# Offentlighetsprincipen.



## Húrin Thalion (Nov 20, 2003)

As you are all aware, there has been some recent disputes between members and moderators/WM. Now, I am aware that I am to some degree a part of this, or at least to my knowledge the first one of these conflicts, if you remember I was banned for a few months due to an incident with a moderator. That is now long forgotten and does not matter anymore, but I persisted in keeeping the discussion about it public, and that matters to my first suggestion. The problem in general with conflicts between mods and members seems to keep existing and I have a few basic ideas to prevent this sort of friction. The most important would be offentlighetsprincipen, something very basic in real life but obviously not applied here. It is the right of all citizens (members) to access all state (forum) documents. I don't see why there should be a closed moderators forum, I don't see why their discussions should be kept away from the members. If not to participate, we should at least be allowed to read how the mods argumented for and against various suggestions and decisions. 

Another thing I would appreciate would be Democracy. Demos Kratein, pardon my Greek, but "people reigning". If you are allowed to elect your governemnt in the real world, why don't we have the right to do it on TTF? Gil Galad came with teh argument that 12 and 13 year olds would vote for the ones that are not the best moderators. There are two solutions, either saying that they are allowed to vote as they wish, and whoever they choose si the best one. Or, you do as in the real world, you put in an age restriction, for example 18 or 16 years. I realize that I would not get the right to vote in any case.


And, RD, as for the vocal minority, if I get you right, I would be a part of it. Well, that is just how it is, everybody is allowed to put forward their opinions and if that is not people's wish, then they don't have to. That the ones that put forward their opinions happen to be rather eloquent does not matter, should we listen less to them because of that?

Måns


----------



## Lantarion (Nov 20, 2003)

You know, I think I agree with you abot the Guild of Moderators idea.
There really is no reason for it to be a blind, closed forum. I think that all members should be allowed to read everything we post in there, but not to post anything _in_ the GoM. Sounds good to me.


----------



## Uminya (Nov 20, 2003)

I am in disagreement. Nothing of importance to the members as a whole is discussed in the GoM...if we ever actually come to a decision, or just a gist, there is always a news post about it. There's nothing "secret" in the GoM, but we do need a place to discuss *ideas* before they get posted.


----------



## Húrin Thalion (Nov 20, 2003)

Thank you for proving my point very well, Ciryaher. If there is nothing secret, there is no harm in letting everyone see it, no?

Måns


----------



## Uminya (Nov 20, 2003)

Well I just haven't seen a good enough reason for the GoM to be opened....but regardless, it's not my decision and I really doubt that the GoM is never going to be made a public place. There is the GoM: Discussion area for your perusage if you want to discuss something with the staff, of course.


----------



## elf_queen (Nov 20, 2003)

> Gil Galad came with teh argument that 12 and 13 year olds would vote for the ones that are not the best moderators. There are two solutions, either saying that they are allowed to vote as they wish, and whoever they choose si the best one. Or, you do as in the real world, you put in an age restriction, for example 18 or 16 years.



Excuse me, but there are responsible 12 year olds out there!


----------



## Celebthôl (Nov 20, 2003)

I dont think there should be a vote, as elf_queen says, there are responsible 12 year olds out there, it demenes the members who arent allowed to vote etc.

I say we get Anc back as a mod, the forum ran so much more smoother when he was Uber Mod, none of this constant reforming and arguing!


----------



## Lantarion (Nov 20, 2003)

You're right elf_queen; but although this may be the case, it is reasonable to assume that a 17-year-old is often more learned and also probably more responsible than a 12-13-year-old, n'est pas? 

ANCALAGON!! WE WANT ANC! WE WANT ANC! 
And while we're at it, WE WANT NÓM! 

I think the general point to making the GoM viewable to everybody would be to narrow the rift between Moderator and Member (although, personally, I think a Mod should also be a counted as a Member) by actually letting non-Moderators see the train of thought of the Mods.


