Shopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.comAmazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Photo removed, Internet survives... barely

124»

Comments

  • TrenthTrenth Member Posts: 162
    @rocao
    but honestly, I can understand your frustration. I made a few comments early on in the discussion and then stayed out of it, but the "far from clever" comment rubbed me the wrong way, because you are a mod. I really don't know what all this allows you to do, but you do at least have the power to alter threads and I guess modify post. I would imagine this position does not exclude you from voicing your opinions, but I would expect you to be more aware of your role.

    I could not find a forum rules list, but I did find this description of a Mod: Mods (or Moderators to give them their full title) are members of Staff who help to run the forums. Their role is to help keep the forums a pleasant & respectful place to communicate.
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290
    edited August 2013
    @Trenth: LegoMom offered up the assessment of clever and the definition she was using: clever: 1. mentally quick and resourceful. 2. marked by wit or ingenuity.

    I really was using it in that context, just as we were fleshing out what snarky and defiant was. The repeated comments were not ingenius, witty, or novel.
    Below are some of the repeated and analogous terms and their frequency:

    "offended by those offended": 2
    "petty": 2
    "pitiful" "shame": 2
    "boo" "thumbs down": 2
    "babies" "5 year old" "shouldn't cry": 3
    "lolol" "laughed out loud" "sides hurt from laughing" "comical": 4
    "silly" "absurdity" "ludicrousness": 5

    Your statement that an important element of determining an insult is how it is perceived from the aggrieved is a fair and valid one. I understand I can not be the sole determinant of this, and that's why I stated "I think most would not [also]". I don't know if we'll come to an agreement here because you believe that there is no distinction between oneself and what one posts. On the other hand, I see a separation, just as I think funny people are capable of saying unfunny things or smart people can say dumb things.
    Trenth said:

    I could not find a forum rules list, but I did find this description of a Mod: Mods (or Moderators to give them their full title) are members of Staff who help to run the forums. Their role is to help keep the forums a pleasant & respectful place to communicate.

    If you read a little further in that FAQ, you'll find:
    "Admins (or Administrators) are the senior Staff on the forums. They set the policy and rules of the forum. ... They are the ultimate authority of the site. Anger them at your peril!"

    Unfortunately, I think this thread has run well past its course. My original intent was to explain the decision and somewhere along the line this stopped being about that decision. You are all welcome to PM me if you have anything further to say and you can invite as many people into conversation as you wish.
    LostInTranslationprincedravenmargotSirKevbagscaperberrysamiam391JosephBOBJACK_JACKBOB
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290
    dougts said:

    As part of the long discussion on this forum last August regarding the 41999s, the scenario you describe was deemed by the site moderators to indeed be violating purchase limits, and "bragging" about such things was declared to be against the forum rules

    I expect that you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall a moderator deeming anything; the purchase limits are established by the retailers.
    dougts said:

    I know you are newer and perhaps didn't know, so I'm just trying to help

    If you say so, but from where I sit, your constant mentioning of the terms meant to establish peace seems motivated by more than just a desire to help.
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,110
    rocao said:

    dougts said:

    As part of the long discussion on this forum last August regarding the 41999s, the scenario you describe was deemed by the site moderators to indeed be violating purchase limits, and "bragging" about such things was declared to be against the forum rules

    I expect that you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall a moderator deeming anything; the purchase limits are established by the retailers.
    Of course the purchase limits are established by the retailers. But when it was pointed out that the purchase limits weren't clear (2 per order, per person, per household?) the moderators seemed to make it quite clear that "hey, you know what they mean" and such things shouldn't be spoken of:
    We feel that that the skirting of purchase limits and the publicizing of such are inappropriate and do not belong here. As such, the staff will continue to discourage the behavior and persistent violators will face administrative action.
    ...start discussing how you managed to get 4 when he was limited to 1, we're going to ask you both to just move on. If the issue unlikely persists, we'll reach out to the party in question via PM, reminding them on the issue.
    rocao said:

    dougts said:

    I know you are newer and perhaps didn't know, so I'm just trying to help

    If you say so, but from where I sit, your constant mentioning of the terms meant to establish peace seems motivated by more than just a desire to help.
    For someone who is a moderator, you seem to spend a lot of time engaging in some very unmoderator-like behavior - stuff I never see @Yellowcastle, or others do. It almost seems...personal...with you.
    LegoManiaccDad
  • fenderbender336fenderbender336 Member Posts: 88
    Guys it was a mistake so let's move on.
    rancorbait
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290
    edited August 2014
    dougts said:

    Of course the purchase limits are established by the retailers. But when it was pointed out that the purchase limits weren't clear (2 per order, per person, per household?) the moderators seemed to make it quite clear that "hey, you know what they mean" and such things shouldn't be spoken of

    Can you show me the direct quote where the limit was ambiguous and the Brickset moderators said we would resolve the ambiguity and then moderate accordingly?

