An important message from the Management

Fongolio

I am in 100% agreement with DarqueKnight's comments on this matter. Moderate moderators is what is needed.

pearsall001

I think we should have a beer summit & hash these points out.

Serendipity

jimbo1421 wrote: »

There is one big structural difference between Vinyl Engine and Club Polk: there is no New Posts button. The forum just displays its categories. I just go to the areas that I am interested in and provocative threads are not pushed in my face, daring me to click on them just to see what kind of foolishness they contain. So my advice to Al would be to get rid of the New Posts button. I'll bet that would have a calming effect.

Interesting idea. If there was a way to keep threads separate so that provocative threads don't appear when you are searching for something useful, that may work.

I never used the New Posts button though...

shawn474

shack wrote: »

I personally think Mark has done an excellent job as moderator. I too have contacted Al in the past to make him aware of my opinion on the subject.

Agreed. That this thread has now turned into moderator bashing and calling out Mark specifically is a shame. I will save a long winded diatribe, but to blame Mark for the goings-on in this forum is passing the buck and removing accountability from the people who have truly caused this action. In short, we have a contingent on this forum that has a pack mentality. Once one negative word is said about any of them or about their posts, the person is bombarded with negativity/name calling. Say what you want, there is plenty of blame to go around. TWO examples over a long time period of moderation and putting up with all of the BS that goes with hardly calls for his removal. You take 5 posts (out of close to 20,000) to demonstrate how incompetent he is. He has put out many more fires than he has ever started.

All these people volunteering to moderate (either publicly or behind the scenes) have had their fair share of the same type of things that DarqueKnight is admonishing Mark for. We are all human and make mistakes. His contributions to this forum FAR outweight his shortfalls. Make some of these clowns moderators and see how fast this forum gets flushed down the crapper.

And isn't it a shame that with a message from POLK AUDIO's VP of MARKETING basically begging all of us to chill and respect each other that everyone (generally speaking) is looking to pass the buck instead of looking in the mirror? And then admonishing a mod for settling a personal grudge while doing the same in this thread. Ironic don't you think?

This has turned into a witch hunt if you ask me.....

mikesd

hearingimpared wrote: »

Thanks for the welcome backs but please if you are going to do it, do it in PMs. Not that I don't appreciate it I just don't want a big deal made of it.

Congrats Joe

Serendipity

I volunteered to moderate because I enjoy this forum and don't mind helping out.

I also don't have issues with anyone here. I'm just here to learn!

Demiurge

shawn474 wrote: »

Agreed. That this thread has now turned into moderator bashing and calling out Mark specifically is a shame. I will save a long winded diatribe, but to blame Mark for the goings-on in this forum is passing the buck and removing accountability from the people who have truly caused this action. In short, we have a contingent on this forum that has a pack mentality. Onvce one negative word is said about any of them or about their posts, the person is bombarded with negativity/name calling. Say what you want, there is plenty of blame to go around. TWO examples over a long time peruiod of moderationa nd putting up with all of the BS that goes with hardly calls for his removal.

All these people volunteering to moderate have had their fair share of the same type of things that DarqueKnight is admonishing Mark for. We are all human and make mistakes. His contributions to this forum FAR outweight his shortfalls. Make some of these clowns moderators and see how fast this forum gets flushed down the crapper.

I agree with you 100%. There isn't a person here who hasn't lost their cool from time to time, moderator or not. By and large he does a great job.

This was absolutely not the place to attempt to settle a grudge. How can he respond?

By the way, why on earth would anyone want to sap all of the personality from the forum?

Jetmaker737

From what I've seen in my year on this forum the problems are due to a small handful of personalities. Not too hard to figure out who they are when you spend time here.

Our Polk Audio sponsors have gotten some great ideas in this thread to get things sorted out.

Please keep the forum up! I trust you will take these ideas and do the right thing.

Thanks,
Rick (Jetmaker737)

steveinaz

Less drama, more hi-fi talk. I agree, it really is a small handful of problem children (as we called them in the Army).

snow

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Al,

I communicated some thoughts and suggestions to you last week, one of which was that moderators be properly labeled as such.

Several members have mentioned more and effective moderation. I would like to speak more about that.

An Internet forum, like any public gathering place, must have some procedures in place to deal with people who get "out of place". Armed security is not required at a public library, but people know that if they get out of place, the police are just a phone call away. Likewise, I do not think that heavy handed moderation is required here. Except for those few persons who come here specifically to start trouble, most of us would respond respectfully and appropriately to "courteous correction" from a properly identified moderator. Heated debates can still occur...as long as they remain civil and respectful. Lawyers engage in heated debates in courtrooms without resorting to name calling and threats. Of course, in a courtroom environment, the moderator (the judge) can have offensive lawyers thrown in jail.

