# Where's the transparency?



## trustysteed (27 Oct 2011)

Let's have:

1. An open list of the moderators. Why don't they have the courage of their convictions to identify themselves and take responsibility if they lock a thread or ban a member. 

2. A list in descending order of the top ten most ignored members.


----------



## TVC (27 Oct 2011)

Have I missed the fisticuffs and dummy chucking again?


----------



## mr Mag00 (27 Oct 2011)

responsibilty doesnt have to been worn on the sleeve does it?


----------



## ianrauk (27 Oct 2011)

I'm a mod.. so what.
Some are known some are not. It's nothing to do with courage. It's all to do with how Admin run's HIS site HIS way.

Oh yes.. and see *this*


----------



## vernon (27 Oct 2011)

I'm unclear why anyone needs to know the information requested by the OP. It's a privately funded board. If users are unhappy with the way that it's run they are free to seek alternative facilities and some users do flounce off.


----------



## TheDoctor (27 Oct 2011)

What transparency would that be?
Admin's gaff - Admin's rules.


----------



## Beebo (27 Oct 2011)

ianrauk said:


> I'm a mod.. so what.




I had you down as a rocker.


----------



## Archie_tect (27 Oct 2011)

It was the line of wing mirrors on his bike gave him away... and the target.


----------



## Trembler49 (27 Oct 2011)

Don't the moderators have to wear yellow jackets so we know who they are?


----------



## irw (27 Oct 2011)

Trembler49 said:


> Don't the moderators have to wear yellow jackets so we know who they are?



Don't forget the hard hats helmets


----------



## dave r (27 Oct 2011)

Trembler49 said:


> Don't the moderators have to wear yellow jackets so we know who they are?



I thought they were issued with tin helmets and flack jackets to make policing the livelier debates a bit safer.


----------



## byegad (27 Oct 2011)

irw said:


> Don't forget the hard hats helmets



That's torn it!

Dummies at dawn again. I may have to but a helmet. A nice steel one should keep the bullets out of my brain!


----------



## Shaun (27 Oct 2011)

trustysteed said:


> Let's have:
> 
> 1. An open list of the moderators. Why don't they have the courage of their convictions to identify themselves and take responsibility if they lock a thread or ban a member.
> 
> 2. A list in descending order of the top ten most ignored members.




As per my announcement today, all moderators will be badged when we move to the new software.

If a list helps some people feel more at ease I'll post one once we move.

Ignore lists are the preserve of individuals and will remain so.

If you have any questions about how the site is being run, please just PM me and we can have a chat about it.

Cheers,
Shaun


----------



## XmisterIS (27 Oct 2011)

trustysteed said:


> Let's have:
> 
> 1. An open list of the moderators. Why don't they have the courage of their convictions to identify themselves and take responsibility if they lock a thread or ban a member.
> 
> 2. A list in descending order of the top ten most ignored members.



A quiet word in your ear ... 

(CC is just a website on the internet, it's not real life! But shhhhh! Don't tell anyone, they don't realise they're in the Matrix!)


----------



## mr Mag00 (27 Oct 2011)

lol as usual a humorous outlook from xmisteris


----------



## HLaB (27 Oct 2011)

iirc the mods are going to be renamed on the new forum and will be named but does it really matter ?


----------



## Mad Doug Biker (28 Oct 2011)

trustysteed said:


> Let's have:
> 2. A list in descending order of the top ten most ignored members.



I would quite like that actually. It would be interesting to see, purely out of curiosity, like (mainly because I am convinced I'm on it). You don't actually have to give any details, just a list of the members fitting the criteria.



The Velvet Curtain said:


> Have I missed the fisticuffs and dummy chucking again?



I think it is just a theoretical exercise.




vernon said:


> I'm unclear why anyone needs to know the information requested by the OP. It's a privately funded board. If users are unhappy with the way that it's run they are free to seek alternative facilities and some users do flounce off.



*CURIOSITY!!*



Trembler49 said:


> Don't the moderators have to wear yellow jackets so we know who they are?



'Sorry Mate, I didn't see you'



Admin said:


> Ignore lists are the preserve of individuals and will remain so.



Yes, but wouldn't you be curious as to the real lie of the land?

Why should the privileged few be the only ones who know? it isn't as if you have to put many details or anything, just enough.

That said, I can see the potential for misguided flame wars.



XmisterIS said:


> A quiet word in your ear ...
> 
> (CC is just a website on the internet, it's not real life! But shhhhh! Don't tell anyone, they don't realise they're in the Matrix!)