    For my part, here is what I wrote about the ambiguity: "So without you telling us if you knew of a limit and if you complied or broke it, we can't really tell you how we feel about it." Full text here: http://www.bricksetforum.com/discussion/comment/254911/#Comment_254911

    The posted guideline that you are quoting references a definitive limit. It says if you are limited to 1, don't post about getting 4. It doesn't say that if you are unsure about a limit, we'll decide:
    ...start discussing how you managed to get 4 when he was limited to 1, we're going to ask you both to just move on. If the issue unlikely persists, we'll reach out to the party in question via PM, reminding them on the issue.
    dougts said:

    For someone who is a moderator, you seem to spend a lot of time engaging in some very unmoderator-like behavior - stuff I never see @Yellowcastle, or others do. It almost seems...personal...with you.

    First, it's not personal. Here is the only personal opinion I've ever written about you: "@dougts: you've always struck me as a fair, honest, and courteous reseller."

    Second, you'll have to be less vague about the unmoderator-like behavior. I think you're referencing my willingness to engage with members, and in the instances where they don't agree with me, I let them speak their mind, but that also means that I'll speak mine.

    Witness this entire thread where enforcement of the established rules, which may be imperfect but were agreed upon by both camps, was booed and hissed by a common cast:
    http://www.bricksetforum.com/discussion/11995/photo-removed-internet-survives-barely

    You were in there liking the posts that were bemoaning and challenging the act of moderation and the peace it was trying to maintain. With your latest post, you say you are just trying to help a new member, but don't pass on an opportunity to criticize or ridicule the guideline by suggesting we decide such things on a whim, and using quote marks around brag. The sarcasm may be lost on some, but it's not lost on me.
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,110
    rocao said:

    Can you show me the direct quote where the limit was ambiguous and the Brickset moderators said we would resolve the ambiguity and then moderate accordingly?

    no, but given that the LEGO limits are always ambiguous, and the direct question was asked (more than once) about how this ambiguity would be cleared up by the moderators, the only rational reading of the decisions handed down in that thread was that indeed the moderators would have to make some sort of judgement.

    But now that you have cleared that up, I guess I misunderstood the moderator's position all this time. Now that you have clarified that you and the other moderators will not seek to add clarification to unclear limits, then the rest of us apparently are free to apply our own. "Limit X" could then mean per order, per person, per store, per day, per lifetime, or per anything. Thus, the previous poster was apparently not out of line after all, and anyone else who comes along is free to post that they bought X from shop at home, X more from each of 3 local stores, and X more that their brother bought for them.
    rocao said:


    Second, you'll have to be less vague about the unmoderator-like behavior. I think you're referencing my willingness to engage with members, and in the instances where they don't agree with me, I let them speak their mind, but that also means that I'll speak mine.

    I have no problem with engaging and speaking your opinion. But that's not exactly what you did. My sole motivations were to A) keep the thread from devolving into a reseller/anti-reseller one, and to B) inform a new member of the house rules. You didn't engage in any kind of exchange of opinions, you immediately and unequivocally questioned my motives. That's a personal attack, and I thought was against the forum rules as well. But that's exactly the kind of behavior you engage in around here on an all-too-frequent basis. And in 20 years of forum-usage (and moderation sometimes myself), I've never seen a moderator who engages in that type of personal behavior as often as you do.
  • fenderbender336fenderbender336 Member Posts: 88
    Look, I really wasn't thinking when I posted that and I'm sorry if it offended anyone. Let's all calm down please.
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,454
    ^This goes on all the time buddy. I don't think anyone was offended.
    pharmjodsidersddJP3804dougts
  • fenderbender336fenderbender336 Member Posts: 88
    ^ I have to brush up on my forum etiquette. Last forum I was on was bzpower back in 2003 haha
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290
    dougts said:

    As part of the long discussion on this forum last August regarding the 41999s, the scenario you describe was deemed by the site moderators to indeed be violating purchase limits, and "bragging" about such things was declared to be against the forum rules