> _originally posted by Ciryaher_
> There is the GoM: Discussion area for your perusage if you want to discuss something with the staff, of course.


Yeah, right. Exactly how many members have used this wonderful new tool?  Sorry for the sarcasm, but I think that the GOM:D area is basically a joke. If the GoM is not viewable to all, what possible use would the GoM:D have??


----------



## Uminya (Nov 20, 2003)

You don't have to see the GoM to be able to use the GoM: D. If you have something of a complaint, put it in the GoM: D.

The GoM: D is only as big a joke as the C9 becuase people don't use it. When people don't use something, it becomes (of course) unused. Unused things don't make progress.

Edit: *laughs* had to change all the abbreviations for GoM: D because it was coming out as GoM


----------



## Lantarion (Nov 20, 2003)

> When people don't use something, it becomes (of course) unused.


HAHAHA!    Classic!! Oh I'm going to have to quote you on that sometime. 

Whew, er well I point with the joke thing was that if people have a problem they PM the person they have a problem with. If they have a problem with some aspect of the forum, they post it in Entmoot. Not much room for GOM:D  there, I'd say.


----------



## Uminya (Nov 20, 2003)

Perhaps you have a point, but some people want to discuss things that pertain to the staff in here, when it would be better suited for the GoM: D. But I suppose that point is moot.

Still, I don't see why the GoM should be opened to public view if we're talking about most of those things here.


----------



## HLGStrider (Nov 20, 2003)

I personally don't care if the mods discuss things in private. 

Some things need to be private so that they don't infect the forum.

If there is a dispute between two mods, the less we know about it the better because the less likely we would be to take sides and start to tear the forum up. The more likely the mods will be able to quietly resolve things.


----------



## Niniel (Nov 21, 2003)

I think it's a good idea for the mods to have a place where they can discuss things in private. Cause if they don't, and there is something they want to discuss privately, they'll have to do it on MSN and that is much more inconvenient than on TTF.


----------



## Húrin Thalion (Nov 21, 2003)

All of you are pointing out how convenient it is for the mods to have a separate place, or that it would cause trouble if two mods were fighting publicly. Then, what if they were fighting slilently? Wouldn't that severely dim their objectivity? Should not the members be awaree of this sort of thing? It seems to me like you are missing my point, this sin't to frame the moderators of being evil, it is the opposite, for the members to be able to trust the mods, know what they do and protest if they dislike something.

And what aobut the elevtion of Mods? We could elect half the squad at one time, and the other half at another, to get continuity.

Måns


----------



## Helcaraxë (Nov 21, 2003)

I've only been on the forum for a short time, but I remeber a period with very little petty bickering and friction. WHAT HAPPENED? One day, I came on after a week-long break, and BEHOLD!!! This seemed to be an entirlely different forum.

--MB


----------



## Rangerdave (Nov 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Húrin Thalion _
> *
> 
> And, RD, as for the vocal minority, if I get you right, I would be a part of it. Well, that is just how it is, everybody is allowed to put forward their opinions and if that is not people's wish, then they don't have to. That the ones that put forward their opinions happen to be rather eloquent does not matter, should we listen less to them because of that?
> ...




Firstly.
If you would be so kind as to read my post again.
You will notice that I did not call for a ban on legimate sugesstions for tyring to improve the forum. If you have a suggestion on how to improve either the enjoyment or an idea to help in administrative matters. Please do post them, we would be glad to hear any and all input.

What I rightly called for an end to is the "Cult of Personality" type of rant that is designed solely to force change throwing a tantrum. That type of behaviour should not and will not be tolerated.

Notice the difference.


Secondly. 
You will also notice that no names were mentioned in my post. This was quite intentional. I don't believe in finger-pointing and whistle-blowing.
But if the shoe fits....



RD


----------



## HLGStrider (Nov 21, 2003)

> Then, what if they were fighting slilently? Wouldn't that severely dim their objectivity?