It has been mentioned that, perhaps a few members should be given moderator authority. I must say, that has already been tried with mixed results. Your initial statement in this thread was precipitated by a situation where a long time member, who now has moderator authority, misused that authority to "settle" some long-running reciprocal animosity with another member. This same moderator has engaged in repeated verbal abuse toward members (see attached for examples). If Polk management says they want a civil forum environment, then they can't have a moderator going around "fanning the flames". While I respect Mark's long time contributions to the forum in particular and to audio in general, his moderator service has been tarnished by his habit of "getting down and dirty" and "going toe-to-toe" with the membership. This has negatively impacted morale and has caused people inside and outside the forum to question Polk management's integrity for allowing this to go on. We should all be aware that Polk is an international company and this forum is read by people all over the world.

We should all consider what a "moderator" does. A moderator moderates, i.e. mediates, arbitrates, and makes sure that an activity or process stays within certain bounds. As an authority figure, a moderator must "stay above the fray" and must not actively participate in the activity in which he or she moderates. Examples of proper moderation are nightclub security not dancing with or conversing with patrons, police officers not socially interacting with citizens at an event for which they are on duty and political debate moderators not participating in the debate...except to enforce rules. If people walk into a nightclub and see all the security staff out on the dance floor, it gives the impression that there really is no security enforcement and "anything goes". How much credibility would a political debate have if the moderator engaged in arguments with the debaters?

Another thing to consider is that effective moderation requires a certain skill set and a certain temperament. One is no good without the other. If someone is prone to getting easily riled up by other's words, then dealing with the public in an authoritative capacity is not the right place for such an person because their temper and patience will be tested time and time again. Justin seemed to be able to diffuse "situations" with a few words. Sometimes he would just lock a thread and ask members to move on. I think that if we had a few moderators of this sort, it would lay the framework for a civil forum environment.


Ours is one of the better and more informative audio forums around. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be here. The forum can be made even better by the implementation of a few of the "best practices" that other successful forums use for member management.

No doubt that both Mark and Russ have stepped over the line of civility many times since they began moderating, in the last year or so Mark has refrained from a lot of this type of behavior and I applaud him for it and the forum is a better place for it. Russ hasnt been around or at least posting much so hard to say what his behavior is like today. One of the first things I mentioned in my first post here was that EVERYONE needs to follow the rules and to make the forum operate smoothly the rules and punishments need to be equitablly dispersed and moderators shouldndt be exempt from these rules. To be fair I also have stepped over that line and I havent been banned yet but if the rules were to be enforced there is little doubt in my mind that I wouldndt have at least a temp ban by now.

Fongolio wrote: »

I am in 100% agreement with DarqueKnight's comments on this matter. Moderate moderators is what is needed.

No doubt that the moderators of all people should be held to a higher standard if anything than the regular members, it is hard for others to obey the rules if the mods dont and people see this.

None of us can go back and change whats happened in the past but in the future we can all do better, and if warnings and bans are passed out then I believe the rest of us will toe the line or suffer the penaltys.



REGARDS SNOW

DarqueKnight

Demiurge wrote: »

This was absolutely not the place to attempt to settle a grudge. How can he respond?

For clarification, I do not have a grudge against Mark or any other person on this forum. No one here has any control over any aspect of my life, nor can any person here deny me any of my life's necessities, therefore it would be senseless for me to hold a "grudge" against someone for anything that occurs here.

Al asked for suggestions and I gave mine, with documentation to support just one of my points.

I was not calling for Mark to be removed nor did I say he was a bad moderator. I specifically said his moderator service has had mixed results. I think he is a good moderator who has done some inappropriate things, as have we all. However, any person vested with the authority to enforce rules should set a proper example of following those rules. I would have the same opinion if it were any other authority figure in a similar situation.

shawn474

Keiko wrote: »

I'm in the camp of appointing a couple more moderators that can assist Patrick and Mark.

Mike, I don't disagree with much of what you said. But aren't we really talking about a clash of personalities? Nobody is ALWAYS going to get along with everyone (mods included). Wouldn't adding more mods complicate the clash, enforcement of rules, objectivity, consistency, etc? Just saying that more is not always better.

shawn474

DarqueKnight wrote: »

For clarification, I do not have a grudge against Mark or any other person on this forum. No one here has any control over any aspect of my life, nor can any person here deny me any of my life's necessities, therefore it would be senseless for me to hold a "grudge" against someone for anything that occurs here.

Al asked for suggestions and I gave mine, with documentation to support just one of my points.