    Please explain why bragging is encapsulated in quotes here.
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,110
    edited August 2014
    ^ i didn't want to give the impression that I was accusing the poster I was responding to of bragging. I don't think they were at all - they were just excited. I felt not including the quotes could be misconstrued as such an accusation.
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290
    edited August 2014
    Since this is the unofficial "challenge the forum guidelines and their enforcement" thread, I've relocated the recent pertinent comments from Exo suit availability and price to here
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,110
    rocao said:

    Since this is the unofficial "challenge the forum guidelines and their enforcement" thread, I've relocated the recent pertinent comments from Exo suit availability and price to here

    for the record, I wasn't "challenging the guidelines". At first, i was trying to help educate others as to what said guidelines were. Then, I was trying to seek clarification, since they seem to be - much like LEGO's purchasing limits - highly ambiguous and open to interpretation. Finally, I was questioning your judgement and behavior as a moderator.

  • JP3804JP3804 Member Posts: 332
    @fenderbender336
    Hi.
    I think you're fine. This is how the popcorn threads get started.

    You'll know when the villagers break out the pitchforks and torches. ;-)
    dougts
  • fenderbender336fenderbender336 Member Posts: 88
    @JP3804‌ hahaha yes, something's never change.
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290
    dougts said:

    ^ i didn't want to give the impression that I was accusing the poster I was responding to of bragging. I don't think they were at all - they were just excited. I felt not including the quotes could be misconstrued as such an accusation.

    So, as written and explained, this is the logic statement, yes?

    1. You are violating the forum guidelines
    2. The forum guidelines state not to brag about circumventing limits
    3. I'm quoting 'brag' because I don't think you're actually bragging
    4. I don't think you're actually violating the forum guidelines
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,110
    The forum guidelines, as I understood them at the time, were to suppress speech that indicated the person may have or did violate purchasing limits. The "bragging" part (I believed) was largely immaterial to whether or not the guideline was broken

    Having said that, I could see how some Might construe what the poster wrote as bragging, and I didn't want to give the impression that I was in that camp. What is or isn't bragging is highly subjective of course

    It was only today, after you clarified the moderators' position on the forum guidelines (and after my initial posts) that I then came to believe that the poster had not in fact violated the guidelines. I really cannot be sure though, since the guidelines remain - as they have been since the beginning - about as clear as mud.

    In my experience, forum guidelines or rules should attempt to be clear and easy to follow. This particular one falls woefully short of the mark. Perhaps you can attempt to clear it up for me: How do we know when we have violated a limit that simply says "limit X", and thus should avoid posting about such purchases?
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,110
    edited August 2014
    And yes, NOW I am challenging the guidelines
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290
    I know that you choose your words carefully, so let's dissect what you wrote.

    "As part of the long discussion on this forum last August regarding the 41999s, the scenario you describe was deemed by the site moderators to indeed be violating purchase limits, and "bragging" about such things was declared to be against the forum rules"

    The words I highlighted are a clear implication by you that we are adjudicating whether a limit was broken. Your word choice emphasizes our decision making. As I explained previously, this is not the case.

    Your words don't say that posting about circumventing limits in and of itself is against forum guidelines (they are), but rather, state that bragging about the act is what is not allowed. Since you just confirmed that you knew "bragging" to be largely immaterial to the guideline being broken, why even mention it? And why with quotations?

    I asserted, and you confirmed, that it was an opportunity to display that while others see it a certain way (as bragging), you don't agree. That means your statement was more than "just trying to help" the member, since it was once again drawing a line in the sand and declaring your side.

    Subtle, sure, but not lost on me. Similarly, you just described the guideline as "suppressing speech". Once again, I'll post the guideline that you shared:

    "...start discussing how you managed to get 4 when he was limited to 1, we're going to ask you both to just move on. If the issue unlikely persists, we'll reach out to the party in question via PM, reminding them on the issue."

    That doesn't even read as "don't talk about it". It says we'll ask you to move on, and if it still persists, we'll remind you. In practice, how heavy have we moderated instances where people talked about things against our wishes? Not very:
    http://www.bricksetforum.com/discussion/comment/290324/#Comment_290324

    Oh, and look! There you are liking the ensuing comments that, rather than say "you're right, we agreed to limit reselling talk to the Buying and Selling category", instead continue to challenge the guidelines.

