Passive-Aggressive Modding

[blas87]

Very well said, std. Very well said. Hats off to you.

[Andara Bledin]

If I were in mod-friend-of-Ree's shoes, I think the only thing I'd have done different is to change the Interests line to reflect why I was defacing the profile.

^-.-^

[RecoveringKinkoid]

I told the other mods this and I'll tell you all as well. When I saw what he'd done to Ree, I got up from my computer and walked away for while.

Let's just say I was about to do a little "power" abusing of my own and leave it at that. I needed a little cool off period away from the site for a bit until I got my temper under control .

That would not have been cool. Someone we care about gets treated with this level of wrong, it's very, very hard to not just dive in and start swinging.

And had I done that, I really don't think I would have felt the slightest bit of remorse over it. However, it would not have helped things and would have just brought me down to his level.

I don't want to be at his level.

[blas87]

I don't want to be a brat here, but I'm wondering since a lot of banned users' avatars have been changed since they were banned (I think you guys know what animated avatar I'm speaking of), no one has really had an issue with that, what is the issue of what that mod did to the profile?

[Rapscallion]

I think the avatar change is an automatic thing - a dedicated avatar for those in the 'banned' user group.

I'd have to check.

Rapscallion

[Lace Neil Singer]

One thing I always like to say whenever someone challenges the way that the forum staff do things on the forum I admin is, "Well, if we really were as dictatorial and unfair as you claim, you'd be banned and your thread would be deleted. Since you're still here and the thread is still here, that proves that we're not."

[blas87]

I got a little nosy and did some research.

It kind of disgusts me to see that KayEm (or Marcy on PFB when she started all that nonsense) isn't the only banned member of CS to take their opinions public and onto other forums.

I don't know what this guy's handle on CS was, but it appears he had a few threads taking pride in pissing off customers by accepting their returns and not giving them their money back, etc etc. He went off to another retail forum and made a not-so-nice thread bashing the admin and mods of CS, crying unfair discipline and banning.

[fireheart17]

I don't know what this guy's handle on CS was, but it appears he had a few threads taking pride in pissing off customers by accepting their returns and not giving them their money back, etc etc. He went off to another retail forum and made a not-so-nice thread bashing the admin and mods of CS, crying unfair discipline and banning.

It gets better-read the comments. Apparaently DanaBanana (don't know who she is) is a mod or admin there. Seems like if you bother to argue with this guy, you end up apparaently being a mod or admin

Another guy believes that he was baited. >_<

[Rapscallion]

One thing I always like to say whenever someone challenges the way that the forum staff do things on the forum I admin is, "Well, if we really were as dictatorial and unfair as you claim, you'd be banned and your thread would be deleted. Since you're still here and the thread is still here, that proves that we're not."

Aye, we get that as well.

Rapscallion

[Dips]

Yeah, which to and admitedly curious and occasionally down right damned nosy person like me is infuriating.

It's really not that interesting.

The arguments and insults that we get from people right before they're banned are depressingly...predictable.

Which is very ironic considering what unique speshul snowflakes they all *think* they are.

Now to the larger theme here...

This incident is very similar to what many people who post on cs.com deal with every day. We mods are co-workers and we do care about each other. It's very hard to sit back and watch a co-worker taking abuse from an SC and maintain that professional distance.

There are stories upon stories posted on Customers Suck where a poster has admitted to making snide remarks, stonewalling or unprofessional behavior in the face of a raging SC who just keeps pushing and pushing and pushing buttons until the poster snaps.

So now you've seen that we're not perfect little moderator robots. We're just as human as you yourselves and everyone else who deals with the public on a daily basis.

I hope that makes sense.

[Hyena Dandy]

While I totally see where its coming from, I still find it a little immature.

Not that I don't understand the motivation, it just feels a little... Petty.

But, while I don't think its laudable, or good, I also wouldn't call it necessarily BAD. There are worse ways to take something out on someone than messing with their profile.

[guywithashovel]

The only thing I remember like that was someone who left in a Royal Huff and, unusually, demanded that *all* her posts be removed. If I understood rightly, threatening legal action if they weren't (not that she'd likely get far...) So they were all replaced with that message.

It was a girl named Lazuli. Well, that was her screen name. Obviously, I don't know what her real name was. heh

The way I remember it, she posted a thread asking how she could get "unjoined" from CS because she was tired of people always disagreeing with her. Then she got even madder when another member suggested that she just stop posting on the site, because apparently that member was supposed to beg her not to leave. The royal huff ensued, and she demanded that all her posts be removed because they were her "intellectual property."

I actually think it's funny that I remember that.

[FArchivist]

Well, this thread blew up while I was gone. That's what I get for making it while browsing the internet at PenguiCon.