Not as much as it would if it were public. When two people argue in private one can back down and still save face. When they argue and public and get a following they can't. 

Let's make something ridiculous up.

Mod 1 and 2 have a debate on whether red or green apples are better. It gets heated. Bad things are said.

Member 1 defends mod 2 and says things that are mean about mod 1. Member 2 jumps to the defense of mod 1 and makes a crack at member 1. Even if Mod 2 changes his mind in favor of red apples or Mod 1 decides it isn't worth fighting for, they lose face. They were seen to lose a dispute in front of the whole forum. If it ends less prettily, it's a big pock mark for the whole membership to see.

Now this can happen between any set of members, but we're talking about Mods here. They're supposed to be leaders. . .and truthfully, I'd rather not know abut their petty fights.


----------



## Lantarion (Nov 22, 2003)

Well nobody would be forcing anybody to read what goes on in the GoM: I just felt that the possibility of doing so should exist.
But there are many pros and cons here.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Nov 25, 2003)

Okay, boys and girls! Leave us face it, as they used to say, moderators have a different position on the forum than do the rest of us and they need a place to "duke it out" if they disagree about something or to say something that perhaps they don't wish bruited about on the rest of the forum. It isn't easy to be a moderator (I assume it's very much like juggling with one hand!). Now, I have yet to meet a moderator whom I would suspect eats babies or hamstrings old ladies (I certainly _hope_ not!!). They all appear to be decent young men and women who try their best even if they are not always successful. But it seems to me that every once in a while, we have arise amongst us, the "Dr. Fell" syndrome. Now this is an actual psychological syndrome which is defined by an old rhyme, to wit:

I do not like thee Dr. Fell!
The reason why, I cannot tell!
But this I know, and know full well,
I do not _like_ thee, Dr. Fell!

Sometimes, members of the forum - including moderators - take a "dislike" to another member. This is sad, but it is also normal. I certainly would prefer that a moderate be able to "grouch" about that member on a private thread with other moderators (who might be able to alleviate the problem) rather than either be kept from venting at all or venting in a place that might be seen by the object of the rant. And you all know where that eventually leads!

Since no one on the Forum is in a position - or wishes - to take over the world, I would suggest that we allow the moderators their little hidey-hole where they probably work out most of their problems far from the rest of us (thank God!). If a member has a problem with a moderator (now that the Council is no more), his or her best bet is to discuss the matter either with that individual _privately_, or find some third person willing to act as a go-between to help conciliate the problem. Remember, the names of the old Council are still there and all of those who were on the Council volunteered to be there because they wished to help in just such situations. 

If everyone is equally desirous of an amicable resolution to the problem, it can be worked out. If one or both combatants wish to continue the dispute, let them do it alone and leave the rest of us out of it. Things really only begin to "go bad" when both sides seek allies for their point of view on the forum, thus creating "factions", something which, frankly, have no place here.


----------



## Rhiannon (Nov 27, 2003)

Oh good Lord, Mrs. M...now I can't read _Green Eggs and Ham_ anymore.

I agree that the moderators need a place to discuss their moderating. If a member wants to know why something was done, they can ask- a thread I started was moved from one forum to another, and I contacted a mod to ask why. I got a polite, straightforward answer, and when I explained the intent of the thread and requested for it to be moved back the mod agreed. All very pleasant and courteous. If people take the time to go through the proper channels, there's no need to get upset and riled up over anything- and no reason to 'look over the mods' shoulders'.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Nov 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Rhiannon _
> *Oh good Lord, Mrs. M...now I can't read Green Eggs and Ham anymore.
> 
> I agree that the moderators need a place to discuss their moderating. If a member wants to know why something was done, they can ask- a thread I started was moved from one forum to another, and I contacted a mod to ask why. I got a polite, straightforward answer, and when I explained the intent of the thread and requested for it to be moved back the mod agreed. All very pleasant and courteous. If people take the time to go through the proper channels, there's no need to get upset and riled up over anything- and no reason to 'look over the mods' shoulders'. *