*Read from the 'Just overheard' thread, and not an exact quote (DISCLAIMER)*

'Keanu? Chardonay? get the f**k over here now!'


----------



## Norm (28 Oct 2011)

Mad Doug Biker said:


> Why should the privileged few be the only ones who know? it isn't as if you have to put many details or anything, just enough.


 Aside from the fact that moderators don't know who is on the ignored list, wanting to know is nothing more than morbid curiosity.

However, if you (or the OP) think it's that important, post up the URL of your own forums (I'm presuming you have forums rather than just making demands on other people's) just in case anyone gives a damn.


----------



## Mad Doug Biker (28 Oct 2011)

Norm said:


> Aside from the fact that moderators don't know who is on the ignored list, wanting to know is nothing more than morbid curiosity.



...... Well, yes.
I didn't know what about the ignore lists by the way.



> (I'm presuming you have forums rather than just making demands on other people's)



I usually reside in the Cafe here. I doubt I make many demands of others (unless anyone knows better)



> just in case anyone gives a damn.



That I doubt, but it matters to me


----------



## Shaun (28 Oct 2011)

Just to clarify, me and the moderators don't have a clue who is ignoring who - it is, very much, a personal matter.


----------



## Mad Doug Biker (28 Oct 2011)

What?


----------



## dellzeqq (28 Oct 2011)

Shaun - I would plead with you to allow the mods to remain anonymous, _if they so wish_. It only takes one nutter to lose his rag over a wiped post or a banning, and the next thing you know you're getting distinctly unpleasant e-mails and 3am telephone calls. He says from experience. Elsewhere.

ps - I'm not a mod here, and, if asked (not that that's going to happen) I'd say no. Once is enough.


----------



## Norm (28 Oct 2011)

Admin said:


> Just to clarify, me and the moderators don't have a clue who is ignoring who - it is, very much, a personal matter.


 Although we can say that Admin and the Support Team** don't have anyone on their ignore lists. 


** that sounds like a very dodgy 1970s pub band


----------



## trustysteed (28 Oct 2011)

XmisterIS said:


> CC is just a website on the internet, it's not real life!



Judging by the post count of some people on here, it appears that this is their 'only' life, real or not.


----------



## swee'pea99 (28 Oct 2011)

It seems perfectly obvious to me that the mods are deranged - who in their right mind would want to do work for no money? If they prefer to stay anonymous, that's surely little enough to ask. And as others have said, it's not like you _have_ to come here...if you don't like it, don't come. Surely it really is that simple. Or am I missing something?


----------



## wiggydiggy (28 Oct 2011)

Admin said:


> <New Software> https://www.cyclechat.net/



"
*Reminders:* Inappropriate conduct and content *will now attract a system reminder message from the Support Team with specific reference to the thread/post that has prompted it.* (_Your content may be edited too if we feel it should not be left on the site, but we'll try to avoid this wherever possible_). "

Did my recent complaint (now resolved ) influence that at all? It appeared some posts had been deleted without the follow up explanation leading to confusion/distrust of the team.

No demands from me to see lists of moderators/ignored users, just that any moderation going forward is always clear and communicated to the member


----------



## ianrauk (28 Oct 2011)

wiggydiggy said:


> "
> *
> *
> *Did my recent complaint (now resolved ) influence that at all?* It appeared some posts had been deleted without the follow up explanation leading to confusion/distrust of the team.
> ...



None what so ever. Sorry to disappoint.


----------



## Norm (28 Oct 2011)

ianrauk said:


> None what so ever. Sorry to disappoint.


 He was told in that thread that it was part of the new software. Never mind, eh.


----------



## wiggydiggy (28 Oct 2011)

ianrauk said:


> None what so ever. Sorry to disappoint.



I accept your apology for potentially disappointing me, thank you.


----------



## wiggydiggy (28 Oct 2011)

Uncle Mort said:


> Are you a politician?



No but I've been told I should be  If you mess with the bull you get the horns lol


----------



## Norm (28 Oct 2011)

wiggydiggy said:


> If you mess with the bull you get the horns lol


 Depends which end you are at.


----------



## Shaun (28 Oct 2011)

It was decided months ago, and is, in the main part, dictated by what we can and cannot do in the new software; but is also something I personally want to try as well.

Moderators are called "staff" in the new software and that status is used for all sorts of permission granting, management tools, etc. in the background that _cannot_ be turned off; hence the moderators will _have_ to go public.