The thing is, in decent society, when a person sends a message of condolence, they don't usually turn it around to a personal attack on the grieving person.

While I understand that you view his reply as a personal attack, I cannot say I would have viewed it the same way. However, that is a subjective thing and so how one takes the emails between ya'll is, well, between ya'll.

Silly profile edits for banned members are nothing new. Many sites do make those kinds of edits, and some even go so far as to change avatars. Just because we have never done it, does it really make us wrong or "fuckwits" for choosing to do so now?

I can only tell you how I view it.

I view all such changes as being no more than internet vigilantism, no better than dropping a person's IRL info on 4chan for trolling purposes. Other sites that do this are regarded in the same way by me; on that basis, anyone who does such changes is Wrong for doing so.

In my opinion, when someone attacks a person who is grieving and does so under the guise of offering condolences, all pretense of professionalism and 'netiquette' go out the window, at least for me. If that makes me unprofessional and a bad mod...guess what? I can live with that. And so can my conscience.

And does that only apply on the internet? Or does it apply in real life too?

If so, then if I have such a severe disagreement with a neighbor in my neighborhood, I should feel justified putting up posters all over the neighborhood with his picture and proclaiming him to be a child molestor and a babyraper.

And before someone says, "Well, the internet and real life are different...", that's just not so anymore. What you say on the internet, if it gets attached to your real name, is just the same as if it was put up on a poster in your neighborhood. The government thinks so. Your employment thinks so. Despite what you might think, society says differently.

I think that's an accurate assessment of what's happened here.

I would disagree with that assessment, but that may be due to my different view of how a forum should be modded.

Can I also say, I think the parting shot in this post is one of the finest examples of irony I have seen in a while? In a thread accusing the mods of being passive aggressive?

Well, that WAS the point of the smiley I put on the end, to show that I was well aware of the irony I was using.

Well, as someone who looks very, very hard at "coincidences" I think it's very interesting that all this has come up right about the time Hobbs decided to kick Ree while she was down and start contacting her again.

There's no real coincidence. I'll say it openly. It was mentioned to me in passing by someone from C_S. I looked myself. I took umbrage and made this post.

I will also say it openly: Hobbs didn't like that I made this post and took exception to it. I made it quite clear that if I find something I don't like, I will make my opinion known, and I don't give a goodly goddamn who likes it or not. At all. I WILL speak my mind.

I really don't see it as an abuse of power. What some people don't seem to grasp is that this was an isolated incident of a profile edit to a banned member.

IMHO, the status of the member is irrelevant. If it's OK because it was a banned member, then it should also be OK to, say, suss out where the banned person works and shoot their bosses the stories they made while there. If we're going to label banned members as "Free Game" like the Church of Scientology does, that is.

even if it may be justified, a profile edit does make the mods look bad.

I would never be able to conceive of a reason where it would be justified, unless the profile violated a criminal statute. And in that case, such an edit should be completely neutral.

So, with that in mind, what is also being missed is that this edit was done a year after the banning.

Again, IMHO, this is irrelevant. A year after the banning. 5 years. 10 years. 20 years. Time is immaterial; the action is the problem.

why wouldn't someone question what suddenly caused the change?

If you are asking why I do not question what suddenly caused the change, it's because I don't see it as being relevant. No reason is sufficient; intent is not magical.

As far as I can tell, that's his primary posting style.

You wound me; my primary posting style is deadpan snark.

The responsible thing to do would have been to ask the mods if this was something normal or if, perhaps, the defacement was part of some hack or the like (I can certainly see that happening) and gotten some reply before smearing what was a one-time occurrence all over the forum. Shit-stirring like this is quite an art, and I'm not entirely sure it wasn't deliberate.

You can think what you like. I saw something I hated; that is the theme of this sub-forum. I made a post that fit within the content.

And personally, I would bet 500 quatloos that if I had taken the route you describe, I would have been perma-banned in half a second. It's no secret that I'm friends with people like, say, Pocky. Or that I think the style of modding on C_S is much more heavy-handed than I would use - and do use.

It's worth noting that if we'd left them up and said, "The above forumer has been banned for this post," this thread would have read 'Aggressive Modding' instead.

Being the author of said thread, I can say unequivocally that your presumption is incorrect. The action of closing the thread and leaving that sentence at the end would be, IMHO, quite correct.

What are your opinions on this affair? Feel free to PM me if you want to contribute and don't want it in the open.

No, I don't really think you want me to tell you that.

It's not like you guys have any legal hold over anyone, and therefore any so-called "abuse of power" has no true effect on... Anything.

Well, I have a very nasty and malicious dirty-trick-and-politics kind of mind. C_S would be a PERFECT forum for acquiring blackmail. But that's because I think of things like that ALL the time. A side effect of worshiping Machiavelli and studying how coup de'tats are performed, I guess.

