The Chainlink

Melissa, while I have no relation to the OP, in the open letter post, your response and closure of the thread goes COMPLETELY against the transparency he's trying to get at. I don't think he cares who you are in real life, just wants to know who the mods on here are (by username) and what the standards for editing/deleting/moderating posting are, that's not too much to ask.

I've seen much worse posted on here, so don't know if there's more behind the scenes or if the OP and mods have a history or what, but that comment being moderated doesn't make much sense to me either.

I'm not claiming that you are, but you're making yourself look like a very poor moderator at the moment, please reconsider the way you are dealing with this-nobody is attacking you, just looking for some explanation.

Views: 881

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

100% agreed.  I'm drawing a blank trying to think of a forum that would be more appropriate to discuss moderators' expectations of users of the Chainlink than the Chainlink itself.

I understand that while publicly accessible this site is very much a private playground, but can't help but think that lack of transparency around such a discussion can do nothing but engender bad feelings.

Kevin C said (in another thread):

Why does this need to go offline? These seem like legitimate questions and concerns.

Yes! Closing discussions that are asking for transparency is exactly the wrong thing to do. Please bring the original discussion back online. Closing a thread should pretty much never happen as far as I'm concerned, and especially so for meta discussions.

Closing a thread is appropriate if it gets way out of hand, it seems to me that neither the original lance comment more the open letter thread were even close to out of hand. Being a mod is a tough, usually thankless job, but at times mods need to moderate themselves.

Got it.  Free and open dialogue.  It's what makes our country great.  Let's keep the conversation going.  Unfortunately I have to get back to work for today but will check Chainlink again in the future.  Everybody enjoy a ride today!  

The Chainlink used to identify who the moderators were. In the other thread, Melissa said she's one of a dozen. The Mods Activity Group says there are 7. Knowing who they are not only seems reasonable, it seems necessary.

Thanks Melissa, IMHO, you're right back to the "good mod" list with a response like that. Now, would the other 6+mods please stand up and be recognized? It would be nice to know who to thank for keeping this place going, not just who to complain at/about when things go wrong.

Melissa, or any other mod, do not contact me off list about this issue.  I will not respond and it's not in the best interest of "transparency."

I will only accept communication written with a calligraphy pen using human blood.  On recycled paper from a Trader Joe's shopping bag.  Mix a little red food coloring with the ink as blood does end up a little *too* transparent.

Dutch,

I have no relationship at all with Melissa and you are correct, I don't care who she is or if she even rides a bike.  I've noticed a decline in the forums specifically and even in the CLink generally in the 3 years I've been a "member."  If you bother to post anything remotely dissenting from the ATA groupthink, the regulars will come and scold so predictably it's like they're coached.  

If I may piggy back on this a little bit, I'm still waiting for the website "improvements" that the crowd sourced "donations" were supposed to accomplish.  If this is a for profit endeavor, why enable donations at all?  If they are "donations" then shouldn't they be tax deductable?

To little to late; that fact that you closed it in the first place demonstrates that you have no idea how to be an effective moderator.

How did you think closing a thread asking to sort this out openly was a good idea?

No, seriously I am interested in the 'logic' behind this.

I also want to know why Craig was deleted over the word 'cocksucker' and I have been allowed, recently, to use just as offensive language.



Melissa said:

Got it.  Free and open dialogue.  It's what makes our country great.  Let's keep the conversation going.  Unfortunately I have to get back to work for today but will check Chainlink again in the future.  Everybody enjoy a ride today!  

Melissa, you need to open my thread back up.  The minute it goes off the front, I do have a complete copy and I will post it again.

All of this needs to be out in the open.

The only mods I have been able to figure out are Melissa and Chi Lowe. Both because they made themselves known.

It should be open knowledge: 1 who the moderators are, 2. What are the rules they moderate by.

It also works better if moderation happens in the open. Not because I want to argue with the moderators whether they are correct or not, but because it can create clarity what is acceptable and what is not acceptable on the Chainlink. I’m pretty sure that no one has any problem with moderation if it is applied evenly and consistently. It’s the off-list conversations that undermine the credibility of the moderators.



Kevin C said:

The Chainlink used to identify who the moderators were. In the other thread, Melissa said she's one of a dozen. The Mods Activity Group says there are 7. Knowing who they are not only seems reasonable, it seems necessary.

RSS

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service