To moderate or not

Ghosty

Butterfly Fish
#1
(Sorry in advance for the novella, I type very fast. This post was split off from Shelby-Evan's original review thread of Ambrosio)

(Also, please do not quote this entire giant post, quote pertinant parts if you wish. Thanks)

I agree with Evan concerning not allowing other posts, that's a little concerning. For the last ten years as a side hobby, I own and run the biggest car & racing web forum in Colorado. I am the main Admin & Mod with a dozen or so forum Mods that I oversee. Over the years we have dealt with literally hundreds of online drama incidents in the car scene, of various degrees of negativity. Even streetracing crap-talking threads escalating to people "meeting up" to settle the score, it's not pretty nor fun. Therefore, my board has been strongly moderated to combat these types of situations.

Same with shop sponsors and various disgruntled and satisfied customers, we got 'em all, all types of people, all types of problems, from dragrace grunge matches, prematurely blown engines, incorrectly built heads, police incidents, lost parts orders, builds taking forever, shops not communicating enough, dyno arguments about correction factors and horsepower, etc., etc. In my experience, doing this level of censorship makes the Mods' life easier for sure, but to the detriment of free speech.

I've found the happy medium is strongly moderating the thread, keeping an eye on it throughout the day, everyday. If people post anything that isn't personal experience with the complaintant, or the shop, then they are asked to refrain from objective bashing. Keep posts allowed though so people can voice opinions with facts stated at hand, instead of heresay. Anything that is objective opinion or not substantiated, we must let the user community use their best judgement to filter those things and take everything with a grain of salt, with the possibility that it may or may not be factual.

I think we're all adults on this board, that I've seen so far, so this would not be hard to do, and you won't have a complaint/review thread with only two people in it, which really goes nowhere because they could just as well "take it to PM's". It's healthy to have people speak up about their good experiences and bad to add to the history of the parties involved.

I have no dog in this fight, since I've done business with BOTH parties, two times each. Both times were completely positive experiences, with no b.s., no issue, excellent and rapid communication, no shadyness, etc.

If I may state my opinion even though I'm not involved directly with THIS complaint, I would continue to do business with both Evan & Nick. NOT TAKING SIDES, and I'm not accusing Nick of anything, In the future I would just maybe be careful to communicate EXACTLY the stipulations of a pending transaction, payment info IN DETAIL, including times, availability, etc. if it was a concern to me, or a high-dollar item (like those Designer Clowns) especially. If a verbal deal was made for certain, then maybe something slipped through the cracks, maybe a 3rd party was forgotten about or one or more parties was not concrete with their wishes or timing, etc. Who knows? It doesn't sound like Evan is just blowing up for the sake of beating his chest, he sounds like he has an honest gripe, and maybe this 3rd party got sold his goods, if anything maybe by a miscommunication somewhere in this triangle of people, I dunno. So hopefully this can end peacefully, and maybe someone can admit a small mistake or timing error, whatever, and there doesn't need to be hard feelings on either side.

This is all common sense, and as adults, no need for censorship I think. When a thread boils over with lots of various opinions from the peanut gallery, the Mods should be able to easily "moderate", hand out verbal warnings about insults, keep drama to a minimum, etc. We've been VERY successful on CRN, and our board is considered one of the favorites of all local forums. We have many scores of members that have been onboard for a decade. Treat your members like adults, but expect respect and adult behavior in return. 99% of the time it works fine, while still allowing adequate feedback on shop/customer experiences and not stifling the community's feedback.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ShelbyJK500

Dolphin
M.A.S.C Club Member
#2
Completely well stated Praveen. I personally appreciate a third party, non-biased view of these issues. While things may be very heated between the two in question, most censorship/over-moderation can be very detrimental in communities. It only allows that which is deemed "appropriate" to see the light of day, whilst issues brew beneath the surface...and who gets to deem what gets through? Dangerous territory on any scale. Thank you for you wealth of knowledge on the subject as I had no idea you were that deep into the forum communities in general.
 

cdrewferd

Reef Shark
M.A.S.C Club Member
#3
I agree. We've all had bad experiences at one time or another. There are also times where a sponsor just screws up. This isn't a big problem if they are willing to step up, say they screwed up, and work to make the right.

However. I believe that we should all be able to voice our opinion, good or bad, no matter the situation.

I do also believe that the vendor/seller needs to try and make things right. Most of us have been around long enough that we know the good people and who's just here to cause a scene. Evan is a great guy. He's worked with me on several occasions and in my opinion is a great asset and a great guy.

We are all human and make mistakes. What's important is how we recover from that mistake.
 
