Member Issues

Are groups being closed down or not?

Malachi — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 01:36:16 GMT

Along with the forums?

Cannot log into account

Texas Trigger — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 21:27:10 GMT

Could you please respond to my administrator help post found here: http://mises.org/community/forums/t/32354.aspx i cannot get into my account and the password reset email I ask for never comes

Re: Why was the "Libertarian Networking" thread locked?

Malachi — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 18:32:19 GMT

Thats a good point. Perhaps four members is a quorum and we can get an official answer.

Re: Why was the "Libertarian Networking" thread locked?

JoshE — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 04:45:10 GMT

I might hazard a guess that it's at least partly due to almost all the posters in that thread being minors (not a good idea to put up personal contact information on teh interwebz where every web spider and pedophile can get at it).

Re: Why was the "Libertarian Networking" thread locked?

Autolykos — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 18:51:37 GMT

I'm also interested.

Re: Why was the "Libertarian Networking" thread locked?

gotlucky — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 05:19:29 GMT

I'm interested in knowing what's up too.

Why was the "Libertarian Networking" thread locked?

Malachi — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 22:53:24 GMT

And, why were posts that had contact information edited to remove this information? Does exchanging contact information count as "solicitation"? Elsewise, I would like to know what policy was violated, if any. The thread can be found here.

http://mises.org/community/forums/t/32246.aspx

Thanks in advance!

Re: Concerns about moderator actions

gotlucky — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 02:40:00 GMT

[quote]

You can only say Tugwit was trolling if you don't want to consider any more of the thread than the point at which the mod entered it. Before then Tugwit showed willingness to hear suggestions such as emailing an economist in the blogosphere (although why it wasn't Robert Murphy I don't know).

[/quote]

The rest of the thread is irrelevant. What matters is the interaction between Tugwit and nirgrahamUK. Tugwit was trolling nirgrahamUK. It's irrelevant if he was polite to others. That' was not the issue in question.

[quote]

If you were being honest you would acknowledge that.

[/quote]

I'm going to pretend you didn't say that. I don't need to defend nirgrahamUK. If anyone is interested in the truth they can read the thread. Maybe you'll change your attitude. Maybe not.

Re: Concerns about moderator actions

myhumangetsme — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 02:16:09 GMT

"I got involved in this thread because you brought me up in your OP. So it seems that this "song" is indeed partly about me."

It's not even "partly" about you, it's barely about you. You are involved only to the extent that the moderator chose not to address anything that was brought up by three different people about your behavior in that particular instance, and indeed someone else was punished for even bringing it up. But if you want to be the center of attention, be my guest. I didn't come here for the purpose of impressing you with my experience and insight into forum moderation anyway, your irrational anger would prevent you from seeing it even if it was there.

Re: Concerns about moderator actions

myhumangetsme — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 02:06:41 GMT

"Whether or not you like it when he said that Tugwit wasn't credible - and he did provide reasons for that - Tugwit really was trolling."

You can only say Tugwit was trolling if you don't want to consider any more of the thread than the point at which the mod entered it. Before then Tugwit showed willingness to hear suggestions such as emailing an economist in the blogosphere (although why it wasn't Robert Murphy I don't know).

"...it's abundantly clear to anyone who reads the posts in question that Tugwit was trolling nirgrahamUK."

Rubbish. Tugwit was talking to others in the thread and was obviously defensive prior to the mod entering the discussion, but even more obvious is that the mod made it worse by saying something that offended Tugwit, then asserting that he was a troll and (kindly) threatening moderator action for responding to it. That action only came to be necessary because of the mod's actions in the first place. If you were being honest you would acknowledge that.

I didn't start this to suggest that this forum is full of bad moderators, but there are certainly bad moderator actions; how moderators act is the difference between a successful forum and a dead one. And particularly where this forum (and indeed this site) is concerned, with a message about more peaceful ends to the world at large, the moderators need to uphold those principles. Irresponsible speech, an inability to be humble and threats (no matter how nicely put) do not meet those principles, and if no one else knows better than to point them out, I will.