    And that's not an isolated incident, as you have a pattern of liking any posts that challenge the guidelines or our decisions:

    http://www.bricksetforum.com/discussion/comment/216480/#Comment_216480
    http://www.bricksetforum.com/discussion/comment/216498/#Comment_216498
    http://www.bricksetforum.com/discussion/comment/216585/#Comment_216585
    http://www.bricksetforum.com/discussion/comment/216749/#Comment_216749
    http://www.bricksetforum.com/discussion/comment/216792/#Comment_216792
    http://www.bricksetforum.com/discussion/comment/217047/#Comment_217047
    http://www.bricksetforum.com/discussion/comment/217436/#Comment_217436
    http://www.bricksetforum.com/discussion/comment/290355/#Comment_290355
    http://www.bricksetforum.com/discussion/comment/290393/#Comment_290393

    I find it ironic and hypocritical that, after demonstrating disrespect or disapproval of the guidelines, you are compelled to confront a member and mark his comments as spam under the auspices of keeping the same peace that you were against me trying to keep:
    dougts said:

    If resellers aren't allowed to talk about reselling outside the one thread, others shouldn't be allowed to bash resellers either, given that they aren't allowed to defend themselves, and we don't want these types of threads to go off topic into the ethics of reselling, which your comment invites..."

    dougts said:

    This is not the thread for reseller or anti-reseller discussion. Just drop it already

  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,110
    Actually I didn't choose my initial words that you bolded carefully at all. It was a
    quickly written and unedited post which was intended to inform as to the general spirit of the forum rules. I didn't expect to be so thoroughly grilled on the subject by a moderator whom I was trying to assist in upholding said rules

    In truth I do find some of the rules ridiculous, immature, and honestly quite stupid. But they are the rules and it is neither ironic or hypocritical to try and do my small part to help enforce them. People can be openly and unapologetically against laws they don't like, but still do their best to help uphold them

    I don't recall ever being against you trying to keep the peace, but I'm sure you have more time to search through my history then I do to show me when I did, or at least when you perceive I did. More petty behavior from a moderator, like the time you openly divulged private forum information about @LegoFanTexas‌ login activity so you could make him look bad in a thread. These are the kind of things that are so unmoderator-like. Is your thirst to always "win" so unquenchable? If so, perhaps you shouldn't be a moderator. Don't feel bad, I can relate. I was the same way on forums I helped moderate far in the past. I had to always be "right". I had to "prove" myself all the time. Had to wield the big stick. I was a terrible moderator. I knew it, so I stepped down.

    Since you are so concerned about my motivations it would seem, in all the cases you quote me on above, I'm trying to keep the conversation from devolving into reselling discussions. But truth be told, this isn't purely for altruistic reasons, as every time that has happened in the past in any kind of extreme way, we've ended up with new heavy handed forum rules, and that's something I'd like to see avoided
  • MatthewMatthew Cheshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 3,714
    @dougts Just as a point of note, the information that rocao shared regarding LFT's login information was/is freely accessible to all on his profile page, as with all members.
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290
    dougts said:

    I don't recall ever being against you trying to keep the peace, but I'm sure you have more time to search through my history then I do to show me when I did, or at least when you perceive I did.

    I already posted the links to some comments that you 'liked'. It didn't take much time because those occurred in just two threads. If I were to track down ALL the instances, yes it would take a lot of time, because there's a lot. So now that you don't have to recall and can just click on the links I provided, are you saying that you liking all those posts is not a demonstration against me trying to enforce the guidelines?
    dougts said:

    More petty behavior from a moderator, like the time you openly divulged private forum information about @LegoFanTexas‌ login activity so you could make him look bad in a thread.

    You accused me of personally attacking you because you claimed I questioned your motives without reason. I'm providing your history of challenging the guidelines to show that it does appear you have a motive. As for LFT, his login activity is not private information. If you click on the profile of any user it will show the last login time. And I didn't even have to do that to know that he was a constant presence during his self imposed sabbatical; his icon was almost always on the "online" list in the right hand dashboard of the desktop site, visible to all.
  • paul_mertonpaul_merton UKMember Posts: 2,967
    Is there anything to be gained by continuing this dialogue publicly?
    margotJosephlegomatt
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,110
    edited August 2014
    Matthew said:

    @dougts Just as a point of note, the information that rocao shared regarding LFT's login information was/is freely accessible to all on his profile page, as with all members.

    Last login if available. Stating that someone logged in everyday for two weeks is not. Regardless, it is petty behavior unbecoming of someone who is a moderator
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,110
    rocao said:

    are you saying that you liking all those posts is not a demonstration against me trying to enforce the guidelines?

    Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Liking those posts was demonstrating my disagreement with the guidelines, not the enforcement if them. It's a subtle but important distinction
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,110
    edited August 2014

    Is there anything to be gained by continuing this dialogue publicly?