#5
Despite the notion of slight invasion from moderators I do believe that if instituted a stringent moderation of primary threads would, in general be beneficial. The reason being no opinion or voice is being silenced, it would just give the BOD and moderators a barometer for the general spirit of the society at any given time.
 

Cake_Boss

Blue Whale
M.A.S.C Club Member
#6
Re: To moderate or not

The thing is that some guys are kind of "hot heads," have diarrhea of the mouth before they have a chance to check themselves, coming to conclusions that see sometimes illogical/ irrational.

Did the guys have a reason to be upset? Sure.
Did they prematurely post stuff? Maybe.
Did they get a bunch off their chests? You bet.

I see the reason to mod, issues should be kept between the two(or more) offending members.

Ok awesome, now what?
 

FinsUp

According to my watch, the time is now.
M.A.S.C Club Member
#7
Evan made a very valid point in the original thread, that when you limit a negative conversation to just the two parties involved, but allow everyone to chime in if they're being positive, that it gives an extremely lopsided look to things. Ghosty is right- we are adults and should act as such. That doesn't mean we're all diplomats or politicians, putting a happy PC spin on everything. If I'm outraged at a member's or vendor's behavior, I should be able to say so, even if I wasn't part of the sale in question. As a full grown adult, I am expected to do so without resorting to name calling, threats, or bullying. As several others have said, mistakes and foulups happen. Miscommunication happens. So do bad business practices. How someone reacts and handles the situation is what matters most.

In the case of Evan and Ambrosio, it certainly could have had a much better outcome than it did. I don't know either person, and have no stake in that deal. Other than the fact that I came very close to doing business with Ambrosio on some fancy clowns. Based on what I saw, that's not going to happen. I'll either keep my current pair of clowns, or I'll get fancy ones from someone else. I'm sometimes willing to prepay for corals if the seller provides good pics, but when it comes to fish, I want to see them swim before I give you my money. I know that there are others who are willing to take more risks, but I am not. I refuse to drive from Westminster to Aurora during rush hour & take the risk that (even though he knows that I'm on my way for specific clowns) he will sell them over the phone to someone else. Then might call me names and insult me when I hold him accountable for his actions by calling him out on the forum. Had he responded in a more professional manner and shown that he cares about his customers (and his reputation), I might have been willing to do business with him despite the original foulup. But I couldn't express that in Evan's thread because it was locked down.

In some cases, the silence can be deafening, but that's not the case in a forum. And forcing members to develop new threads to express their discontent with a vendor or fellow member is counterproductive at best. People won't do it, so the information simply won't be available. Nor will someone back out of one thread and go into another, then another, and another, just to get a feel for whether a vendor is a standup guy/girl that they want to deal with.

In a recent case of a member scamming other members, nobody spoke up until it had been going on for a while. Once someone called him out, others felt more comfortable doing so, and the pattern of behavior and extent of his scam was unravelled. Hopefully new members were able to read that thread and avoid getting scammed themselves. Had I seen such a thread before I dealt with him, I would have avoided him like the plague, and he wouldn't have scammed me or involved me to scam someone else.

Obviously, this goes into the FWIW category.
 

Smokey

Cleaner Shrimp
#8
To moderate or not

I have to weigh in and agree that I think this level of moderation is not the right approach. I think that comments should be kept mature and on point, but everyone should have the freedom to express their opinions without having to start a whole new thread. Just think about what happens when people start talking about ReefCentral. It has basically died as an immense source of information because the mods got out of control with censorship which is what I see here. I think the boards should be monitored for inappropriate content or offensive posts, but opinions should be allowed to be aired in an adult fashion.
 

CRW Reef

Blue Whale
M.A.S.C Club Member
ex-officio
#9
Re: BS business practices...Ambrosio Aquatics

CRW Reef;227261 said:
will only be displaying affiliated parties input and parties with like experiences. All non-involved comments will be removed.

If you have input that is not related to same transaction or topic involving said individual, please feel free to create your own thread.
Curious which part of this is being interpreted as censorship and keeping people from voicing their opinion and experiences with someone. Does it not read "parties with like experiences" and also "topic involving said individual"?

So please explain what part of that limits others from saying, speaking, typing their thoughts, feelings and experience, so long as it is related to the subject matter at hand?

There is a huge difference between yes I'm a victim as well, or I had the same or similar experience; then saying oh that's jacked up thanks for letting us know. Or shouldn't you accept PayPal with refunds available, or seems shady to me. These are the things that muddy a beneficial feedback thread and make it into a circus act. The mud slinging only makes all parties look like bored, flaming, childish parties with something to proof.

So yes if you have an experience inline (good or bad) with someone whom is listed in a feedback thread. Feel free to voice your thoughts. But if you in no way shape or form have an experience with the individual you are looking to share; then no your post will be removed.

