained time and time again as is locking a thread quickly to avoid damage. Apologies if it deprives some of a fight but that's our job. That may be heavy-handed, aplologies if it is but it's done for a good reason.

Of course, the most important point is completely missed by critics of the site which is that no one can mod someone acting in an acceptable manner besides shifting threads around which isn't a criticism, simply being tidy

This attempt to stir up trouble using mods and promote paranoia about the mod forum is baseless. Most members have never been mentioned in the mod forum as was seen. That move backfired, as with thread deletions and this latest attempt to ruin the site by removing mods and allowing people to fight until the site is in chaos.

I think mods have been too affective for some and get in their way.

The best you can hope for is respect. I really dislike being moderated and so I know how others feel

Come on, folks, this is a hobby, enjoy it, get along, make us mods redundant.

Make that the clear goal instead of ripping one another apart over issues which are really not that great when set against problems faced in the 'real world'