Locked Threads.

[jimmyladd]

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

I hope thats isn't a referance to what I said, because if it was I must be going loopy or something

[johndibben]

Not at all, you wern't mentioned.

Looked at your post to see what you could be referring to and only found this that could be seen as a criticism:

Unfortunatly this has spilled over to been a little short with newbie ....

This appears to refer to the three similar questions asked by new members about the London to Southampton route which appeared in December 2003 and I explained my concerns which Jonathan agreed with.

No worries

[jimmyladd]

I wasn't refering to a particular case, although I do remember that one. Its just that when I joined ukts the atmosphere was more relaxed than it is now. I also wasn't refering to just one moderator either. Oh I suppose I should have been more clear that I was just trying to make this a more plesent place, instead I find I'm digging myself into a hole

[johndibben]

No your not, you're simply trying to make sense of a pointless thread like we all are.

We're both now seeing things that arn't there

A cynic would say that's the whole idea of the thread.

I'm a cynic.

You obviously enjoy the forums and are a great help to people.

We spot good things as well

[allypally]

To be honest, the thread is now a mess. I cant really understand the thread anymore. Im torn between whether people think UKTS is a democracy, or a Communist dictatorship

[johndibben]

Me neither

It was a website this morning

[lolaholic]

Jimmy,

At the end of the day, what users post, is entirely upto them. But, we're here to filter out the problems, to give you guys a better forum.

We're not here to delete threads/posts just because we don't agree with them, as that's totally rediculous, and morally wrong.

We remove posts, to curb problems that may arise. Action is taken after it's been discussed, but sometimes, threads need to be locked, to stop anything new being added to it, while we're contemplating the action to take.

Every decision we take, is discussed at length, by all available moderators. This is well documented, and has been said numerous times.

This is the system we work by, and most likely, always will be. Every system has problems, and people will complain.

No way of doing things is perfect, and people will always have a slightly different way of doing things.

It just seems the current moderation techniques, are those preferred by the moderation team.

[alan2]

John lets get this right,Whats got up my nose is the post by the moderator on the thread in question.....quote....."Thread locked while mods discuss best course of action to resolve this issue" That was last week and the thread is still closed? But i am sorry to offend but i have been uneasy about this moderator thing since it was brought in.I think the best way to resolve forum problems is to take everybodys opinion into account and not just the chosen few.

I must state that we tried that.

IT FAILED !

Then we got the Moderator staff. The only reasons that we got the moderation staff was because the forums almost went into the Recycle bin. to free the bandwidth and space they use. Since they were threatening the entire site's existance.

If we removed the moderation team then what would happen in such instances where a topic got out of hand and users got offended and left. Removing their subsequent uploads...

after not very long it would get back to the way it was before. the decision to take active moderation into action was due to the increase of troubles that were caused by attempts to sort things without locking / removing posts.

I am not going to name any names but the "flaming" came in on that part. The open Forum (known as chatter) was one of their main targets. To save the forum we added moderation in there.

Then began the major problem that they moved into the Site admin forum. *we add moderation there. They move into General Msts Discussions...... Etc.

So matt made the choice to add a moderator team to stop them moving about the forums and arguing / flaming Normal threads into uselessness.

Now any forum that a post is made in can be moderatored by any of the team, this is to prevent things getting so bad as to risk the forums vanishing along with all the "GOOD!" stuff that is in here.

I am glad to be abled to help the site.

I am NO politican. If I see something wrong I will 1. remove it 2. Lock he thread and ask.

It's a case of would you like to see any nasty post about yourself revealing personal information or would you like a moderator to remove that information before anyone else see's it? lets take a vote.... 4 days later the thread has already died to the point everyone's left.

I am a union member. it took us 11 months to agree to a pay deal! the resulting back - pay was over a thousand pounds. if moderation took 4 days who would be left? me myself and Irene! ?


erm long post warning.

summary, the moderators do their job because they care about the site and it's forums.
we want to see neith vanish.
We want to help matt out in any way that we can.
It makes the forums a better place to be abled to browse without getting yelled at for everything. (as was happening before)
we have let this topic air some problems because they obviously trouble some. I hope you understand that we have seen all the comings and goings of what has happened over the last couplle of years.

Since moderation the forum here has improoved. I am glad that John and Martin have been part of the team. they have Done a lot of good in spotting some of the things others have missed.

[Easilyconfused]

Well said - Alan.

I appreciate the effort the moderators and Matt put in. Without this site my MSTS would be gathering dust on the shelf and I would have 20 GB more diskspace

[markw]

I think any suggestions that Moderation is no longer required simply isn't coming through in this thread. Alan (Boeing 126) raised a valid point, and I think there has been a pretty unanimous endorsement of Moderation in response, by and large well reasoned and rationally debated. Anyone suggesting there is an undercurrent to remove the moderators is I think (1) misreading all but the opening argument (2) getting concerned over something that is not going to happen and (3) perhaps not recognising the level of support that has been posted in favour of moderation.

