I'll provide you with a few examples, and a quick description of why these reactions are immature and unprofessional.
First off, there was some moderator misconduct in the
homosexuality thread a while back.
I even reported the mods, but heard not a word regarding it.
We usually don't respond back to people who make reports telling them so-and-so happened or was dealt with. Any warnings or infractions
usually stays between the people concerned, and unless the reporter was involved and it's necessary to inform them, we won't. That's just how we've generally opted to do things in that regard, and while there are pros and cons to either way, I don't feel there is a strong reason or need to change this.
Example 1 - Here, Livewire is just flat out being a jerk. Not only that, but he is publicly threatening a member with infractions. Whether the person was a troll or not, you should only give people warnings in private, unless it's a general warning meant for everyone. He does the
same thing again shortly after. Acting like Livewire did is the exact opposite of how a mod should be.
Like flight, I am going to have to disagree with that being the opposite of how a mod should be. Thing is, there is no one way a mod should act, and I feel this case is one that applies here.
In this case, the member was a troll (and shortly after that event was banned as such). He had multiple private communications between different staff members and did not improve. Sometimes a public post needs to be made. If Livewire did this to someone else who had no prior multiple infringements, or did it all the time, etc then I'd agree that it's too much, but sometimes you have to put the foot down, so to speak, and when private communication fails there's not much harm in trying a different approach in the rare case [speaking from experience] someone consistently acting like a troll isn't one. (This turned out to be one of the usual cases). [That was also why I said 'usually' in the above quote-response; there isn't one way to always act, just a usual way for standard cases.]
Example 2 - While it's not as rude as Livewire, this post is still demeaning to other members. It was basically stating, in a roundabout way, that those fighting fire with fire were stupid.
Not only that, but this post has literally nothing to do with the topic. Off topic posts should be removed, and that's just a fact that I'm sure we can all agree on. If you want to educate members on proper etiquette, do it in a PM, or elsewhere that isn't in a thread unrelated to member education.
Really got to disagree here. Back when I was a regular mod I was in charge of HGSS, and that got hectic pre-release (speculation and false leaks leading to arguments, etc). Many times I had to post in the thread and ask multiple members to please calm down. This was
a) far more time efficient then asking each one privately to calm down or whatnot, which is key because sometimes I didn't have time to do the second option and hence would have to let the argument continue until I next got online (not ideal!),
b) effective in stopping the argument (again going by experience here), and
c) required also to let everyone else - that is, those that haven't posted yet - know to stop the argument.
Again, speaking from experience here, and I have experienced cases were talking to someone privately leads to other people breaking the rules soon after. Over time one just gets a feeling on when doing that will help more than hinder in the long run. This isn't something that should always be done, mind; but it most certainly has a time and place, and its uses. Again, there's more than one way to mod or enforce the rules, and what Nah did is from my viewpoint and certainly something done PC-wide for years (and other forums) not new, and furthermore acceptable.
If you want to split hairs then yes, it is 'off topic', but frankly moderators should make such posts when required. I suppose you and I have different ideas on how to mod, but frankly I rarely see the opinion that a mod making public announcements like that is being off-topic when it is part of their role as moderator to do things like that. (This isn't a new thing, nor something restricted to PC mods either on that note!). [Furthermore, some off-topicness
can be allowed from time to time in posts even outside such cases like above, but that's another matter].
Re: "basically stating, in a roundabout way, that those fighting fire with fire were stupid" - the way I read it, it is purely about the concept being stupid, not any person. I don't have any personal qualm with what Nah said there.
Example 3 - Speaking of off topic posts, another one that I reported for that reason was ignored. Not only that, but it's just unnecessary snarkiness just because he's not able to to handle negative feedback. This is the only post I will show an example of in the April fool's day thread. The entire thread itself is an example of the staff not responding appropriately to negative feedback.
I think some context - that he spent time between his busy work schedule - to recode the forums for the joke, only for people to express things like contemplating suicide and the idea being the worst, etc (no exaggeration on my part there!) - should be noted and afforded. I agree, it's not a good response. In future we'll try to avoid that. But I feel it's a very understandable one given the whole event (only human, only a volunteer thing for a pokemon forum into which a lot of effort went into, etc). Audy most certainly is able to handle negative feedback, of that I assure you as well - one instance doesn't discount that.
Example 4 - This isn't a mod's post, but it explains what happened pretty well. Klippy had deleted this guys post, which was exactly the same as the admin above him, saying it was unnecessary. To be honest, I think a more appropriate response would have been to delete Ausaudriel's post, since both of them really were unnecessary. That is what the like button is for, after all.
I'll leave this for someone else to comment on in case it did go to private communication afterwards - don't want to explain something I don't know the full story for. Granted, this is the one example I feel of yours that has the most weight, but the others I disagree with being problematic.
Example 5 - The point of this thread is just to have fun showing how you would arrange the forum. It's not really a good idea to be so abrasive just because you don't agree with someone else's ideas. You should think before you type, or, as Arylett posted in response to Universe, you might come across as being rude.
I don't feel that this is 'so abrasive' - if any member did that I may roll my eyes at the number of no's used, sure, but I wouldn't delete such a post, let alone warn or infract for it. Maybe a matter of interpretation. Again, I can understand Universe's opinion - when someone suggests your forum's purposes changes to be 'wacky joke forum where people post gifs and about dinosaur butts'... well, I think that does warrant a few 'no's. And then what flight said:
And Larry/Universe later clarified their reasoning and apologized for any miscommunication, which I'm honestly surprised you fixated on this post in particular and not the fact that Universe's intention was never to be demeaning or insulting. Mods can have strong opinions towards a particular subject, too.
So sounds to me like a different interpretation of that post was made and was later cleared up. Those things happen, so I don't really see an issue to be made of this case.
----------
General comment - if you do have a complaint, it does help to bring it up when it happens, btw. It was a bit tricky to go back in time myself for some cases I didn't even know about (PC is a big forum!). I realise examples are being provided now as the AF thing seems to have been some sort of 'trigger' to give staff feedback (and made on request of us!) but it's easier to address things when they happen rather than later. And now I'm going to try and enjoy some of my weekend for a while rather than keep explaining each decision others made so long ago, at the risk of being somewhat blunt. =p
