Atomic Systems

Last week a thread was locked and a message posted by a moderator.
"Thread locked while mods discuss best course of action to resolve this issue" Can anybody tell me how this system works? As an ex N.U.R. union negotiator the subject is of some interest to me.For instance do these unelected moderators get thier heads together in some secret locked thread away from the rest of the M.S.T.S membership?discuss the subject in hand and decide on behalf of the rest of the U.K.T.S members that a thread should be reopened or left locked? If i am correct in my surmise is it not then reasonable for me or any other members of M.S.T.S to question that decision on the grounds that i \ we were not consulted before a decision was taken?and is it not then reasonable to come to the conclusion that the majority of the membership is being treated like a lot of sheep insomuch as the majority are having decisions made for them by a minority?Subjects in this forum are regularly put to a poll by members so one might ask why when more serious issues arise moderators dont consult the the full membership in the form of a poll before reaching a conclusion?
To me the present system seems more like a dictatorship than a democratic process.

Moderator's do what they do, in my case, in the interests of the site and members, in that order. The former allows the latter.

The notion any row is continued with a poll is .... well .... odd.

Even Union shop-stewards don't hold all meetings in public. But this isn't a Union, it's a website. People can do a lot of damage with one small post.

The method by which moderator's moderate is well known and someone even decided that forum be put under public scrutiny. The concensus amongst those who value the site was that it was a confirmation that the site was run properly.

It's clear a number of people, who knows how many, will go to any lengths to ruin this site for reasons I have no knowledge of.

The results would be devastating to the UK MSTS community both commercial and freeware.

I've no doubt they can achieve thae goal if they so wish. I was chosen as a moderator but could be doing other things. I enjoy this site though and chatting about railways and other issues. Maybe that's why I was chosen. Havn't a clue and never asked.

I'm a Trainz fan and MSTS is a second interest.

Those who wish to wreck the site can do so if they really try and my trainsimming interest won't be damaged on bit and I can discuss railways elsewhere.

However, I wish UKTS to continue and will do everything to make it do so within my power because I enjoy it and appreciated it long before becoming a moderator.

That's my agenda and clear goal.

The agenda of others is their own business and I couldn't be bothered to even begin to fathom what it is or care. Carry on, it'll hurt other members and groups far more than me or other moderators.

The moderator's arn't perfect, the moderation process may not be perfect but the alternative is everyone runs the website by voting. Voting that included all the duplicate usernames. Voting that includes all those who dislike this site and yet still post.

Remember, we stand in the way of people who want to fight. Without us to fight, they will simply return to fighting one another.

I'm fully aware that moderators result in an unholy alliance between those who dislike the site but remove the moderators and they would be fighting each other again in minutes. The could then disappear. They win. The UK MSTS community lose. If that's the way it goes, so be it but I'll do my best to see it doesn't happen am sure others will as well.

You can win every time though.

Accept the possiblity of defeat but at least tried to save something instead of walking away or destroying it .

It's not often I reply to peoples' rants but in this case I thought why not. There are times when people and threads get out of hand or off subject and are no real use to anyone but the two or three 'having a go' at each other or someone else. As far as I am concerned the moderators, who I presume Matt knows and trusts, do a good job at controlling the site where necessary. As to whether this site is a dictatorship or not, the bottom line is if you don't like it, you are not forced to log on to this site.
I would like to say well done to all concerned in running this site and a big thank you to everyone that uploads their 'stuff' for people like me to enjoy.

Crikey......who'd be a moderator......you can't do right for doing wrong.

From my recollection the thread that was locked was publically discussing a disagreement between two members. One felt he was wronged and the other felt he had done nothing wrong. Everyone else (including me) then came piling in with their own opinions (which is fair enough as it was public), one member got alot of grief and the thread got locked. In my opinion an inevitable conclusion right from the start.

A fairer criticism could have been that the thread should have been locked immediately however it began with an opinion from a respected Community member that made such a decision much more difficult. However maybe there should have been an outcome published by now.

the majority are having decisions made for them by a minority?

Isn't that the real definition of democracy ? Doesn't that affect all aspects of life ?

we were not consulted before a decision was taken?

Who's "we" ? or do you actually mean "you" ??? This website is Matt's and unless your membership entitles you to control the site (read the small print) then you have no more say in how this site is run than anyone else.

For instance do these unelected moderators get thier heads together in some secret locked thread away from the rest of the M.S.T.S membership?discuss the subject in hand and decide on behalf of the rest of the U.K.T.S members that a thread should be reopened or left locked?

Yes that is EXACTLY what they do......and we all know that. As has been said, some of us got a sneaky look at this forum the other weekend and were impressed by what we saw.

To me the present system seems more like a dictatorship than a democratic process.

Speak with Matt about it in private rather than trying to stir everything up if you are that bothered.

As an ex N.U.R. union negotiator

The idea that Unions are bastions of democracy is questionable to say the least. As George Orwell wrote "All people are equal.....but some are more equal than others !!!"

Matt you have my vote of thanks for how this site is run. Moderators I feel sorry that you have to "moderate" on this sort of stuff. Members if you have a "political" issue with the way this site is run then please consider e-mailing Matt direct. At least give the guy a chance to defend himself before publicising political complaints.

