Forum Politics

[JoshH]

I can't stress enough that our reasoning for this isn't to protect vendors

Interesting. I've gone through this before with a different Moderator and that was the EXACT reason why I was told alot of these Vendor bashing posts are deleted and threads are moved to the feedback forum.

And this is where a lot of my own personal issues with the moderation stem from.

 

[Shep]

Interesting. I've gone through this before with a different Moderator and that was the EXACT reason why I was told alot of these Vendor bashing posts are deleted and threads are moved to the feedback forum.

And this is where a lot of my own personal issues with the moderation stem from.

Which mod was that? It's always been to keep the thread between the OP and the vendor. I think you might be mistaken unless you can show where you were told this. Not once has it been to protect a vendor.

 

[Demonic]

Boy these mods and ReefSquad members are earning their pay checks today.....Checks in the mail right

 

[Hermie]

The only funny thing I notice is that people will post questions, asking for help on a specific topic in the "New Reefers" forum and instead of giving any advice or help, people just spam the post with welcome gifs. It's just funny to me in both a "haha" and a "eyebrow raise" way. It's almost like trolling the person by being nice. I understand there are benefits... I just feel that new people might feel their questions and their post is "ignored" by all the people that only "Welcome" them. They maybe were not asking to be spammed, but instead trying to get help to a question.

 

[JoshH]

Which mod was that? It's always been to keep the thread between the OP and the vendor. I think you might be mistaken unless you can show where you were told this. Not once has it been to protect a vendor.

Unfortunately for my arguement I deleted the conversation in question and I no longer interact with that particular mod. I won't say who in this thread anyway feel free to PM me, But I was certainly not mistaken. There was no other way to interpret what was said other than for what it was.

 

[cmcoker]

A suggestion - perhaps when a post was deleted - whoever did the deleting just deletes the text and type something like 'post deleted for 'whatever''.

I think the problem with this, is that it is calling the member out publicly, since many do not react well to their posts being deleted I think it would exacerbate the situation. I've seen several times when a post is removed, the member go on a tangent about censorship, snowflakes, etc. I dont see having their name attached to a "deleted for xxxx" post is going to make that better.

I feel the mods do a good job, there sometimes is just no perfect solution. I'd also note, that many times I have seen mods leave the jist of the post, only removing the name calling, personal attacks, profanity, etc. So it seems to me that it is not about censoring users views, but about maintaining a level of decorum and really preventing the threads from devolving into chaos.

I am glad that there is no politics and vulgarity allowed, I see more than enough of that everywhere else.

I have also seen where a proliferation of negative reviews have caused a sponsor to be kicked out and scammers banned. To me that says the mods are paying attention and doing a really good job.

IMO, it is not hard to stay in the TOS, I just try to write like my young nieces and nephews are going to read it. I've composed and deleted/edited many posts with this in mind.

 

[Brew12]

I've gone through this before with a different Moderator and that was the EXACT reason why I was told alot of these Vendor bashing posts are deleted and threads are moved to the feedback forum.

I'm not sure which moderator would have said this but I think at least 1/2 the moderators would resign if we were given this direction.

 

[Shep]

Unfortunately for my arguement I deleted the conversation in question and I no longer interact with that particular mod. I won't say who in this thread anyway feel free to PM me, But I was certainly not mistaken. There was no other way to interpret what was said other than for what it was.

PM sent and I'm sorry they told you this. We do not protect vendors, we have removed them in the past when members have jointly raised their concerns. If we protected them, we would not allow negative feedback at all

 

[Shep]

I'm not sure which moderator would have said this but I think at least 1/2 the moderators would resign if we were given this direction.

I would with out a second thought

 

[Eve]

Exactly my thoughts!!

 

[Brew12]

PM sent and I'm sorry they told you this. We do not protect vendors, we have removed them in the past when members have jointly raised their concerns. If we protected them, we would not allow negative feedback at all

And to be clear... this isn't a staff vs Rev issue. He is very supportive and shares our concerns about not protecting vendors. He is very "member first" and although R2R wouldn't exist without our sponsors he recognizes that we wouldn't have sponsors without members.

 

[MnFish1]

I'm not sure which moderator would have said this but I think at least 1/2 the moderators would resign if we were given this direction.

The comment I have heard from a staff member is that is to prevent vendors from being victims of fake accounts or a pile on mentality. So - it is certainly to protect vendors. Perhaps its warranted. Its the sites policy.

 

[Shep]

The comment I have heard from a staff member is that is to prevent vendors from being victims of fake accounts or a pile on mentality. So - it is certainly to protect vendors. Perhaps its warranted. Its the sites policy.

Yes part of it is to prevent a pile on but that not really protecting a vendor, the negative feedback is still allowed and not censored in anyway. Remember the only type of comment that is allowed is a link to your own feedback thread about the vendor, people seem to forget/ignore this. Also Sometimes a feedback thread will get very active before we are aware of it and in most of these cases when people stat to pile on, the original complaint gets lost in the mix of things and it either becomes a bashing thread or an all out argument. I really don't see how that is beneficial to anyone. Also, if you think preventing fake/ghost accounts from creating false reviews or just attacking a vendor is protecting them or putting them first, then I don't think anything will ever change your mind on the issue.

