Fantasy Aficionados discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Achive
>
Moderator Thread
date
newest »
newest »
mark wrote: "but hey, if it is, let me make myself crystal clear to you Denae: the only things i've stated being personally against are those things that i have specifically mentioned above: personal attacks and comments that denigrate different communities. besides those topics, i literally have no issue with any other kinds of comments or jokes (including ones about gun control)...unless they devolve into the kind of non-dialogue of malicious insults that i despise. so i'm not sure what your phrase "mods who are inconsistent about what is and is not OK" is referring to, but there you go - you now have my specific perspective on the matter, in case it was't clear beforehand.i prefer a convivial atmosphere, and to me at least, that means that people are usually free to say what they like - with the exception of comments that come across as direct, unapologetic insults. however, i also respect group/moderator roles. so for example, if this group decides "no politics/no religion/no whatever", i intend to respect that."
This is actually exactly how I feel, Mark. Well said. When I created FA, I had hopes that the people who joined would get this and respect one another, such as they do at Horror Aficionados.
The mood around here changed only when certain members decided to call it a day and move on because they didn't like this kind of free thinking atmosphere. I'll admit, I made a few mistakes, too. Like letting Dawn nominate the second book of a series, which certainly contributed to all this. But, honestly, I don't see where anyone could say that the mods were being passive aggressive. Passive aggressive suggests that the aggressor never once spoke their minds and let everything that bothered them build up until they could no longer hold it in and therefor blew up.
Not once were Lady Danielle and I angry with anyone here. I don't know if Mrs. Joseph feels the same way, but if anything, we were confused and hurt at the sudden outcome.
I'm also not sure where this "no more derailment in threads" has come from. I love the way conversations flow from one topic to another and then comes back around again to the main topic. I've always championed derailment and I always will.
It's direct insulting that I never put up with. And never will.
I think the derailment in threads comes from 1) my concern reflecting the Introductions thread and the way people were coming on and saying "wow, 200 posts, I have no way to keep up with this." My second issue with derailment isn't the derailment specifically, ex. off topic posts, it's the situation that derailment seems to lead to more messy "stuff." And it kind of inhibits later reading of the thread--I recently read The Blade Itself or one of those other books everybody recommends, and went to the discussion thread, and by the third page, there was nothing to do with the book. I felt really disappointed, because I was hoping to hear more opinions and contribute to my appreciating of the book.I'm not saying that derailment needs to be prohibited by any means, except possibly in the introductions thread, which is why I suggested "Tea Time." Some people like to have an active, minute by minute dialogue and creating a separate space for that would seem to meet needs of both the highly interactive crowd and those that want/are only able to participate weekly or monthly.
Jason, I felt the mood of FA was changing significantly before the sub-group of FA deciding to create a new group. I wouldn't blame the "second book nomination" specifically. If anything, I would say it was the general atmosphere on multiple threads and a couple people in particular that wouldn't drop subjects even when suggested, either gently or otherwise.
I never saw much direct insulting here, but I did see a lot of what I term "snarky" remarks that disrespect another person's point of view, whether it be an opinion on a character, a country or a promotion. I'm not sure how enforceable any of that is, given that it may be the written/internet medium and people may think they are being funny.
Jason wrote: "mark wrote: "Passive aggressive suggests that the aggressor never once spoke their minds and let everything that bothered them build up until they could no longer hold it in and therefor blew up."The Hermione-voice in my head won't let me not comment on this.
This is not what passive-aggressive is. What you describe is a form of "loosing one's shit" (TM). Being passive-aggressive is: "being, marked by, or displaying behavior characterized by expression of negative feelings, resentment, and aggression in an unassertive way (as through procrastination, stubbornness, and unwillingness to communicate)"
*stops twitching*
Anyway - back to the topic. I'd hate to derail the discussion. ;)
I've been trying not to comment. Frankly I don't think it's my place. I'm just here to read books with like minded people. But I want to say I think this club is suffering more from confusion than anger. I'm not suggesting finger pointing and gossiping about members but I do think something needs to be said. Something has happened. We all feel it even if we're not in the know. What is and not allowed needs to be cleanly stated. Instead of saying how things used to be, which makes me feel about ten years old in the principle office, state how things should be. I still love it here, but honestly it hasn't been as much fun and I would hate to lose it all together.