Put yourself in Ree's shoes (the exact situation, no "coworker" crap) and then tell me you wouldn't have any kind of reaction at all. And then think of having been Ree's friend and working with her closely on the mod team for all this time, and then tell me you wouldn't have done... Something.

No, I wouldn't. I'd be more likely to commit suicide.
Hey, you asked.

I don't want to be a brat here, but I'm wondering since a lot of banned users' avatars have been changed since they were banned (I think you guys know what animated avatar I'm speaking of), no one has really had an issue with that, what is the issue of what that mod did to the profile?

I think that's wrong too, personally, and should be reversed and/or deleted, without question. I am nothing if not consistent. (And uncompromising.)

One thing I always like to say whenever someone challenges the way that the forum staff do things on the forum I admin is, "Well, if we really were as dictatorial and unfair as you claim, you'd be banned and your thread would be deleted. Since you're still here and the thread is still here, that proves that we're not."

I would disagree with that immensely. Certainly, an inexperienced politico modding a forum would do that - see how Sarah Palin's Facebook operators are so absolutely inept at censoring. But someone who is experienced in modding and engaging in a campaign would be selective as to who they antagonized and when, eliminating perceived enemies one by one instead of in massive swoops. Incremental attrition, not broad frontal assaults.

I do not believe that is happening in C_S, mind. Merely that I disagree with your assessment as to how a mod bent on being dictatorial and unfair would operate. My assessment is backed by practical experience in the matter, on both sides.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

The way I remember it, she posted a thread asking how she could get "unjoined" from CS because she was tired of people always disagreeing with her. ....... and she demanded that all her posts be removed because they were her "intellectual property."
t.

Yeah, we get that shit more often than you'd think, actually. Like we're sending a goon over to their house to hold a gun to their heads and force them to come to CS. "Cancel my account" they say. Like they think it's a gym membership or magazine subscription or something. But that's so drama-free, isn't it? It's so much more satisfying to make the "farewell cruel site" speech. I suppose we're suppose to beg them to stay or something. Just like the sucky customers we all rail about over there.

A few have made the quaint and amusing "post removal" demand, too.

Short version of the rules they were supposed to have read: we don't have to do that. The site can do what it wants with all content.

But then, I guess if they'd bothered to read the rules, we wouldn't end up having that conversation in the first place.

Good for a shared laugh, though.

[Ree]

Yes, that was Lazuli. Actually, I believe she posted that it was OK to steal. She justified it by saying if someone was hungry, there was nothing wrong with stealing to eat, because it was only taking from a faceless corporation.
She started to take a lot of flack for that. I think she wished death on someone for disagreeing. (Not sure, but I thought that was part of it.)

I have always wondered if it was a case of her going off meds, because it was so sudden and out of character, and she went completely off the deep end.
She was banned and she started demanding that her posts were her intellectual property and she wanted them removed.

Slugger did edit her posts and profile to call her names.

Her husband was also a member who went by Pixie, and he left out of support for his wife once she was banned.

The story of Lazuli doesn't end there, however.

She came back in quite a while later as Kayem, and she was her old self until one day, she posted that she had watched her husband die in front of her from a very sudden heart attack. We had begun to suspect who she was at that point, but we didn't do anything, because we knew she was getting support from the forum to help her through the grief.

Once again, though, her posts started to get more and more venomous toward management, Then she started directing hate toward customers for some pretty ridiculous reasons. (At one time, she was angry at customers for buying bread off a shelf she had just filled, and even mentioned murderous thoughts against the customers because they did it, and against her manager for telling her to refill the shelf because it was empty again. Another time, she claimed it was OK that an employee had hit a customer with a line of shopping carts and didn't apologize because the old guy should have moved faster and stayed out of the way when he knew carts were being moved.)

Every time she was called on her over the top posts, (including one where she equated bank managers with rapists), she would bring up the loss of her husband as an excuse to behave badly.

I was PM'ing her behind the scenes and letting her use my shoulder to cry on. I urged her to get grief counselling. (I hadn't lost my husband at that point, so I couldn't really begin to know her pain, but even after my own loss, I don't think I have ever been deliberately cruel and then used my grief as an excuse.) She never did get counselling.

We finally had enough when she started directing rants toward the mods at CS and claiming that Raps had ruined the site that had been a grassroots movement against customers.
I was a supervisor in my job at the time, and she even attacked me for being in a management position.

She was banned again.
She went on PFB and ranted against CS as Marcy, claiming I had told her she could post whatever she wanted and then banned her for doing it, and that I had claimed to be her friend and then had kicked her to the curb with no warning.

Yep...gotta love the memories.