 

[HotRocks]

@MnFish1

There are only 3 moderators that are considered reef squad leaders. They all have the banner. @kschweer @dbl and @Brew12 These are the only 3 that have dual roles. Everyone else is one or the other - Moderator or RS/RSL

There are another dozen or so reef squad leaders that aren't moderators.

All moderators have a team R2R badge and a staff member badge.

Also the the point of vendor feedback... All vendors are treated the same whether they support R2R by having a paid sponsorship or not. We don't do anything in that department that's any different for a paid sponsor vs non-paying. Just wanted to point that out.

Yes there are other benefits for the paid sponsors, nothing that impacts moderation. Advertising perks and things like that. We try to keep it consistent across the board.

 

[MnFish1]

Yes part of it is to prevent a pile on but that not really protecting a vendor, the negative feedback is still allowed and not censored in anyway. Remember the only type of comment that is allowed is a link to your own feedback thread about the vendor, people seem to forget/ignore this. Also Sometimes a feedback thread will get very active before we are aware of it and in most of these cases when people stat to pile on, the original complaint gets lost in the mix of things and it either becomes a bashing thread or an all out argument. I really don't see how that is beneficial to anyone. Also, if you think preventing fake/ghost accounts from creating false reviews or just attacking a vendor is protecting them or putting them first, then I don't think anything will ever change your mind on the issue.

I agree with it. I said perhaps its warranted - its the sites policy. I was only saying - perhaps the other mod said it was to protect vendors was against these fake accounts.

My opinion is from the start - any policy is fine - its your site. This one is confusing, inconsistent and irritating when multiple posts are deleted. The principle is a good one. Perhaps the execution could use some tweaking?

 

[MnFish1]

@MnFish1

There are only 3 moderators that are considered reef squad leaders. They all have the banner. @kschweer @dbl and @Brew12 These are the only 3 that have dual roles. Everyone else is one or the other - Moderator or RS/RSL

There are another dozen or so reef squad leaders that aren't moderators.

All moderators have a team R2R badge and a staff member badge.

Also the the point of vendor feedback... All vendors are treated the same whether they support R2R by having a paid sponsorship or not. We don't do anything in that department that's any different for a paid sponsor vs non-paying. Just wanted to point that out.

Yes there are other benefits for the paid sponsors, nothing that impacts moderation. Advertising perks and things like that. We try to keep it consistent across the board.

Thanks a lot for that explanation - I didnt know the banner meanings. So I appreciate it. I am not a big believer in conspiracy theories - I didn't mean to imply that a paid vendor is different from a non-paid one - or that they receive any 'preference'.

 

[TheHarold]

Whatever floats your goat

 

[HotRocks]

I agree with it. I said perhaps its warranted - its the sites policy. I was only saying - perhaps the other mod said it was to protect vendors was against these fake accounts.

My opinion is from the start - any policy is fine - its your site. This one is confusing, inconsistent and irritating when multiple posts are deleted. The principle is a good one. Perhaps the execution could use some tweaking?

I want to try to alleviate any confusion. All threads that start as a complaint about a product or service "should be" considered vendor feedback. Even if the OP doesn't put it in vendor feedback. That's where it should be. So sometimes a thread may be a few pages long once it's either discovered by moderation or reported. Then it's moved and ALL outside comments other than the OP and said vendor are removed.

The purpose of this is in hopes that the vendor in question will join the thread and rectify the issue at hand.

Personally, I think it's much more productive than a pile on bashing thread. It's all left in plain view for anyone to read. So if you are planning to purchase from the said vendor you can see peoples experiences and decide if you want to give them a shot.

So this is more about resolution than trying to protect anyone. BTW, when you have time check some of the threads out. It usually works.

There are also plenty of instances where you know... There's two sides to every story so you may not necessarily see a resolution but "proof" from a vendor of why a situation was handled a certain way.

 

[TheHarold]

I want to try to alleviate any confusion. All threads that start as a complaint about a product or service "should be" considered vendor feedback.

I actually think this phrasing is the most.... difficult, because it EXPLICITLY shows that negative posts (complaints) are moved to a separate forum, while compliments/positive feedback or positive reviews of products are not.

The issue here is consistency. Move everything to vendor feedback, or move nothing. But please don't pretend that you aren't artificially forcing a sponsors forum to be positive.


I get that they are vendors that pay the forum, or sponsors. We need them. But acknowledge that you are not allowing negativity in their forums, yeah?

 

[HotRocks]

I actually think this phrasing is the most.... difficult, because it EXPLICITLY shows that negative posts (complaints) are moved to a separate forum, while compliments/positive feedback or positive reviews of products are not.

The issue here is consistency. Move everything to vendor feedback, or move nothing. But please don't pretend that you aren't artificially forcing a sponsors forum to be positive.


I get that they are sponsors. We need them. But acknowledge that you are not allowing negativity in their forums.

I'm not going to go round and round with you. It's ALL vendors. Sponsorship has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Level playing field- ALL vendors paid or not. What's not consistent?

Looking for a resolution for the member at hand. I'm sorry if you disagree with it. It's just a rule. Whether I like it or not we enforce the ToS. As well as the marketplace rules.