Colleen of the Crawling Chaos wrote: "Jason wrote: "mark wrote: "Passive aggressive suggests that the aggressor never once spoke their minds and let everything that bothered them build up until they could no longer hold it in and there..."Ah, that. Yes, well, I've always been very positive here. I try to be positive everywhere. :)
Carol wrote: "I think the derailment in threads comes from 1) my concern reflecting the Introductions thread and the way people were coming on and saying "wow, 200 posts, I have no way to keep up with this." My ..."Yeah, we're going to be a little more strict on derailment once we get the threads organized for each mod, but I think that we can't be too hard on it. I still want to champion it. :)
I think we should let people derail, but if it goes on for too long, like half a page or more worth of comments (which is 25 posts) then we as mods step in and say, Hey, isn't this thread about Elantris?
I personally don't see how the drifting discussions are the problem. The "gun thread" was about "guns". The "ranting thread" was about a member defending herself that she wasn't a writer spamming her work. Both were closed for "getting out of hand" but neither were subjects that "drifted". And then there was the whole Desert Spear thing...again not a drifting discussion.
If you find an older thread that has derailed nothing is stopping you from picking it up again.
I think there's a danger here of moving the club too far the other way. I know that's not what you want, but it's happening anyway.
If we would like the discussion to be the way things "should be," or those essential qualities we are trying to support, maybe it's worth creating a new topic thread for member input on what they want from a group? Ex. place to connect, have fun, get book ideas, discuss books I enjoy. etc. Then we can create a couple of general principles for moderators to use, and people will have less reason to complain of inconsistency. LadyD's post on Group Rules on the Intro thread was fabulous.
My opinion is that one of the largest divisions in FA is people that want to just chat and people that want to chat about books.
Carol wrote: "If we would like the discussion to be the way things "should be," or those essential qualities we are trying to support, maybe it's worth creating a new topic thread for member input on what they w..."I would like to add that there needs to be an understanding that mods are human, have real lives, and even make mistakes. :)
Actually, there is a thread like that, Carol. It's the What Would You Like to See Added to the Group thread in the Group Admin folder. Very well said, though! :)
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/3...
mark wrote: "Lady Danielle said: ith all due respect, it's very easy to say what was done wrong in hindsight.absolutely. but unless we remember and understand our past, i do feel we are doomed to repeat mis..."
Your making a joke about guns made me think of it, but I was speaking primarily from my collected experience of nearly a decade and a half of participating in online forums and groups of various types and with a variety of moderators, as well as my own experiences moderating groups.
Just another observation, then I'll shut my mouth for now. I think Traci alluded to this earlier, but I'm not sure it's been said baldly: This thread is perpetuating a situation that I think would have blown over several days ago. Those who weren't involved don't really know what's going on and there seems to be a lot of repetition and venting, but not a lot of decision on actual actions, rules, or guidelines. I don't know about everyone else, but I know I've not been as inclined to come here and socialize or post as I was before primarily due to sheer uncertainty.There, I'm done. :)
Denae, I don't think you should shut your mouth. Seriously. :) Your opinion is important.I think what you've seen in this thread is a variety of people exchanging ideas and opinions, not sheer repetition of the same idea. There's been feedback on how fast to respond, on closing threads, on derailment, etc, that I think is valuable so that we have the tools to understand another point of view (not saying it's worked, mind you).
Actually, FA has seen some guidelines developed, as posted by LadyD. What has been kicked around is if those go far enough, but it seems the decision for now is going to be "yes."
I personally believe its always valuable to get opinions from people that care, even if they aren't moderators. Part of what makes a group valuable is the collective sense of participation and ownership.
But I confess I am confused as to what situation would have blown over?
Carol wrote: "Denae, I don't think you should shut your mouth. Seriously. :) Your opinion is important.I think what you've seen in this thread is a variety of people exchanging ideas and opinions, not sheer re..."
We also have a private group for the mods where we're coming up great new ideas. It's taking some time because we are all busy. :)
Nicki, I don't remeber saying anything childish or descrimination in my post you quoted. I was just bringing up what I thought were good points. :)I thinks it's too bad you feel that you have to leave. :(
Wait. You really don't see the point she is making about that statement of yours and the way it seems to sum up the general attitude regarding the past few weeks? Seriously?
I have never been whatever it is you think I'm being. I honestly do not see what you do.
I just reread my post, and I still don't see it. All I did was bring up some good points and ask some valid questions.