It is important to look at both sides when you want to cast judgement and sentences on others from behind a computer screen. Yes you have the ability and protection to say as you will, often times resulting in things you wouldn't dare say face to face. However so long as you conduct yourself towards others with respect and as an adult even when discussing disagreements, disgust and displeasure; the outcome will be much more in favor for all parties, the community can make their own decisions based on how the discussion concluded and lastly people do not end up tarnished as a result of one bad instance out of thousands.

Again the BOD does not intend to falsely hide things, bait and switch things, and certainly does not take the integrity of this club as a whole lightly when making decisions!!!!

We appreciate your thoughts, comments, feed back and ad always thank you for your support.
 

amonchak

Administrator
Staff member
M.A.S.C Club Member
M.A.S.C. B.O.D.
M.A.S.C Treasurer
#10
I think the key to a lot of the comments in this thread is the point that feedback both good and bad should be displayed in an adult fashion (whcih would not include pot stirring, flamming, or general nonesense comments). Comments from other individuals that keep the threads factual based and on track are useful.

As Chad said the BOD supports feedback on all topics both positive and negative. It is important to think about how the best way to approach the situation to get the information accross without loosing the point of what was originally being discussed. We appreciate the community feed back as we try to keep this forum headed in the right direction.
 

Zooid

Reef Shark
M.A.S.C Club Member
#11
CRW Reef;227659 said:
will only be displaying affiliated parties input and parties with like experiences. All non-involved comments will be removed.

If you have input that is not related to same transaction or topic involving said individual, please feel free to create your own thread.
I think this is a good way to go also. I've seen too many threads turn into flaming matches from people posting their OPINIONS without having actual experiences with either party.
Evan's thread should only include posts from anyone with DIRECT experience with Ambrosio. At that point we are all free to form an opinion about whether or not to support a vendor
based more on the facts presented.
JMHO
 

Ghosty

Butterfly Fish
#12
CindyL;227632 said:
That doesn't mean we're all diplomats or politicians, putting a happy PC spin on everything.
I am NOTORIOUS for this, hahaaa. I sometimes have to catch myself because people felt that I wasn't seeing the breadth or severity of their complaint about a shop or other member. Live and learn, the Internet is full of ALL TYPES of people, from every end of the spectrum, be in political, age group, depth in a particular hobby, knowledge, etc.

In the case of Evan and Ambrosio, it certainly could have had a much better outcome than it did. I don't know either person, and have no stake in that deal. Other than the fact that I came very close to doing business with Ambrosio on some fancy clowns. Based on what I saw, that's not going to happen. I'll either keep my current pair of clowns, or I'll get fancy ones from someone else.
Everyone should make up their own minds. For me, I do have experience with Ambrosio, and would do business again. I will see how this rolls out though, and hope for the best, since they are BOTH active and respected members of our reefing community.

CRW Reef;227659 said:
Curious which part of this is being interpreted as censorship and keeping people from voicing their opinion and experiences with someone. Does it not read "parties with like experiences" and also "topic involving said individual"?

Again the BOD does not intend to falsely hide things, bait and switch things, and certainly does not take the integrity of this club as a whole lightly when making decisions!!!!
I don't think the BoD has any such bad intentions. I can't speak for everyone, but I personally sorta felt like it sounded like you didn't want any outside opinions on the matter unless they directly had involvement in the particular incident. So maybe your post only appeared more censorship-ish than you intended. I'll try to read it again, no biggie though.

WalkPrazz;227569 said:
Despite the notion of slight invasion from moderators, I do believe that if instituted, a stringent moderation of primary threads would in general be beneficial. The reason being, no opinion or voice is being silenced. It would just give the BoD and moderators a barometer for the general spirit of the society at any given time.
I love this post. Only thing I'd change/add is that 'primary threads' would mean 'shop or transaction review' threads.

amonchak;227667 said:
I think the key to a lot of the comments in this thread is the point that feedback both good and bad should be displayed in an adult fashion (whcih would not include pot stirring, flamming, or general nonesense comments). Comments from other individuals that keep the threads factual based and on track are useful.


ShelbyJK500;227559 said:
Thank you for you wealth of knowledge on the subject as I had no idea you were that deep into the forum communities in general.
I know the old forum mantra, "YOU ARE NOT YOUR POST-COUNT" and "YOU ARE NOT YOUR JOIN-DATE". But I have definitely "seen everything, heard everything, etc." Kinda like a cop would say "I've heard every excuse for speeding or drinking under the sun". When it comes to online forum drama, and all the ways we've dealt with each individual case, since every one is different...
 

jahmic

Reef Shark
M.A.S.C Club Member
#13
Honestly I think there was some misinterpretation in what Chad originally posted. I'll even admit that when I read that post, I initially thought the only allowed comments were to be from Evan and Nick.