Remember if Matt gives up then there will be no site at all. Sometimes I feel people forget that....unless of course there are ulterior motives floating around the place !!!

I'll second what Johndibben, Rikwesson and David have to say.

As for Union politics, let's not go down that road for heaven's sake.

This is probably the best site there is for help, advice and freeware and I for one don't want it destroyed.

Alan.

John whos talking about rows in public? I,m talking about people having a say in if a thread should be closed by moderators or the membership in general and i still say it should be left to the membership and not a load of unelected brown nosers.

Well......I'm sitting here wondering how long it will be before this thread gets locked too!
I think that Alan may possibly have had a perfectly reasonable intention in asking the question in the first place, considering that a fair bit of time has passed since the original "locking", and no outcome has been posted. I think Alan's was merely a follow-up question.

I myself posted my own feelings regarding Moderation in UKTS during last week's "debate". I was fairly happy with the sensible and considered responses I received from some of the Mods, as I understand all too well the problems involved in moderating in a fair and balanced way, whilst still protecting the basic element of the entire site! As Jon says, nobody is perfect, and I do feel that UKTS is well-modded most of the time. It is only on certain occasions (last week's being one), where I feel that Mods could maybe have intervened earlier, and moved the entire thread to a less public place (maybe even set up a non-public "Arbitration" Forum, where all parties DIRECTLY involved in a dispute could argue away to their heart's content, AWAY from the gaze of the rest of the Community?). A small notification post on the "locked" thread would satisfy 99.99% of members, and the outcome of the dispute could be later announced, officially, by Matt or a senior Mod. This announcement could be worded so as to obviously put an end to the dispute.
We all live in a democratic society (allegedly), and that is something that we should be eternally grateful for! We sometimes put too low a value on "Free speech", and treat it as a tool for attacking others. Whilst a number of members may be slightly interested to read the goings-on in a dispute, I am sure that the vast majority of members do not care one way or another, so long as they can come into the Forum and ask questions relevant to them, and download addons for their hobby! Would it not make sense then, to avoid dragging others into an already heated dispute, by moving it to a more "private" place?

Please don't you all be too quick to jump onto Alan's back on this! I can see why he's asking, but maybe Alan himself could have worded his question in a slightly less-provocative way! I myself have been a Union Rep for the UCW in my earlier days.

I would be happy for my post to be removed, together with the rest of this thread, IF the points raised in it were treated as a genuine enquiry as to procedure, and NOT as an attack on UKTS or Matt or the Mods!
I fully appreciate the ultimate need to protect the whole Community from attacks, and everyone must be vigilant, but it could be done slightly more discreetly than the "knee-jerk" reactions we are seeing recently.

Thank you Matt, for hosting/running this site. Long may it continue!

Dave H.

OK, there wasn't a row and we're all up Matt's bum.

That's no moderators without the consent of a vote of usernames.

That is for admin and beyond my remit to comment as a moderator.

That takes it out of my hands to moderate on this issue.

So be it. Not my problem any more.

Other mods may act differently as we work by concensus.

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.

Sorry but I feel I must agree with Alan on some off his origianl points, moderation off late seems to have taken a heavy handed approach and it does seem that threads been locked, is on the increase, to me the atmosphere within the forums does seem to have changed alot from when I first started reading these forums over a year and a half ago, it seems more and more like big brother watching.
Only my opinion and I'm sure there will be people who disagree with my points but there are always two side to any discussion.
Simon

This was posted two days ago :

Update, 8th October

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.

Martin

My thought of it is that somebody needs to keep the place in order. If the people were elected, then we would have arguments, disagreements etc from the people who didnt want person A to be a moderator. Factions would grow, the forums would be divided etc. That wouldnt benefit anybody as whole. Moderators are classically picked by the admins in the best interest of the forum as whole, generally because it is an investment they are protecting. It was never claimed to be democracy, you just have to hope the mods remain impartial, and make the right choices. I think the system we have now makes the majority happy.

Well as far as i am concerned the matter is now closed,I said what i wanted to say and thats the end of it.At least i kept it on the U.K.T.S forums and didnt slag off anything or anybody on another site.To those of you who might think i am a git so be it but at least i say it as i see it so at least i think i am an upfront git.

at least i think i am an upfront git.

That's more like it

There are plenty of members on here with great sense's of humour. We should be clamouring for more jokes / witticisms rather than anything else !!!

I did at one time host my own forum (well co-host latterly) and moderation is quite a difficult task. Too heavy handed and people desert in droves, not enough and before long people are actively discussing and supporting warez, cracking, hacking etc. etc. or making inflammatory posts for the sake of it. Another board I'm currently active on, quite an "official" looking one (though it's not) for another software title seems an example of this.

Before the joint TSUK/Crotrainz forum was abandoned Barney and I were having particular difficulty with some of the BVE crowd. Various steps were tried such as locking threads, deleting memberships etc. but the individuals got back in. It got to the point where it was all too stressful and not worth continuing what had started out with the intention of being a pleasant little corner to discuss our hobby. So I'm definitely on the side of firm but fair moderation to avoid things getting beyond a point of no return.

At the end of the day a forum is not a democracy or a public service - it is run according to the terms and rules of debate the forum operator decides to apply and these can be changed at any time. However to keep the majority of users "on side" it would perhaps be worth adding a line or two in explanation when a particular thread has been locked.