I was not calling for Mark to be removed nor did I say he was a bad moderator. I specifically said his moderator service has had mixed results. I think he is a good moderator who has done some inappropriate things, as have we all. I would have the same opinion if it were any other authority figure in a similar situation.

Then why not do this over PM? You clearly pointed out specific posts from Mark that were one sided and made him look bad. You didn't include ONE of his 15,000 or so that have helped people on this forum including me. Nor did you post any other posts that lead to the comments. I think even Tom would admit that he has made some jabbing remarks to Mark in the past in an attempt to get a rise out of him. Was Mark off base or out of line in those posts that you cited? Yes; nobody would argue there. To some degree I would say yes, but knowing Mark as I do, I think a lot were more a failed attempt at humor that sometimes gets misinterpreted. So your intentions should be called into question with your post.

wz2p7j

Keiko wrote: »

I'm in the camp of appointing a couple more moderators that can assist Patrick and Mark.

Deal with the trolls swiftly. It seems clear that we have some coming out of the woodwork from other places with the intent of stirring up trouble.

Up the post count and/or have a minimum 'X' amount of time before new members can start selling in the FM. Positive participation on CP, in my opinion is key here.

In light of Al's OP, some real 'Self Moderating' has to start happening now. Sometimes I find myself losing it and getting annoyed with an obvious troublemaker. It is difficult, but will step up efforts in ignoring these types and let the powers that be deal with them. I'd really hate to see Polk shut down the forum, it's a place I've really come to love. I spent a lot of time here learning, bantering and made some really good friends along the way. It would really suck to have something so special as CP shut down.


Mike

Keiko, I like to see your posts regarding your dogs as I am an animal lover too. I'm not sure I ever know your name was "Mike." It's good to know and personalizes the forum. I wish more here would do that but instead chose to hide behind sometimes intimidating screen names.

Best regards, Chris

steveinaz

shawn474 wrote: »

Mike, I don't disagree with much of what you said. But aren't we really talking about a clash of personalities? Nobody is ALWAYS going to get along with everyone (mods included). Wouldn't adding more mods complicate the clash, enforcement of rules, objectivity, consistency, etc? Just saying that more is not always better.

Being a moderator isn't a popularity contest.

I-SIG

Watching and waiting.....

Wes

shawn474

steveinaz wrote: »

Being a moderator isn't a popularity contest.

Ok, never said it was. It's a job I wouldn't even want with all of the headaches a BS you have to deal with. Where in any post have I implied that it was a popularity contest?

treitz3

shawn474 wrote: »

I think even Tom would admit that he has made some jabbing remarks to Mark in the past in an attempt to get a rise out of him.

If memory serves correctly, I would say not. If you could provide at least one situation otherwise, I would stand corrected. I would venture to say that if I did jab at him, it was about an audio related issue or maybe a deserving apology.

phuz

This ceased to be a Polk forum when the serial number requirement was changed. This has become just another internet audio forum, although it still feels like the Polk home to a lot of us. It's going through the same growing pains that any public internet forum goes through and you're right you will either have to shut it down, or go hardcore with moderation.

Some things other forums have done that works:

1. Paid Membership - annual renewal. A very basic simple few forums that are heavily moderated for free members, basic help for free. Paid members have a vested interest in keeping things on the up and up. They get access to the more advanced forums/features. Or bring back the serial number requirement and more strict membership requirements.

2. Define strict and clear rules, and enforce them without hesitation, openly, with clear reasons for closing of threads, bans, etc. Each ban/lock should be closed with "Code of conduct #(insert rule here) violation" - so that there is no question what the rules are and why action is taken. More moderators are needed, at least one for each topic/sub-forum. A few people for this size of a forum is way too much. That way not EVERYONE goes to 1 or 2 mods for every issue. If there's an issue on the car audio forum, I go to the car audio mod, if there's a problem on the speaker forum, I go to the speaker forum mod.

3. Spin if off. I think we'd all understand if this was no longer an official Polk forum. Just don't get rid of it.

4. Provide a place for people to "have it out" - keep the drama away from the general forums. Sorta like the hall of shame, but open to everyone. If I want to call someone out on their BS, I should be able to do it in the hall of shame. That's where the nasty stuff goes, allowing everyone else to stay clear if they want.

There will ALWAYS be issues, and the need/desire for folks to get attention, stirr the hornets nest, and (insert favorite cliche here). This is just how the internet is these days. You MUST have sufficient volunteers to moderate, and a clearly defined set of rules that is stricly enforced. I frequent another forum at ar15.com and they are a perfect example of how to run a public internet forum and also how to make it self sufficient, and cost effective.

Just my thoughts....

DarqueKnight

shawn474 wrote: »

Then why not do this over PM? You clearly pointed out specific posts from Mark that were one sided and made him look bad.