Re-reading it...I can see what was meant to be said there...it was just processed differently by the majority of people. I think most of us are (ok, should be) adult enough to realize that posting up is OK as long as we're civil...and that opinions and finger pointing from people not directly involved should be withheld as it only stirs the pot.

I have seen the same issues with other forums. Sometimes it's best to just leave the flood gates open so to speak, and let things run their course. If things start getting out of hand...then moderate as if the situation is a controlled burn. From my personal experience moderating forums, any post from a moderator that essentially says: "Big brother is watching you" will be interpreted as exactly that...and people will be quick to misinterpret that in the most negative light that they can.

Just my .02. Not trying to stir the pot or give an opinion on the decision of the BOD as a whole or any of the members involved. I think there was an immediate discomfort expressed by a lot of the members simply because of the tone and immediacy of Chad's post prior to any additional replies being made to the thread (unless I missed something that was deleted)...and it was likely due to people taking things out of context and assuming the BOD was putting the clamp down and censoring posts.
 

CRW Reef

Blue Whale
M.A.S.C Club Member
ex-officio
#14
Re: To moderate or not

Ghosty;227685 said:
I personally sorta felt like it sounded like you didn't want any outside opinions on the matter unless they directly had involvement in the particular incident.
Sorry for the confusion.

CRW Reef;227659 said:
"parties with like experiences" and also "topic involving said individual"?
Means if you have an experience involving the same person the thread is discussing, you are free to comment. If you have nothing to add to the conversation other than your agreement or disagreement for what happened, your post will be removed.

If anyone has any further questions on the definition of what this means, please PM me and we can discuss.
 

ShelbyJK500

Dolphin
M.A.S.C Club Member
#15
jahmic;227687 said:
Honestly I think there was some misinterpretation in what Chad originally posted. I'll even admit that when I read that post, I initially thought the only allowed comments were to be from Evan and Nick.
You read it correctly the first time. Astonished

HOLY CRIPES!!! Unless I've completely lost it, the thread DID say ANY other comments other than from me or Ambrosio would be deleted. That has been "edited"...sterilized. WOW

*EDIT* It wasn't deleted, I had to re-read the thread when I got a chance. It was in Craig's post..."anyone not involved...". I wasn't losing it. lol No conspiracy. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CRW Reef

Blue Whale
M.A.S.C Club Member
ex-officio
#17
ShelbyJK500;227732 said:
You read it correctly the first time. Astonished

HOLY CRIPES!!! Unless I've completely lost it, the thread DID say ANY other comments other than from me or Ambrosio would be deleted. That has been "edited"...sterilized. WOW
Now, now Evan lets not accuse people of things that didn't happen! My post was not edited at any time and if it was it would be documented with a time stamp of the time i last edited it. Further more you quoted what I said, so how can you now accuse me of editing my post? I trust you see the time of 17 hours ago and that I just took a screen shoot of your post quoting what I said.

 

Ghosty

Butterfly Fish
#18
I don't think it was edited, I just agree with Khalis, that lot of times people will read more towards the negative side of intent, if not concretely laid out. Even then it can be misconstrued or exaggerated, which is why I was careful with my OP up top, when I originally posted it in the review thread. No biggie though, I think with further explanation, people get the drift now.

Like Adam said, as long as people stick with the facts at hand, behave like adults, and keep any unecessary mudslinging (without warrant anyway) out of the review threads, they should turn out just fine. This takes some patience and civility from the parties involved though, in trying to understand why each person disagrees with the other.

From what I can gather, either Nick or Evan made a miscommunication/mistake but can't admit or realize it, OR they just weren't on the same page from the beginning when it comes to defining "first-come-first-serve" vs. a verbal agreement. I'm curious who the 3rd party that got the Clowns in the end is, maybe they can put this entire thing to rest. Just a thought...
 

ShelbyJK500

Dolphin
M.A.S.C Club Member
#19
Ghosty;227746 said:
From what I can gather, either Nick or Evan made a miscommunication/mistake but can't admit or realize it, OR they just weren't on the same page from the beginning when it comes to defining "first-come-first-serve" vs. a verbal agreement. I'm curious who the 3rd party that got the Clowns in the end is, maybe they can put this entire thing to rest. Just a thought...
Just FYI, there was NO miscommunication. It's all documented in black and white (for anyone who is actually that interested). I just don't want this to be labeled as simple "miscommunication". If it was, I'm human as well and miscommunication happens all the time. I would've never taken the time to post this feedback/grievance if it was that simple...that would be drama for dramas sake and NOT in the best interest of the community. Not something I would have done.
 
Top