Please Read.

[Philip]

This is intended as addition and clarification to what has already been addressed by Ken here: http://forums.speedguide.net/showthread.php?t=167489


There have been some insinuations as to the objectivity of SG staff in moderating these forums. Some people have hinted favoritism towards premium members, claimed inconsistencies in our actions, others have picked sides and questioned our judgement on particular occasions repeatedly. I am not going to argue specifics, and justify all our actions. The topic has been repeatedly and extensively exausted in private.

As part of an effort to stop all this, we have reverted to a previous form of enforcing the rules that requires administrator aproval to ban regular members. This additional step is not intended to lessen the moderators' role in enforcing our rules. It is not going to ease the burden on members to adhere to our rules. It is simply another step in our effort to pass objective and fair judgement to questionable posts and posting practices on the forums.

As previously, breaking the rules is not going to be taken lightly from anyone. We expect a certain level of civility on these forums. Ample warning will be given, however continued undermining of our authority will cause a permanent ban.


That's all.

Any comments and suggestions are welcome. Constructive critisism as well.

[wee96]

I believe that your making a good choice Philip, and im sure that the mod's will appreciate not getting hammered on as much anymore. Hopefully it wont cause any headaches for you or Ken though :)

[Philip]

Thanks for the good words Wee. I can take the burden and the blame, I trust Ken will do well too :)

[Spammy]

This is fricking bs...

I say ban Philip. :thumb:


J/k im cool with whatever man.

Alwyas respect the mods always will. I think your hot Philip :rotfl: :rotfl:

All joking aside good post and resolve. :)

[Lefty]

Thank you Philip and Ken, for allowing me to be a member here. I really enjoy speedguide and have for almost a year. I would also like to express my admiration of the mods here. I think the job they do is thankless and difficult at best. It is hard for anyone to do the job they do and be part of the family yet be blamed for anytime they have to use thier power to try and keep the family in line. I hope the members come to appreciate what they have here and continue to contribute in like manner. This post is not pointed at anyone, just expressing my appreciation of SG which I have really come to enjoy and learn allot from. Thanks to the members for accepting me into the fold and teaching me so much. I have come out a better person and smarter for being here and look foward to many more years here.

Thanks again :thumb:

[MadDoctor]

...continued undermining of our authority will cause a permanent ban.Now that’s what I wanted to hear! The administration here is wonderful. The mediation services provided by all the Mods is topnotch.

It just kills me to see someone shoot at a Mod as if they are paid a hefty salary. When a Mod makes a decision (be it right or wrong (depending on who you are, and what just happened)) and that decision is dragged through the open forum (i.e. lynch mob mentality) it just makes me sad.

Thanks Philip. Rep points on the way!

MD

[MadDoctor]

I have come out a better person and smarter for being here and look foward to many more years here.Me too.

[Ghosthunter]

Phillip,

I saw from your other post in the SG membership thread how you could not take much more drama anymore, so i could imagine what you were going through and felt bad.

I think the entire team of SG and the mods are doing a superb job.

[Spammy]

Phillip,

I saw from your other post in the SG membership thread how you could not take much more drama anymore, so i could imagine what you were going through and felt bad.

I think the entire team of SG and the mods are doing a superb job.

:nod: :nod:

[mountainman]

Heck...you are more than tolerant here, Philip (and staff). If I was in charge, I'd go nuts with the ban button and clean some house.

Booya!

Keep up the good work!

[Sarahnn]

Any comments and suggestions are welcome. Constructive critisism as well.

Philip, I don't get to read many of your posts. If this one is any indication of your personality and character, I think I'm in love. ;)

I would like to hear your voice on TS one of these days though.

And you know, I'm full of constructive criticism, don'tcha now. :D

*duck*

[Sarahnn]

Me too.

Maddoc? You've become a sheep. Time to face reality. :p

[Dan]

well,I just want to say one thing,and I know it's been said before,but,I like the moderators here and think they have done a good job at a tough job.

I have had PM's with most of them,some good,some not so good :eek: ,but I learn a little bit from each,just like I do with all of my experiences in my life.

I don't see any major problems with SG,

there will always be boneheads to deal with,just like the mix in real life.

I've tried other forums,and SG IMO still has something that no other forum I have been to has,it can't be described easily,but you know what I mean.

:)

I think Phillip and Ken do a great job,but they can't do it all,and DO need the mods to be around,doing what they do,to help that something make SG what it is.