If you feel that my commentary was one-sided, inaccurate, misleading or inappropriate, you are welcome to submit whatever documentation you feel is necessary to support your position. I would just ask that you stay on topic per the original poster's (Al's) request for suggestions.

I have already articulated all the points I wanted to make and I wish you success in your rebuttal and any other future comments you wish to make regarding this matter.

shawn474

Keiko wrote: »

I see where you're coming from, Shawn, but the key word is "assist." I foresee some new ground rules being set. Having another mod or two might actually help with carrying the burden Mark and Patrick already have.

I guess that therein lies the problem to me. Are more moderators going to miraculously cause anyone to change the way that they are acting? I don't think so at all. I think the big thing Al was getting at that people need to self moderate and abide by the rules. If not, consequences are set. There might be more rules coming; who knows? But unless they are enforced to everyone on the forum and everyone rspects the forum rules and the privilege to be a member here, I don't see much changing. Maybe more moderators could more efficiently enforce? Is that what you're getting at?

By the way, I am sure I have violated some of the forum rules in this thread so I will accept any punishment that mods see fit.

Fongolio

Until today I did not know that RuSsMaN is also a moderator.

steveinaz

You mentioned:

"Nobody is ALWAYS going to get along with everyone (mods included). Wouldn't adding more mods complicate the clash, enforcement of rules, objectivity, consistency, etc?"

I took that to mean more mods would just create more personalities to deal with. It's not about "personalities" it's about having the bodies to keep the trolls and trouble makers at bay. Most of the problem is created when posts that are obviously going south aren't locked down immediately, and people reprimanded. I've seen these types of posts last for days--and gets uglier and uglier as time passes.

Serendipity

Sometimes we have misunderstandings in communication. But I truly don't believe anyone is out there to hurt another and that we can all get along. For example, I got a PM that stated:

My comments were made in generality and not to you in oarticular. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I have absolutely no problem at all with you and enjoy your posts.

This is what makes Club Polk a wonderful forum.

phuz

Fongolio wrote: »

I am in 100% agreement with DarqueKnight's comments on this matter. Moderate moderators is what is needed.

You CAN NOT have moderate moderators, when there are ONLY TWO OR THREE for a forum this size. Eventually those people will get overwhelmed, emotionally involved, etc. from the sheer volume and magnitute of the crap they have to deal with.

MORE moderators are needed with clearly defined areas of the forums. So that they each can deal with their respective areas, instead of dealing with everything. THEN, once that is in place it will be easier to spot ones that might be biased or unjustifiably hard. There is no such thing as having good moderators for a forum this size with only a few people doing it. It would wear anyone down over time and is a time bomb waiting to happen.

shawn474

steveinaz wrote: »

You mentioned:

"Nobody is ALWAYS going to get along with everyone (mods included). Wouldn't adding more mods complicate the clash, enforcement of rules, objectivity, consistency, etc?"

I took that to mean more mods would just create more personalities to deal with. It's not about "personalities" it's about having the bodies to keep the trolls and trouble makers at bay. Most of the problem is created when posts that are obviously going south aren't locked down immediately, and people reprimanded. I've seen these types of posts last for days--and gets uglier and uglier as time passes.

I see what you're saying and agree to a point. But then if we, the membership, are behaving in ways that cause threads to be locked down, aren't we the ones at fault? Not the mods who have other stuff to deal with as well as this forum. It can't be policed 24/7. My whole point is that WE are the ones causing the problems when mods have to step in - no matter how long it takes them to shut it down or dole out reprimands. It goes back to US acting more civil towards one another so it doesn't get out of hand. After all, they do have an ignore button for the trolls and people you just don't like. If we choose to engage them and don't have the willpower to click ignore, that's on us, not the mods.

shawn474

phuz wrote: »

You CAN NOT have moderate moderators

Fixed it; we cannot all agree on what is moderate, liberal, conservative or anything else. It just isn't possible.

steveinaz

Ref: post #214:
You're absolutely right Shawn, unfortunately to date--we haven't gotten our collective **** together.

Serendipity

No matter what happens, I seriously hope this forum stays around.

kab

Demiurge wrote: »

...It's comments like this that make me cynical about the future here. While nobody but Polk owns this forum, you cannot deny that there are many folks out there who have put a lot into this place, be it money, time, or knowledge. They did it for nothing other than to make friends and have a place to hang out.

I'm sorry but I can't let this go unchallenged. I know those who layed the foundation and those who built the Forum brick by brick. I love and respect those guys and know most of them personally. Still, I must ask them to welcome and be patient with the newbie. Would you have me create two forums? One for the old timers and another for everyone else. How many would be hanging with the old timers? Where would you fall?