Nicki wrote: "Jason wrote: "The mood around here changed only when certain members decided to call it a day and move on because they didn't like this kind of free thinking atmosphere.""Nicki selected this specific sentence for a reason. It neatly sums up the message we are receiving. We are hearing a lot of talk about what other people did wrong. There is a lot of finger pointing, and the fact that "certain members" is being used rather than their names does not change it into anything else.
I personally do not care whose fault anything was. I do care that the focus has been on throwing people under the bus and a lot of people talking about how it wasn't their fault, it's all those other people, etc. I just wanted the problem to be fixed.
Unfortunately, I do not see that as likely to happen because everyone who could fix it seems to be unable or unwilling to just take responsibility or at the very minimum, stop blaming other people. That, more than any considerations of the time and responsibility it would have involved, is my main reason for asking that I not be considered for the new moderator position.
I disliked the Desert Spear thing because of what felt like a very sudden, "I'm changing the rules and you can't complain because it's my group" dynamic, but I would greatly prefer it to the sort of "well I didn't want to play with you anyway" atmosphere that's arisen. I didn't read the gun thread, but I can certainly understand why a group of this size would ban certain topics, regardless of how I feel about that personally. I did read the "ranting" thread, and I have to say I felt extremely bad for MrsJ and angry at the people who ignored all of her efforts. None of these things and none of the ways they were handled would have induced me to leave. The blame game that's being played has done that.
I see being a moderator much as I see being a manager or a customer service rep. You get the facts, look for a solution, get buy-in, then close the issue and move on. If it's an HR issue (my specialty, as you know) you handle things privately and request that people do so as well. If they don't, there should be consequences. None of these things involve witch hunts or focusing on the things other people have done.
Basically, I am leaving because the amount of fun I had here has been overshadowed by the rancor and I don't want to be a part of a group where I avoid large numbers of threads because of that.
tl;dr: People keep blaming everyone else and it's childish, so I'm leaving.
Carol wrote: Jason, I felt the mood of FA was changing significantly before the sub-group of FA deciding to create a new group."I want to address this as well before leaving. I created the group Carol referenced purely as a social group, with perhaps the occasional book discussion. As I have already discussed with Jason, this was something I was considering well before the late unpleasantness arose. The name itself is a humorous tribute to the name of this group. That being said, it was not intended to be a sub-group of FA and I absolutely did not and do not want it to become that. I know a lot of people who are or were in this group, who also know a lot of people who are or were in this group, but I have also invited other friends of mine who use the site. I don't believe I am alone in that. While the impetus to finally create the group was the desire to have a place to just chat with friends who had left or are from other groups, the decision to do so was not a "fuck you" to this group and until today, I had no plans to leave FA.
tl;dr: my group isn't a sub-group of this one
i've been in this group since the beginning. it does make me sad that terrifically strong and bold personalities like Grant & Nicki & Denae & whoever else have felt shut down, singled out, and had to leave. but you know, i'm 40 years old. i feel like i've seen this many times. folks with "terrifically strong and bold personalities", when they are really being themselves, can sometimes be really snarky and can sometimes really dominate conversations. they can also be really honest and open and entertaining and can help create a 'family atmosphere'. but that need to say whatever they are feeling strongly about and that resistance to being regulated sometimes can cause some fucking problems, you know? the ideas of "causing conflict" and "i'm just being honest" get blurred together. this does not make them any less awesome in any way. hey they're usually my favorites.
i say this because i've been one of those people myself, and i've been shut down multiple times in many places (oh, and i'm awesome). you either end up adjusting, which is rare except irl, or you eventually end up leaving a situation where you feel you are being regulated. it sucks but there it is. it has happened so many times. it will happen again. and there will be other terrifically strong and bold personalities that will come along, and of course there are many that remain. i'll miss those three and anyone else who decides to go, but that's life.
otoh, peacemakers. or in this case, "good moderators" (imo). sometimes these folks act forcefully, sometimes they act mildly. they're just trying to do their job. they actively try to be fair. sometimes they've adjusted their personalities. sometimes they don't have to, they are just naturally of a more retiring disposition. conflict genuinely upsets them; sometimes derailment does too. often i disagree with them and considers their tactics a bit draconian. but so what - i always feel for them. they are the ones who have taken it upon themselves to actually regulate. to me, that is a hard job. i'd actually rather be myself and deal with being regulated from time to time. sometimes regulating means people will get their feelings hurt, will feel shut down, will feel their fun is getting taken away. that makes me sad, but i accept it.
a bad moderator enjoys regulating, gets off on it. i've seen that in other groups. but this group has good moderators, ones who may make decisions that may irritate some folks (including me) and that can hurt people's feelings, but who also clearly do what they do to create a feeling of group safety. they are not interested in simply exerting power; they are trying to create an environment that does the most good for the most people. i respect that.