[EvilAngel]

Great idea. This will give the mods some breathing room and wont have to explain to the whole SG community why they made a decision. :thumb:

[minir]

Now that’s what I wanted to hear! The administration here is wonderful. The mediation services provided by all the Mods is topnotch.

It just kills me to see someone shoot at a Mod as if they are paid a hefty salary. When a Mod makes a decision (be it right or wrong (depending on who you are, and what just happened)) and that decision is dragged through the open forum (i.e. lynch mob mentality) it just makes me sad.

Thanks Philip. Rep points on the way!

MD


---

What He ^ said :thumb:

--

regards

minir

[Roody]

I think the decision to have only Ken and you ban people is the right call Philip. Nicely done. :)

[nepenthe]

Effective management is done by guiding those in your employ, not by usurping their tasks. That said, it would be proper to bring a concensus to the banning of a member to assure some measure of objectivity and air of justice.

david

[Randy]

I havent noticed any unusual behavior.. but have heard via threads like this that some peepz are acting up.

I know a number of peep on sg very well ... and I think that they prolly enjoy a spanking from time to time. personally I am not into that kinda stuff, however I am willing to verbally spank any of those who so desire so they can leave the boards in a professional manner

who is first?...... No! not you scotty anyone else?

[MadDoctor]

*jumps up and down with hand in the air*

Pick me!

[Randy]

No not you maddoc YOu sick freak of nature..

[Randy]

Effective management is done by guiding those in your employ, not by usurping their tasks. That said, it would be proper to bring a concensus to the banning of a member to assure some measure of objectivity and air of justice.

david

stoning!!
http://mtglair.de/img/python/Stoning.jpg

[Joint Chiefs of Staff]

who is first?...... :D

I like to be spanked long and hard. Please leave bruises! thnxbye!

[MissTynker2]

Now that’s what I wanted to hear! The administration here is wonderful. The mediation services provided by all the Mods is topnotch.

It just kills me to see someone shoot at a Mod as if they are paid a hefty salary. When a Mod makes a decision (be it right or wrong (depending on who you are, and what just happened)) and that decision is dragged through the open forum (i.e. lynch mob mentality) it just makes me sad.

Thanks Philip. Rep points on the way!

MD


:nod: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

[nepenthe]

stoning!!
http://mtglair.de/img/python/Stoning.jpg


:D

[Philip]

Effective management is done by guiding those in your employ, not by usurping their tasks. That said, it would be proper to bring a concensus to the banning of a member to assure some measure of objectivity and air of justice.

david

True. Still, it is up to me to delegate such tasks. It is intended to assure objectivity and additional consistency, even though it is still up to the biased judgement of a few.

[Joint Chiefs of Staff]

True. Still, it is up to me to delegate such tasks. It is intended to assure objectivity and additional consistency, even though it is still up to the biased judgment of a few.
If it's up to you to delegate put on a tyrant hat for a few seconds, ban the few biased troublemakers, take off tyrant hat and let us come back to a normal status here at SG.

[Sarahnn]

If it's up to you to delegate put on a tyrant hat for a few seconds, ban the few biased troublemakers, take off tyrant hat and let us come back to a normal status here at SG.

If everyone here lists three members of speedguide that they sincerely think should be banned to make SG a better place, I think everyone would end up on someone's list, and those who didn't are probably not the spark plugs that drive this General Discussion board, for the most part.

Just some more thoughts.

[Joint Chiefs of Staff]

If everyone here lists three members of speedguide that they sincerely think should be banned to make SG a better place, I think everyone would end up on someone's list, and those who didn't are probably not the spark plugs that drive this General Discussion board, for the most part.

Just some more thoughts.
I'm not talking about people someone does not like. Leave it up to the admins and mods to weed out the troublemakers in one quick mouse click. It is Philip's site and afterall he's well aware who the troublemakers are.

[Spammy]

Shut up Jcos its all your fault anyway...

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Joint Chiefs of Staff]

Shut up Jcos its all your fault anyway...

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Yeah basically it all boiled down to post counts around here. :rolleyes:

[Sarahnn]

Leave it up to the admins and mods to weed out the troublemakers in one quick mouse click. It is Philip's site and afterall he's well aware who the troublemakers are.

No, I'm afraid. :(

Where's the lil sheep, I need a hug. :(

[Spammy]

Yeah basically it all boiled down to post counts around here. :rolleyes:

hehehehe :thumb:

[Joint Chiefs of Staff]

No, I'm afraid. :(

Where's the lil sheep, I need a hug. :(
Have you seen my avatar?

