*muttermuttermutter*

[bladespark]

Man, my good mood just got totally ruined.

If you're a community mod, and you see somebody doing something you think is not okay, you WARN them, and ask them to stop, before locking things down and forcing them to stop.

Being interrupted in mid rant with a sudden "this topic is locked" was a very rude shock. And then being condescendingly told that I should "know better" just makes me want to gnaw somebody's face off.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Comments

[2dlife.livejournal.com]

Actually that depends. If there are sufficient complaints, the behavior is extremely disruptive or the whole thing has already spiraled out of control, it's good to lock things down quickly before warning. (Also, if you've been warned often in the past about the same behavior, there is no need for a repeat warning in the current thread.

Remember, lots of things on the internet are not real time. If the mod was gone for a couple days and missed the chance to moderate gently with back and forth warnings, sometimes it's more important for her to just stop inappropriate behavior immediately. You can always find the mod directly in PM to discuss why you think the action was unjustified.

[jordanis.livejournal.com]

...sometimes, C, rants and ventings might be described as 'rhetorical', particularly in the arena of required response.

Also, some people have been on the internet for longer than a month, and may indeed moderate their own small forums.

[2dlife.livejournal.com]

Geez, in no way was I try to imply that SPark here was flaming or that what the moderator in this case was acting appropriately. I was just saying that there are situations where her blanket statement would not apply. Not all situations require warning and very often, a good mod would act without warning.

That said, no good moderator would not respond to a polite and reasonable PM asking for the reasoning behind her actions.

[lin-chan.livejournal.com]

Actually, I've been completely banned from chat rooms for doing nothing more than having a difference of opinion with a moderator about how they handled a situation involving other people. I firmly believe it's a rare person who doesn't let any stretch of power go straight to their head.

[keplilly.livejournal.com]

Yikes! That can seem pretty harsh...I would have expected a warning too, unless you had gotten one in the past.

[westly-roanoke.livejournal.com]

Nope,

As someone who does it for a living, there is a limit when things are just too far out of control and you lock it down before more damage can be done. Sometimes that does include not letting someone get their last words in.

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

This was NOT SUCH A CASE! *hisses*

Thanks to you, and to everyone else who seems to be assuming that I was flaming somebody so evily that I had to be shut down NOW.

I was not!

[silveradept]

To intrude with perhaps a silly question, is there any posted policy about how moderators will handle things if they get out of hand?

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

Nope. There's no posted policy. There's also no posted rule about what you can and can't say, no rules against flaming, no rules against arguing.

[silveradept]

Ah. With no posted policy, arbitrary action happens. And this certainly does seem arbitrary. For whatever reason, you came off as a threat. It's up to you whether to wear it as a badge of honor or to use it as a justification that the moderators have their heads firmly up their arses. (Or possibly both.)

Perhaps as a parting suggestion, you could tell them they need to design and implement a policy covering what is and is not allowable.