I quite agree. Most people who "find fault" with how someone does his or her job doesn't want to do the job himself nor is it often that constructive help is presented ("Try doing this instead...."). Most often it's just a negative comment - or two or six or twenty-six. Does that mean that negative comments are always bad? No! But if one is going to say something negative, it is always best to "couch it" in as positive a way as possible. After all, for a well-meaning person, the idea is to help the other individual and fix the situation, not just cause trouble. So one may say, "You know, you were a bit abrupt with me, but I'm sure you didn't mean to be. Can we discuss things more amicably?" and so forth. There is usually a way of correcting a situation in which all parties know that they are respected, appreciated and accepted. The old saying "a soft answer turneth away wrath" is very applicable in cases like these.


----------



## Húrin Thalion (Nov 27, 2003)

You seem to have missed my point with this thread a little The point is not that I want the members to find fault, or "expose" something bad that the mods do, rather the opposite, to once and for all prove that they are not making a great conspiracy in their forum. Thus, we would end some of the disputes that occur between members and mods at times, I think, and that is what we want, no? I agree with all your arguments, but fail to see their relevance compared to this.

Oh and RD, some woudl consider that shoe comment rather unnecessary, but I don't, at least you have now said what you really think. And, I would be rather proud to be considered as a part of that "vocal minority". However, regarding book forum elitism, of course people whol ove to discuss books put greater value on people discussing books, is that so strange? Do not misinterpret that as contempt for other members.

Måns


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Nov 27, 2003)

I was not talking about the thread, but about the last few comments made thereon.


----------



## HLGStrider (Nov 27, 2003)

> to once and for all prove that they are not making a great conspiracy in their forum.



I don't think anyone truly believes this. If they do they need to take some anti-paranoia pills. . .I disagree sometimes with the way things are handled (I'm a proponent of the GoR and GoP for gosh sakes), but I don't think there is a conspiracy in the mods. Some members I don't trust, but mods, generally. 

I can only see this being a reasonable fear in the case of a person getting punished for something or other, but this has rarely happened.


----------



## Húrin Thalion (Nov 28, 2003)

> I don't think anyone truly believes this. If they do they need to take some anti-paranoia pills. . .I disagree sometimes with the way things are handled (I'm a proponent of the GoR and GoP for gosh sakes), but I don't think there is a conspiracy in the mods. Some members I don't trust, but mods, generally.



Watching sadly the great efforts done to miss a small irony... Well, what to do, what to do...

Måns


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Nov 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Húrin Thalion _
> *Watching sadly the great efforts done to miss a small irony... Well, what to do, what to do...
> 
> Måns *


Alas, the problem is the growing paranoia regarding this situation. Irony does not thrive in a climate where what is irony for one person is a serious allegation from another! I would suggest that irony and other types of humor will only begin to flourish when all the paranoia and bad feelings have been abandoned and we are all working together with the knowledge that despite whatever mistakes are made, _everyone_ is doing his or her best for the forum and for all its members. When that time comes, even the most spectacular statement will be received for what it is - an attempt at humor whether irony or just plain silliness. I pray that such a blessed day will come swiftly for all of our sakes!


----------



## Scatha (Dec 13, 2003)

This paranoia really has to end. The modsforum is there for the mods to discuss on how to handle matters and to confer with eachother to function as a team, which is quite hard without a spot to do so.

Your "Principle of openness", HT, is most likely your view on this situation, but would probably be detrimental to the functioning of the moderator group, because not only would they have to discuss things before the eye of the entire board, but also watch what they say towards eachother and about some of the disturbing elements on this board. (as I have little doubt they are discussed)

Situations where one mod needs the advice of another on how to handle something, would then be done through messenger services or such and only cause taking action where needed to be slowed down. I hardly think this is for the benefit of this board.


----------