But I want that to be a positive move. The main part of the role will be to help and support people in their use of the site and so I chose Support Team as a positive way of reflecting that.

The reminder system is new, and will work in tandem with how we currently manage the site. It offers a more structured way of approaching inappropriate conduct and content, but won't always be used - if we can resolve things will a simple "shout out" on a thread, or by PM to those we feel would be receptive to a personal approach, then that would be preferable.

The less agro for everyone, the better.  

CycleChat has grown considerably in the last few years and it helps to review things from time to time to see if they can be done differently/better. Hopefully this will be a change for the better.

Considering we all have work/family duties too, I don't think we do a bad job.  

Cheers,
Shaun


----------



## Beebo (28 Oct 2011)

Admin said:


> I don't think we do a bad job.
> 
> Cheers,
> Shaun




Judging by the success of the forum I would think the vast majority of users are very happy with the job you all do.


----------



## Shaun (28 Oct 2011)

Thanks.

Obviously there's still the world domination plan to consider, but I'm keeping those close to my chest for now!!

Mwwwgghhahahahahahah ...

(Aside: Typing that just brought up a mental picture of Doctor Evil asking for ... one ... miiiillliiooon ... pounds!!)


----------



## TVC (28 Oct 2011)

Admin said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Obviously there's still the world domination plan to consider, but I'm keeping those close to my chest for now!!
> 
> ...



Who gets to be Mini Me?


Appreciating your hard work Shaun. Thanks


----------



## Shaun (28 Oct 2011)

The Velvet Curtain said:


> Who gets to be Mini Me?



No one - I'm not sharing my world domination with anyone else ... get your own world ...


----------



## HLaB (28 Oct 2011)

Admin said:


> No one - I'm not sharing my world domination with anyone else ... get your own world ...



Bah Humbug, even Brain is willing to share, with Pinky at least


----------



## Monsieur Remings (28 Oct 2011)

I think the real issue for me isn't whether we know who the mods are, it's _how_ the mods, or others, deal with someone behaving out of line.

Since using this forum I can't think of an example where someone was pulled up for something without adequate explanation given. The reasons are explained for why, if that's the case, someone has been removed and poor comments are also dealt with according to the same principle. Therein lies the accountability, when reasons are given and transparent because the explanations appear in viewable posts.

Compared with some forums I've used, I think the mods do a good job.


----------



## Archie_tect (29 Oct 2011)

Never bothered about how it's moderated, but then that's a sign of a sensible set of people using the forum and a well run forum... thanks Shaun and anyone who helps him as a Moderator.


----------



## ColinJ (29 Oct 2011)

Monsieur Remings said:


> I think the real issue for me isn't whether we know who the mods are, it's _how_ the mods, or others, deal with someone behaving out of line.
> 
> Since using this forum I can't think of an example where someone was pulled up for something without adequate explanation given. The reasons are explained for why, if that's the case, someone has been removed and poor comments are also dealt with according to the same principle. Therein lies the accountability, when reasons are given and transparent because the explanations appear in viewable posts.
> 
> Compared with some forums I've used, I think the mods do a good job.


I also think that the mods do a good job.

Having said that, as I mentioned in a similar thread recently - I have had a couple of posts deleted without warning and without explanation. If you take a look at my 7,000+ posts, you will see that I am about as inoffensive and mild-mannered a poster as they come so I was pretty shocked when that happened. It made me feel like a naughty schoolboy having his wrist slapped. I didn't like it.

I'm glad that the new moderation scheme will be more transparent and that some kind of message will be sent every time a post is moderated.


----------



## Norm (29 Oct 2011)

ColinJ said:


> Having said that, as I mentioned in a similar thread recently - I have had a couple of posts deleted without warning and without explanation.


 And, as was mentioned in that thread, do you have any more information? What threads, when etc? 

Posts do not, as a rule, get deleted and there is usually much hand-wringing and discussion before anything is removed (unless it's a pic of a dead body, there's not much discussion needed for that). I don't remember anything involving any of your posts, though.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (29 Oct 2011)

Having been a mod (a long time ago), I can confirm that it is a pretty thankless job. Even offering your services in public as a moderator (as I once later did) opens you up to all kinds of attacks and abuse - even from the odd person who turns out to be a moderator! So, I'm all for transparency in the real world of politics, but I am not so sure in these micro-worlds of online forums. I will be interested to see how it goes. 