Re: Concerns about moderator actions

Autolykos — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 15:57:57 GMT

[quote user="myhumangetsme"]Autolykos: "You're a moron," is not bullying language, it's an insult, something you're also well familiar with. Another part of the problem since it appears that you have gotten away with behavior that others here have been punished for on several occasions.[/quote] Are you saying that you didn't call Vladimir Ulyanov a moron in order to hopefully shut him up in that thread? Insults and bullying language aren't mutually exclusive, at least not in my opinion. [quote user="myhumangetsme"]Apparently *a* moderator responded to several complaints about a thread and took action, which means nothing about *the* moderators (or even that particular moderator) agreeing with you about one specific statement. For all you know, your bullying language that kept the thread going down the wrong path is what got it locked.[/quote] My claim that apparently the moderators agree with me isn't based solely on Physiocrat locking your "RIP Thomas Szasz" thread. [quote user="myhumangetsme"]So what if they think they're doing so? That doesn't mean they actually are, much less that they're beyond criticism.[/quote] It also doesn't mean they actually aren't, nor that your criticism of them is necessarily valid. [quote user="myhumangetsme"]Because unlike you, I know what it means to be a moderator on a team of high-quality moderators for a very busy site. I've done so for several years, and I know what good forum moderation looks like. Moderation actions which tend to deter from forum participation rather than facilitating it need to be addressed, and in this case, I felt it was necessary to speak up. The fact that you think this song is about you is what's quite hilarious.[/quote] I got involved in this thread because you brought me up in your OP. So it seems that this "song" is indeed partly about me. That said, I couldn't care less whether you (allegedly!) "know what it means to be a moderator on a team of high-quality moderators for a very busy site... for several years" or whether you "know what good forum moderation looks like". In other words, saying that won't make me think that you're necessarily more qualified in this area. And quite frankly, I don't really believe that you are more qualified. Maybe that doesn't matter to you, but there it is. Feel free to post anything you want about the problems you have with my behavior. Also feel free to bring up any/all of it to the forum staff. In no way am I claiming that my behavior has always been perfect.

Re: Concerns about moderator actions

gotlucky — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 04:42:10 GMT

I'm supporting nirgrahamUK. Whether or not you like it when he said that Tugwit wasn't credible - and he did provide reasons for that - Tugwit really was trolling. There's no need to explain why, as it's abundantly clear to anyone who reads the posts in question that Tugwit was trolling nirgrahamUK. The only moderator action that I have seriously disagreed with was the 30 day temp ban of Smiling Dave. But Daniel James Sanchez explained why he did it, and that's that. It's not a mystery. I don't think nirgrahamUK overstepped any bounds, and I don't see any mods regularly do that. In fact, if I were to have any complaint about the mods, it would be that there are certain people that *they don't warn enough*.

Re: Concerns about moderator actions

myhumangetsme — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 04:22:46 GMT

And to get back to the point of the discussion, we have yet another instance of questionable moderator action in the "Fiscal Multipliers Debunked" thread. Even if the mod (in acting as a forum member) did not intend to insult the OP with their off-handed statement, the OP was nonetheless offended and fired back. Then the mod decided to shift out of forum member mode and pull out their moderator card to 'tut-tut' the OP.

Whenever a moderator enters a discussion acting only as a forum member, they need to think much harder about the language they use as they are still a site representative. In this case, the mod erred and offended a forum member, whether or not it was intended that way, and it exacerbated the tone of discussion; at the very least the mod owed the OP an apology for their poor choice of words.

More importantly, once a moderator enters a discussion acting only as a forum member, it must be understood that they essentially relinquish their right to act as a moderator in that discussion (excepting only those serious situations where action is required). Even if the moderator is acting objectively, the fact that they've already taken up a subjective position in the discussion makes it appear as if the moderator will take action against those who disagree with them. This was not a serious situation, this was a situation which could *potentially* degrade, so there was no reason for the moderator to switch modes. They should've alerted another moderator to the goings on in that thread so that the other moderator could issue a friendly reminder, if necessary.

Re: Concerns about moderator actions

myhumangetsme — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 03:48:37 GMT

Autolykos: "You're a moron," is not bullying language, it's an insult, something you're also well familiar with. Another part of the problem since it appears that you have gotten away with behavior that others here have been punished for on several occasions.

"I don't think so, and apparently the moderators agree with me."

Apparently *a* moderator responded to several complaints about a thread and took action, which means nothing about *the* moderators (or even that particular moderator) agreeing with you about one specific statement. For all you know, your bullying language that kept the thread going down the wrong path is what got it locked.

"So I think it's ironic that you call on the moderators of this forum to hold themselves to a higher standard when they apparently think they're already doing so."

So what if they think they're doing so? That doesn't mean they actually are, much less that they're beyond criticism.

"In sum, I really have no idea where you're coming from. Nor do I have any idea why you act like you're on such a high horse."