The fact that moderation isn't going to be removed doesn't make the argument invalid, if it is argued and discussed rationally and calmly, which this has. I've always been a supporter of firm but fair moderation, albeit in my own way, and I wouldn't have volunteered to help Alan and Lol moderate Open Forum when that was at risk in the old "Atomic" days when to be honest there were far fewer willing to take it on if I didn't. However, it does have to be said that the perception is the level of moderation has increased post hack, and whilst I personally can fully understand why and broadly concur, as it has happened in the past, and it will happen again, others, who perhaps are less inclined towards moderation except of really bad stuff might see recent moderation activity as a further erosion. The only critical comment and suggestion I would make is, for instance, if the matters of a couple of weeks ago are the subject of legal proceedings and consequently Matt has been asked to remove any discussions on the matter as a precaution, then why not tell people, and then we won't think that the Moderators are being over sensitive to something that many people wanted to discuss, not necessarily flame about, given it did impact on something we all have an interest in. A carefully worded explanation of any changes in Moderation policy, temporary or long term can go a long way to avoid these issues. Obviously at the time things were a bit hectic, but the lack of any public statement as to the fall out from the other Saturday, even if it's "can't say anything 'cos it's with m'learned friends in wigs", combined with the (percieved) increased incidence of thread lockings, will naturally lead people to feel a bit confused or even disgruntled.

Of course it's Matt's site. But the fact that we all tune in daily or more often, and the fact that it was the target for an attack, shows it has gained the "ownership" of many more, so it's not to be a surprise when people start getting proprietorial over the site and wanting to know more, or question some actions. What on earth is wrong with that?

[thenudehamster]

I have little to add, but in my customary fashion, that's not going to stop me...

There have been times when I have thought the level of Moderation applied in some cases has been either excessive, misdirected or inapproriate, and if it has meant that much to me, I have raised the matter in email with the Moderators. To me, that's the first course of action. Bringing it into the public arena ought to be the last resort, not the first. It's almost akin to suing a supermarket over a stale loaf before asking for a fresh one.

I have to admit, I had not seen the response regarding the locking of the 'reskinning argument' thread, and I was beginning to wonder what had happened to the Moderators' discussion. Had it been that important I'd have asked.

As for the undemocratic nature of the site, I could only wish most countries were run as well.
I don't want to get over-political (I've been a shop-steward, Branch Secretary, and Vice-Chair in my time, too) but I've heard it said that the most beneficial form of government is a benevolent tyranny; one leader with absolute power and the best interests of the people at heart; sadly I can't think of one in modern times in the world political arena. Democracy only means that the majority of voters get to stamp their will on the minority, without regard to the benefits for either of said opinion. 'Bread and Circuses' it's been described as - vote for all the good things in life without worrying about how you get them.

I reckon Matt is a benevolent a dictator as we're likely to get; the Moderation team are human, with human foibles, and human failings; sometimes they get it wrong, but I believe they honestly act in the right spirit with the good of the community as a whole at heart.

While I don't think this thread deserves locking yet - after all, it's no more than free speech so far - I think it has probably served its purpose in airing several sides of the debate; maybe it's time to just let it die a natural death.

[olympian]

I briefly read everything on this post. So someone may have already stated this.

Someone mentions that the mods locked the forum with out given a update. I had a look at this thread a few days ago, and underneath, this thread is locked until mods decide best course of action. It said they have spoken to the people involved, etc. etc. etc.

But I don't have a problem with the mods, and I don't think they feel that they are better than me or anyone else who isn;t a Mod.

Gazz

[alan2]

we are only human. ( subject to the same rules as everone else. )

If I spotted a post that was out of order then it would get edited / deleted no matter who it was from.

[johndibben]

Olympian's succint reply says it all.

Everything has been explained that needed to be and people involved know the position.

Something of concern, lock the the thread and consult with each other and those involved. Two sides to every argument, more stuff comes to light, things settle down and no further comment is made. The mod forum isn't a court and verdicts announced.

It wouldn't occur to anyone that members without an interest sat waiting for some judgement. It would appear pretentious to do so.

A bunch of people who eat, sleep, drink and fart like everyone else giving an opinion and acting as a moderating influence on one another. We have a few tools at our disposal but that doesn't give any more power, in fact I have to think a bit more carefully before posting and was far more outspoken before becoming a mod.

I wouldn't underestimate the seriousness of recent hacking of the site though but that was exceptional.

My opinion of Matt has risen as he's risen to the challenges that the cancellation of MSTS has brought and made a pledge that he'll provide a site, so long as members want one.

[champy]

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.



PS SHOOT Me NOW - I'm Dun

I would as you should really get your facts right before spouting off.

And people wonder why ????????



Jon