    Ask the moderator who started the entire thing by publically attacking my motives and continues his attempts to prove he was in the right in doing so, instead if just doing from the beginning what any good forum moderator would have done

    The original conversation that started all this was done and closed without controversy before @rocao wrote his first post. Why he "needed" to engage in a personal back and forth remains a mystery

  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,454

    Is there anything to be gained by continuing this dialogue publicly?

    Yes. To see who can pee the farthest ;)

    Seriously, it is of some use to me and others because we need to know where we stand in "correcting" other forum members. The moderators cannot moderate every single post in this forum, so some members take it upon themselves to "help enforce the rules."

    Sometimes it takes a village to raise a child.

  • margotmargot Member Posts: 2,308
    Pitfall69 said:



    Yes. To see who can pee the farthest ;)

    Or the longest...
    http://youtu.be/PlUwsd2foxY
    Pitfall69
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,110
    edited August 2014
    When a moderator came across the initial posts in the Exo-suit thread, they had four choices:

    1) realize the conversation had concluded without incident and moved on, and decide to post nothing
    2) post an assertion of or clarification to the forum guidelines in question
    3) send me a private message letting me know my efforts to assist were not needed, clarifying the guidelines, or questioning me about my motives
    4) derail the thread by publicly challenging my understanding of the rules without also providing any clarification to them, and also openly accusing me of having ulterior motives

    I find it interesting, but completely unsurprising, which option @rocao chose. As I said, it is par for the course.
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290
    edited August 2014
    dougts said:

    Last login if available. Stating that someone logged in everyday for two weeks is not. Regardless, it is petty behavior unbecoming of someone who is a moderator.

    Ascertaining that a person logged in every day is using the same public information. I didn't use any administrative tool, and like I said, almost always I wasn't actively seeking the information but saw his icon in the "who's online" listing. Maybe you don't use the desktop version so you don't realize just how easy this is.

    As far as petty behavior, I mentioned this observation in direct defense to his accusation that "reseller bashers were allowed to run wild" and "the rabid hate for anyone who wanted to make a buck [that was] so bad at one point that [he] left for a few months". This was a gross exaggeration of the environment here, and a discredit to the forum members and the staff. And of course, it wasn't true that he left, either. http://www.bricksetforum.com/discussion/comment/286809#Comment_286809
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290
    edited August 2014
    I like your format, so I'll use it as well:
    When you came across fenderbender's post you had some choices:

    1) Realize that his post was received without incident, particularly by people who, unlike you, have had issues with similar posts in the past.

    2) Trust that a forum moderator had deemed it a non-issue or would be dealing with it in short order.

    3) Flag the comment to bring it to the attention of a moderator.

    4) PM the poster to let him know about the guidelines

    5) publicly mention the guideline, which has nothing to do with bragging and your view of it.

    6) publicly mention the guideline, butcher it in the process by making it sound more vague and subject to moderator whim than it is, and craft it in a way that demonstrated that you didn't agree with the view.

    As I've demonstrated by linking your history of supporting any posts that object to the rules and their enforcement, I was not surprised you chose the most passive-aggressive option that had the least chance of preserving the peace.
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,110
    edited August 2014
    I chose to try and help educate

    You chose the most confrontational and self-important option. And yours was the post that broke the peace, not mine

    And of course the big difference: I'm not a moderator. You are. It's long past time you started acting like one.
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290
    edited August 2014
    That would have been better as option 5.

    The difference in me being a moderator and you not is not as large as you seem to think it is. We don't really ban anyone other than spammers. We rarely delete or censor posts, and the times that we have, some members have completely lost their minds rather than respect our actions. Thus, when someone posts something to which we take exception, we mostly just discuss it, which we're doing here.

    Since you immediately took to calling my comment a personal attack, even though you later confirmed my original claim that you were indeed editorializing the views of the forum membership, a lengthy debate is going to ensue.