[nepenthe]

True. Still, it is up to me to delegate such tasks. It is intended to assure objectivity and additional consistency, even though it is still up to the biased judgement of a few.

I have no quarrel with your decision since it clearly reduces some level of perceived subjectivity. My concern is that you already have enough on your plate.

david

[nepenthe]

I'm not talking about people someone does not like. Leave it up to the admins and mods to weed out the troublemakers in one quick mouse click. It is Philip's site and afterall he's well aware who the troublemakers are.


Patrick,

It is obvious when a member has a deathwish. Some are allowed a longer rope than others.

david

[Joint Chiefs of Staff]

Patrick,

It is obvious when a member has a deathwish. Some are allowed a longer rope than others.

davidDavid,

After many, many months on SG that very rope has begun to fray and wear very thin.

Respectfully,

Patrick

[Norm]

First let me say whatever you decide Philip, is ok by me.

Something you may want to ponder to take a load off yourself and help direct bannings etc to appear more fair, possibly even become more fair. Take yourself out of the banning process all together, other than the actual clicking of the ban button.

Create a small group of known, trusted, level headed members to review the evidence and vote on the bannings of unruly members. (permanent or temporary bannings)
This group could be a secret group if that helps. It could also be a a group of members voted in by the majority of members.

Also get your staff to review the evidence and vote.

When the votes are in the decision is made to go with the vote.
Philips or Kens job would be to click the ban button and make it happen (perm or temp according to the votes)

This keeps Philip out of the process, and gives members a say as well.
Ken could to a final tally, and put his 2 cents in to sway the vote either way, depending on his take of the situation, then send the name to Philip to be banned.

Again, this is just an idea, maybe it can be expanded on as well.

[Sarahnn]

Have you seen my avatar?

Oh, I didn't see that. May I hang on to that, till the outlaw-purge is over?

[Philip]

First let me say whatever you decide Philip, is ok by me.

Something you may want to ponder to take a load off yourself and help direct bannings etc to appear more fair, possibly even become more fair. Take yourself out of the banning process all together, other than the actual clicking of the ban button.

Create a small group of known, trusted, level headed members to review the evidence and vote on the bannings of unruly members. (permanent or temporary bannings)
This group could be a secret group if that helps. It could also be a a group of members voted in by the majority of members.

Also get your staff to review the evidence and vote.

When the votes are in the decision is made to go with the vote.
Philips or Kens job would be to click the ban button and make it happen (perm or temp according to the votes)

This keeps Philip out of the process, and gives members a say as well.
Ken could to a final tally, and put his 2 cents in to sway the vote either way, depending on his take of the situation, then send the name to Philip to be banned.

Again, this is just an idea, maybe it can be expanded on as well.

How about the right to a speedy trial ;)

Thanks for the input Norm.

[nepenthe]

How about the right to a speedy trial ;)

Thanks for the input Norm.


What say you, oh Queen of Hearts....... :D

david

[minir]

Hi Philip

To me at least it really makes no difference as to who wields the Ban Button, as long as it is consistent and swift.

The 3 Strike Rule to me makes sense.


1- Warned (1st offence, non cumulative)


2- Strongly Advised (Failure to heed Warned advisory)


3- Permanently Banned (When Actions are repeated and clearly meant to incite or demean other members, or simply cause unnecessary trouble.)

--

Lets be honest here. We all make mistakes and errors in judgment from time to time, that is human nature.

It however is a far cry from some who look for openings to lash out at others, or try to incite them by their words, many times couched in a complimentary manner.

Those are the ones that need immediate attention imho. Their purpose here is to cause trouble at every opportunity and does nothing to enhance this Forum or SG overall.

Temp Banning to me at least serves no purpose. Either you abide by the Rules as laid down or you are asked to leave.

This is a truly unique site and it is a shame a handful of people can create such misery for the whole of the Forum.

When people are mean spirited or abrupt with others without reason and people say well thats just Them, to me at least thats no excuse. Play nice or play elsewhere imho.

I'm not suggesting for a moment one needs to agree with another on every subject, far from it.

Debate is a large part of the fun here and i've gained much from it. Debate or disagreement can be accomplished however without personal insult or attacks on anothers character or logic.

Civil discourse is the words i'm searching for i guess.

Just my opinion for what its worth.