Because unlike you, I know what it means to be a moderator on a team of high-quality moderators for a very busy site. I've done so for several years, and I know what good forum moderation looks like. Moderation actions which tend to deter from forum participation rather than facilitating it need to be addressed, and in this case, I felt it was necessary to speak up. The fact that you think this song is about you is what's quite hilarious.

Re: Concerns about moderator actions

Autolykos — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:13:19 GMT

[quote user="jordan161"]This doesn't answer his objection to to the moderator's use of profanity. Do you think it is appropriate, given the decorum apparently expected on this forum, for a moderator to use profanity to refer to a discussion within a thread?[/quote] I think it's debatable whether the word "bitch" used as a verb is profane. But point taken. I didn't realize that's what myhumangetsme was highlighting. [quote user="jordan161"]Do you think it is appropriate, by your own personal standard, on a thread titled "RIP Thomas Szasz", to post "Szasz was a quack (fraud)"? Can you see why this might legitimately (i.e. not a contrived standard to eliminate debate [sic]) offend the original poster? If the answer is yes to both of these questions, could you explain why saying "you're a moron" is an act of bullying? If my point isn't clear, consider this: at a memorial service for an academic, suppose one of the speakers described the deceased as an academic fraud, and told them watch a video to support that assertion. Do you a see possible, relevant analogy to the first response to the thread "RIP Thomas Szasz"?[/quote] Of course I see how it would offend the OP. However, I don't believe that such offense would permit him to then call the other user a moron. Furthermore, I don't believe (although I could be wrong) that calling Szasz a quack is against the forum rules, while directly calling another user a moron is. So yes, I think it's legitimate to claim that Szasz was a quack in a thread titled "RIP Thomas Szasz". [quote user="jordan161"]Would you say that he is an "idea pig", then?[/quote] I think you're barking up the wrong tree with this. BloomJ31 seemed to me to be trying to stifle discussion by making what looked like to me as veiled threats. However, when Physiocrat requested me to not refer to him as "Idea Pig" in retaliation, I readily acquiesced. I honestly don't see Vladimir Ulyanov's post as an attempt to stifle discussion. No, he wasn't respectful toward Thomas Szasz's memory, but I don't think he had to be.

Re: Concerns about moderator actions

jordan161 — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 23:56:36 GMT

[quote user="Autolykos"]So I think it's ironic that you call on the moderators of this forum to hold themselves to a higher standard when they apparently think they're already doing so.

[/quote] This doesn't answer his objection to to the moderator's use of profanity. Do you think it is appropriate, given the decorum apparently expected on this forum, for a moderator to use profanity to refer to a discussion within a thread? [quote user="Autolykos"] And "You're a moron" sure sounds like bullying language to me. So I also think it's ironic that you obliquely accuse me of using threatening and bullying language when you seem to have no problem doing so yourself.

[/quote] Do you think it is appropriate, by your own personal standard, on a thread titled "RIP Thomas Szasz", to post "Szasz was a quack (fraud)"? Can you see why this might legitimately (i.e. not a contrived standard to eliminate debate) offend the original poster? If the answer is yes to both of these questions, could you explain why saying "you're a moron" is an act of bullying? If my point isn't clear, consider this: at a memorial service for an academic, suppose one of the speakers described the deceased as an academic fraud, and told them watch a video to support that assertion. Do you a see possible, relevant analogy to the first response to the thread "RIP Thomas Szasz"? [quote user="Autolykos"] In sum, I really have no idea where you're coming from. Nor do I have any idea why you act like you're on such a high horse.

[/quote] Would you say that he is an "idea pig", then?

Re: Concerns about moderator actions

Autolykos — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 18:45:16 GMT

myhumangetsme: Do you think it's consistent with the rules of this forum to post things like "You're a moron"? I don't think so, and apparently the moderators agree with me. So I think it's ironic that you call on the moderators of this forum to hold themselves to a higher standard when they apparently think they're already doing so.

And "You're a moron" sure sounds like bullying language to me. So I also think it's ironic that you obliquely accuse me of using threatening and bullying language when you seem to have no problem doing so yourself.

In sum, I really have no idea where you're coming from. Nor do I have any idea why you act like you're on such a high horse.

Re: Concerns about moderator actions

vive la insurrection — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 04:14:04 GMT

If your main point is: When acting as a mod, act with a higher standard - I agree. And it should be called out as much as possible when one feels otherwise.

Re: Double Emails

mangr3n — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 16:04:51 GMT

Seems to be fixed today.

Thanks :)

Re: Double Emails

Merlin — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 20:44:01 GMT

Same here.