Oh, and thank-you to all the moderators and above all, to Shaun, who in general keep this place, by some distance one, one of the more pleasant online forums around.


----------



## ianrauk (29 Oct 2011)

And IF any of Colins posts were deleted they would have been soft deleted, ie still be on the system for admin and mods to see. As Norm said. Please give us examples.


----------



## ColinJ (29 Oct 2011)

Norm said:


> And, as was mentioned in that thread, do you have any more information? What threads, when etc?


And as I did mention in that thread (flipping heck!) - one specific case was where I posted a YouTube video of the Archies single Sugar Sugar with a jokey remark about it being stuck in my head for weeks. 

I can't search for my post because it has been deleted! 

Sorry, I can't remember the date or what the rest of the thread was about - my memory isn't that perfect. Trust me, it happened, no explanation, I didn't like it - end of.


----------



## Norm (29 Oct 2011)

ColinJ said:


> Trust me...


 An interesting choice of phrase, in this context.

I've found 30 posts in which you mentioned "sugar" but only two (in this thread and rustysteeds) in which sugar and youtube appeared in the same post.

None of them have been deleted or unapproved (a slightly different mechanism although it has the same result).


----------



## ColinJ (29 Oct 2011)

Norm said:


> An interesting choice of phrase, in this context.
> 
> I've found 30 posts in which you mentioned "sugar" but only two (in this thread and rustysteeds) in which sugar and youtube appeared in the same post.
> 
> None of them have been deleted or unapproved (a slightly different mechanism although it has the same result).


Blimey Norm ...



ColinJ said:


> *I also think that the mods do a good job.*


As for trust and context ... the context is that I am a member of good standing with a very positive history on this forum and as such I consider that I have earned trust. Okay, if I betray that trust at some point in the future - deal with that when it happens, but in the mean time, when I say trust me - _trust me!_

Getting back to my deleted post ... I can think of only 2 reasons why that particular post got deleted:_
_

It was a bit off-topic.
The moderator thought that I was maliciously trying to fill CycleChat members' heads with the Archies song.
Off-topic posts don't generally get killed without explanation here. I like the fact that threads on CC can meander on and off topic without excessive moderation. I've been on other forums where OT posts are ruthlessly culled and I don't enjoy spending time in those places.

A silly post about a stupid song should be allowed to live or die on its own merits. Nobody really cared. It wasn't important. What is important is that power is used wisely and whoever killed that post wasn't using their power wisely. Nobody was protected - there was nothing to be protected from, but one person was upset by that moderation - me!

Anyway, whether you think this topic is important or not _isn't_ important. The new policy is coming and I agree with it, and then we won't have to have this discussion again.


----------



## ColinJ (29 Oct 2011)

PS I probably didn't mention the song title in the deleted post. If you want to search the records, try "head" or "mind" because I remember posting that I wouldn't be able to get it out of my head/mind.


----------



## Norm (29 Oct 2011)

ColinJ said:


> Anyway, whether you think this topic is important or not _isn't_ important. The new policy is coming and I agree with it, and then we won't have to have this discussion again.


 You seem to have missed that I thought it was important enough to have spent part of a Saturday morning searching for and reading through 30 posts of yours to try and find one which was deleted.

And


ColinJ said:


> Off-topic posts don't generally get killed without explanation here. I like the fact that threads on CC can meander on and off topic without excessive moderation. I've been on other forums where OT posts are ruthlessly culled and I don't enjoy spending time in those places.


 Which is exactly why it is important (to me) to see if we can find the post.


----------



## Norm (29 Oct 2011)

Hmm... there are 229 of your posts with "head" and 267 with the word "mind" in them, so I'm probably not going to search all of those. 

There's only 4 with song and head and 3 with song and mind, six with youtube and mind and three with youtube and head... and it's not any of them.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (29 Oct 2011)




----------



## Shaun (29 Oct 2011)

I've queried the database and can't find anything specific - at least in terms of an individual post - however, it's possible that the _thread_ was "soft" deleted - so isn't going to show up on an individual post.

I'm not going to spend the afternoon reviewing them all, but I do trust that your post was removed Colin and I trust that there will have been a valid reason for it.

Moving forward, we are going to change how we manage content and we will look at communication as a part of that - but I am not going to ask the Support Team to justify the minutiae of every decision they make - there isn't enough time in the day, and we need a balanced approach that works for most occasions - which is pretty much what we have at the moment.

I'm not saying it can't be improved upon, but not at the cost of the Support Team having no free time to enjoy the forums like everyone else.