--

regards

minir

[EvilAngel]

Top notch responce larry! :thumb:




Hi Philip

To me at least it really makes no difference as to who wields the Ban Button, as long as it is consistent and swift.

The 3 Strike Rule to me makes sense.


1- Warned (1st offence, non cumulative)


2- Strongly Advised (Failure to heed Warned advisory)


3- Permanently Banned (When Actions are repeated and clearly meant to incite or demean other members, or simply cause unnecessary trouble.)

--

Lets be honest here. We all make mistakes and errors in judgment from time to time, that is human nature.

It however is a far cry from some who look for openings to lash out at others, or try to incite them by their words, many times couched in a complimentary manner.

Those are the ones that need immediate attention imho. Their purpose here is to cause trouble at every opportunity and does nothing to enhance this Forum or SG overall.

Temp Banning to me at least serves no purpose. Either you abide by the Rules as laid down or you are asked to leave.

This is a truly unique site and it is a shame a handful of people can create such misery for the whole of the Forum.

When people are mean spirited or abrupt with others without reason and people say well thats just Them, to me at least thats no excuse. Play nice or play elsewhere imho.

I'm not suggesting for a moment one needs to agree with another on every subject, far from it.

Debate is a large part of the fun here and i've gained much from it. Debate or disagreement can be accomplished however without personal insult or attacks on anothers character or logic.

Civil discourse is the words i'm searching for i guess.

Just my opinion for what its worth.

--

regards

minir

[Ghosthunter]

Hi Philip

To me at least it really makes no difference as to who wields the Ban Button, as long as it is consistent and swift.

The 3 Strike Rule to me makes sense.


1- Warned (1st offence, non cumulative)


2- Strongly Advised (Failure to heed Warned advisory)


3- Permanently Banned (When Actions are repeated and clearly meant to incite or demean other members, or simply cause unnecessary trouble.)

--

Lets be honest here. We all make mistakes and errors in judgment from time to time, that is human nature.

It however is a far cry from some who look for openings to lash out at others, or try to incite them by their words, many times couched in a complimentary manner.

Those are the ones that need immediate attention imho. Their purpose here is to cause trouble at every opportunity and does nothing to enhance this Forum or SG overall.

Temp Banning to me at least serves no purpose. Either you abide by the Rules as laid down or you are asked to leave.

This is a truly unique site and it is a shame a handful of people can create such misery for the whole of the Forum.

When people are mean spirited or abrupt with others without reason and people say well thats just Them, to me at least thats no excuse. Play nice or play elsewhere imho.

I'm not suggesting for a moment one needs to agree with another on every subject, far from it.

Debate is a large part of the fun here and i've gained much from it. Debate or disagreement can be accomplished however without personal insult or attacks on anothers character or logic.

Civil discourse is the words i'm searching for i guess.

Just my opinion for what its worth.

--

regards

minir

What Minir said above I totally agree with...he said it much better then i could =)

[Philip]

I've removed the remaining 4 pages of rants, flame wars and unrelated to the topic of this thread posts.

[Shinobi]

Thanks for posting this again Philip.

Shinobi :)

[cleophus37]

beck-eck

[nepenthe]

Fascinating it is to read this thread again.

david

[catfish13]

Fascinating it is to read this thread again.

david
:rtfm:

[MissTynker2]

First let me say whatever you decide Philip, is ok by me.

Something you may want to ponder to take a load off yourself and help direct bannings etc to appear more fair, possibly even become more fair. Take yourself out of the banning process all together, other than the actual clicking of the ban button.

Create a small group of known, trusted, level headed members to review the evidence and vote on the bannings of unruly members. (permanent or temporary bannings)
This group could be a secret group if that helps. It could also be a a group of members voted in by the majority of members.

Also get your staff to review the evidence and vote.

When the votes are in the decision is made to go with the vote.
Philips or Kens job would be to click the ban button and make it happen (perm or temp according to the votes)

This keeps Philip out of the process, and gives members a say as well.
Ken could to a final tally, and put his 2 cents in to sway the vote either way, depending on his take of the situation, then send the name to Philip to be banned.

Again, this is just an idea, maybe it can be expanded on as well.

I totally agree Philip...for what ever my opinon is worth. You have your hands full as it is...trust your moderators...you honestly have some good ones Sir...and let them handle the troublemakers..they do a pretty dang good job!! and give them the powers back to bsn those...that need it!! Have a wonderful day! and...thanks for the help with the premium membership...Huggz