    At this point, since you are perpetuating your side of the debate while simultaneously advancing the idea that me responding in kind is not moderator-like, I'm left to think that you are just trolling.
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,110
    edited August 2014
    rocao said:


    1) Realize that his post was received without incident, particularly by people who, unlike you, have had issues with similar posts in the past.

    this would have been an option, yes. But I felt the poster might want to know he was potentially running afoul of the rules before he did it again, or a bigger ruckus ensued.
    rocao said:


    2) Trust that a forum moderator had deemed it a non-issue or would be dealing with it in short order.

    another fair option. but moderators aren't always around immediately, and I thought nipping the issue in the bud immediately would be of most benefit.
    rocao said:


    3) Flag the comment to bring it to the attention of a moderator.

    same as above
    rocao said:


    4) PM the poster to let him know about the guidelines

    fair enough, but then there would be no way for anyone else in the thread to know this had happened, and someone may have come upon and caused a more serious flare-up by taking exception to the post - exactly the type of situation that has happened in the past.
    rocao said:


    5) publicly mention the guideline, which has nothing to do with bragging and your view of it.
    6) publicly mention the guideline, butcher it in the process by making it sound more vague and subject to moderator whim than it is, and craft it in a way that demonstrated that you didn't agree with the view.

    Now, see here is where you go about ascribing motivations to my actions that you cannot possibly have any way of ascertaining or knowing. I attempted to publicly mention the guideline by paraphrasing (my understanding of) it in my own words. That you immediately assume the worst reasoning is telling.
    rocao said:

    Thus, when someone posts something to which we take exception, we mostly just discuss it, which we're doing here.

    No, discussing it would have involved providing a correction to what the guidelines were, without launching directly into a personal attack on my motivations.
    rocao said:


    Since you immediately took to calling my comment a personal attack, even though you later confirmed my original claim that you were indeed editorializing the views

    you can twist every word all you like, but I have never given such confirmation. I have confirmed multiple times that I honestly and sincerely wrote what I believed to be the essence of the guidelines. And your initial response was indeed an attack - and it continues to be. Hence I am now attacking you back, questioning your worthiness and temperament as a a forum moderator.
    rocao said:


    At this point, since you are perpetuating your side of the debate while simultaneously advancing the idea that me responding in kind is not moderator-like,

    No, I'm advancing the idea that your original response was not moderator-like, and that is unfortunately exactly the kind of behavior you engage in all too often around here. It's interesting to note I have received multiple private messages agreeing with me on that point. I won't post the number, lest you look into my Inbox and out those people or correct me should you differ with the manner of agreement for them.
    rocao said:

    I'm left to think that you are just trolling.

    Who's trolling who? From the start, your very first post on this was trolling ME. And I guess it worked. Great moderation tactics...

  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290
    The issue wasn't really about how you misinterpreted the rules, although it's preferable that you understand them before you educate others. I thought at some point you realized this, but here's my final example to convey the issue to you:

    Self-appointing oneself a moderator is against the forum rules. If the posts "just trying to help others" in this way continue, I'll take administrative action.

    Do you see how I used quotes just like you did with 'brag' to indicate my disagreement with your view of the situation? It's dismissive and sarcastic, isn't it?
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,110
    edited August 2014
    You can go on until the end of time trying to convince everyone that you've "won" and are in the right with the methods and manners in which you wield your privileges as a moderator. But you aren't fooling me, and I suspect you aren't fooling most everyone else either. Perhaps you should spend less time trying to "win" arguments that you often start and more time trying to actually learn what makes someone a strong and effective forum moderator. Or just ask @Matthew‌ or @Yellowcastle‌, they both "get it"

    But perhaps I should be careful in "trying to help" you. I wouldn't want you to take administrative action against me for it
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290
    Who's trying to fool whom? While it certainly sounds dramatic for you to say, it is categorically and demonstrably false that I have abused any privileges as a moderator, and the fact that you continue to suggest it proves that you are grasping at straws. Public spectacle seems to be what you're after because, unlike me, you're preoccupied with who is lending support to whom and the notion of who is winning.

    My reluctance to brandish the metaphorical stick you describe is the reason these debates transpire. I always extend far more opportunity for a member to openly criticize me than I allow towards any other member.

    You haven't advanced anything new to your argument in the past few posts and instead have shown that this is personal for you much more than it is for me, so I'm done here unless you decide to spew something else that is wildly inaccurate.
    paul_merton
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,110
    Other than the post about LFT's login activity, I haven't suggested you have or are abusing your privileges. I'm saying you are a poor moderator who doesn't seem to grasp the important concepts of being one

    This didn't start personal with me. In fact it didn't start at all as having anything to do with you. But once YOU chose to make it personal with your first post, then continued to do do in your ceaseless attempts to vindicate yourself rather than simply admitting you went too far from the start, then yes, it did become personal

    Your temperament, ego, and habit for starting or inflaming conflict rather than deescalating it make you a poor choice for a forum moderator and you do a disservice to Brickset by being one
Sign In or Register to comment.

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Please use our links: LEGO.com Amazon

Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy Brickset.com

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.