I agree it is polite to inform people and we'll try to do that as often as we can.

Cheers,
Shaun


----------



## ColinJ (29 Oct 2011)

Norm - thanks for your efforts. I've just been for a walk and was thinking about it and I thought that it was daft to be taking up your time with this. 

I was irritated by that post being deleted without any hint of why, but these things happen from time to time. 

I appreciate the work of the Mods and I like this forum. In future, we will be notified about post moderation and if something happens again that I don't like, I'll raise the matter then!


----------



## ColinJ (29 Oct 2011)

Admin said:


> I've queried the database and can't find anything specific - at least in terms of an individual post - however, it's possible that the _thread_ was "soft" deleted - so isn't going to show up on an individual post.
> 
> I'm not going to spend the afternoon reviewing them all, but I do trust that your post was removed Colin and I trust that there will have been a valid reason for it.
> 
> ...


I posted at the same time as you Shaun.

I'm pretty certain that my post disappeared with at least one other, but the rest of the thread remained. It may have been that I had quoted the other post which was deleted, I can't remember. No, don't waste any more time on this.

Thanks everybody - shall we move on!


----------



## Norm (29 Oct 2011)

ColinJ said:


> Thanks everybody - shall we move on!


 Indeed, although I think that you (and Shaun) might have something as a post which quotes another which gets deleted (for whatever reason) often also gets "cleaned" up.


----------



## snorri (29 Oct 2011)

swee said:


> have[/i] to come here...if you don't like it, don't come. Surely it really is that simple. Or am I missing something?



I think you might be missing something.


----------



## Noodley (29 Oct 2011)

Oh diddums did someone upset the OP?

How about public information is displayed to show other members if a member has been warned or had stuff modded? Then it would be obvious to everyone who the real twats are? Or Mods could attach "badges" to profiles e.g 'sexist' 'racist' 'know it all - but ignore them they know feck all' 'whiny prat' 'etc'

I am not a Mod btw.  I gave it up since it took so much time sorting out twats with fragile egos and not being able to tell them what I really thought - I did not feel I could be as open, as for me being a Mod involved some degree of self-restraint. So now you'll hear what I think...lucky you!


----------



## snorri (29 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> So now you'll hear what I think...lucky you!


There are times in life when I say to myself thank goodness I didn't fill in the old air raid bunker in my garden. I may be gone for some time. 





Ach away Noodley, we know your just a cuddly old dolphin at heart.


----------



## TheDoctor (29 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Oh diddums did someone upset the OP?
> 
> *How about public information is displayed to show other members if a member has been warned or had stuff modded? Then it would be obvious to everyone who the real twats are? Or Mods could attach "badges" to profiles e.g 'sexist' 'racist' 'know it all - but ignore them they know feck all' 'whiny prat' 'etc'*
> 
> I am not a Mod btw.  I gave it up since it took so much time sorting out twats with fragile egos and not being able to tell them what I really thought - I did not feel I could be as open, as for me being a Mod involved some degree of self-restraint. So now you'll hear what I think...lucky you!




I like your reasoning Noodles!!! Perhaps we could have that in the next iteration of the board software.
*puts on Parka, fires up Vespa*


----------



## ColinJ (29 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> I am not a Mod btw.  I gave it up since it took so much time sorting out twats with fragile egos and not being able to tell them what I really thought - I did not feel I could be as open, as for me being a Mod involved some degree of self-restraint. So now you'll hear what I think...lucky you!


Ah - I spotted the change in 'style' and wondered what was behind it!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (30 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> So now you'll hear what I think...lucky you!



Blimey... I've never really thought of you as someone who had trouble expressing themselves about things and people they didn't like!


----------



## rich p (30 Oct 2011)

snorri said:


> Ach away Noodley, we know your just a cuddly old dolphin at heart.



He's a curmudgeonly whale's todger snorri. FACT!


----------



## snorri (30 Oct 2011)

rich p said:


> He's a curmudgeonly whale's todger snorri. FACT!




Overnight I've been coming round to your way of thinking richp...you're right!


----------



## Shaun (30 Oct 2011)

And on that note I think we'll close this support thread.


----------



## rich p (30 Oct 2011)

1593665 said:


> Could you get an easy going, laid back whale with a curmudgeon for a todger?




It's an interesting thought. Noodley will be along to comment shortly(see def.3) as our resident todger expert.


----------



## Shaun (30 Oct 2011)

Ninja'd by Pete ...


----------