Thank you, mark! I sincerely needed to hear that! Your words helped me feel a bit better about all this.
I honestly can't believe this conversation is still. going. on. You think it ends, and then it doesn't. This sort of unnecessary drama is why I'm on the point of leaving right now... It's a fucking book club. Make the rules, enforce them, address disputes (preferably privately) when people don't like it. Move on and drop it and stop playing the blame game. Seriously... It's like high school in here and I left that behind long long ago.
I'm not leaving. I'm not mad. If anything I wish the drama would just end. I joined Facebook earlier this year and was highly disappointed. Too much drama and baggage. I loved it here because I found "my people". And it was an escapism attitude. I really think it can get back to being that. I'm not giving it up.About drifting threads, how about trying to keep discussions on certain books and authors on track but the silly getting to know you ones, name your favorite author, free moving. Someone can always hop in and answer those inbetween.
I like you Jason, I love your groups. But there have been comments made the past few days that make FA sound like the red headed step child (no offense to any red headed step children). The way to hold FA together isn't to compare and play favorites against us with your other children.
I really do hope the best for you and the group. And I'd like it to get back to being a drama free zone that I can again enjoy.
Hey can we talk about books now??? :)I still like this group.
Also, kind of a lot of pot calling the kettle black going on. Just sayin
Nicki wrote: "Jason wrote: "The mood around here changed only when certain members decided to call it a day and move on because they didn't like this kind of free thinking atmosphere."I'm so glad we're not being passive-agressive, or anything...."
Me too. ;)
I'm going to close this thread. I think people have had the opportunity to express their opinions, and we are starting to get to vicious circle land, and it's getting personal. The moderators have open message boxes if you would like to address an issue privately. We are here to help this group run smoothly and your opinions are valued.Thanks to all the members on the group for your participation on the group, and for sticking with us in the rough transitional period. Growth is always painful, and I definitely feel that this group is experiencing growing pains.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
absolutely. but unless we remember and understand our past, i do feel we are doomed to repeat mistakes from that past. i am not a person to sweep things under a rug simply because time has marched on.
that said, i absolutely agree with you LD that the tone of this group has changed (for the worse, in my honest opinion and from what little i've seen)...and i do appreciate the honest and straightforward effort to roll with this change, and perhaps make some improvements or even improve that nebulous thing "group safety". my thoughts on censorship and the negative pasts of various groups are just that - my thoughts. overall, i do genuinely applaud the effort and think it is very forward-thinking.
Denae said: I've seen mods continue to reference matters that they and other mods have said should be closed, sometimes in very passive-aggressive ways. That and mods who are inconsistent about what is and is not OK or make jokes about the things they are supposed to be enforcing are, at the least, not really doing their job.
although this comes right after my post, i'm not sure if this is or is not referring to me.
but hey, if it is, let me make myself crystal clear to you Denae: the only things i've stated being personally against are those things that i have specifically mentioned above: personal attacks and comments that denigrate different communities. besides those topics, i literally have no issue with any other kinds of comments or jokes (including ones about gun control)...unless they devolve into the kind of non-dialogue of malicious insults that i despise. so i'm not sure what your phrase "mods who are inconsistent about what is and is not OK" is referring to, but there you go - you now have my specific perspective on the matter, in case it was't clear beforehand.
i prefer a convivial atmosphere, and to me at least, that means that people are usually free to say what they like - with the exception of comments that come across as direct, unapologetic insults. however, i also respect group/moderator roles. so for example, if this group decides "no politics/no religion/no whatever", i intend to respect that.
if i happen to witness (or experience aimed at me) personal insults or comments that seriously denigrate various communities, then it is my practice to not let those things pass without saying something, unless someone has already spoken up. this will occur whether i am a moderator or not. and no matter what group i happen to be in. those kinds of comments are against my personal code; i find them to be intolerable. please remember this Denae.
and finally, in my personal opinion, there is a very big difference between "passive aggressiveness" and remembering the past as context for the present. the former is annoying, the latter is absolutely necessary.