How would you "staff" this issue on Spiritual Forums - Page 2

Silver · #11 17-10-2011, 12:52 AM

I get it. Too bad you couldn't find a really old thread where the person is no longer with or hasn't been seen in 100 yrs. That would be the real test, imho.

Silver · #12 17-10-2011, 12:55 AM

Um slice, your pm box is full (so is daisy's) lol~

psychoslice · #13 17-10-2011, 01:03 AM

yes i think members can have big ego's that gets in the way, and can hurt others, but the more power one has on SF, the bigger the ego can be, so we have to be careful there also.

#14 17-10-2011, 05:16 AM

With just that 'post' it is very hard to come up with a proper response. Isn't it possible that member George actually has a point, and that member Bradley actually does what member George says he does, or at least, posts in a way that gives member George that feeling? The post itself might be rude, and that would be something that could be discussed with member George, but I think you also need to look at why member George would respond in that way.

sound · #15 17-10-2011, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerlight

Hi members of SF,

We have seen your comments that we just ban people and do not give them a chance, or that we just close threads without any real reason. So we have decided to see how you guys would respond and react to a matter that has been brought to staffs attention. This is a mock issue and is not something currently happening at this time. We would like to see how you guys would respond and what you would do. Then we will show you how we would respond to it.

Here we go.

A member has created a thread on the forum in the Spiritual Development section. Member Bradly has responded to the thread with their views on the question that was posed. Member George has responded to Bradly's response. This is what George say in the thread in relation to Bradly.
Bradly, expresses their beliefs as if they are the only truth and there is no other way.. I posed a question that was related to the original question that was posted, and this Bradly stepped in to enforce their "mastery" over said topic and the only direction they want to go with it. Thus preventing anyone from having any sort of discussion about the thread. This is Bradly's way, their vain ego and egoistic mindset will not tolerate or allow contradicting opinions or beliefs.. Bradly and a few other members on this board make arrogant statements, and then they get defensive and confrontational when asked for clarification or state an opinion that goes against what they are spewing or when someone else tries to share something that differs from what they say.

How would you respond to this? What would you do and why would you do what you do?

1. I would post a gentle (and respectful) reminder to all participants to uphold the respect rule.

2. If that didn’t work and they continued to border on breach of forum rules I would speak with each of them individually via pm surrounding the same issues.

3. If that didn’t work I would suspend their participation on the thread for a set period, giving them a cooling off period, while still allowing other participants to contribute. If a 'thread' suspended member reposted in that thread while asked not to, then they would be suspended from posting in the parent forum for a set period of time. (if the program allows that type of moderation)

4. Failing that, I would probably ask them to log out for a set period of time (maybe 24/48hrs) and assist their efforts to develop self discipline by removing posting rights for said period

I may designate one staffie to monitor those processes and take them away from general staffing duties during the interim period while these processes are being implemented.

Its always good to provide a rationale for change ... I think my model allows members who dont attract staff focus to continue on with conversations and not be inhibited by processes put in place for others.
It also allows for self reflection without being booted for good, and provides opportunity for one to redirect their energy ...

**Some of this stuff you already do very effectively. I am hoping you won’t pick holes in my approach. I know it will, at first glance, seem labour intensive, but that cant be concluded until the stats for thread closure for say, the last 12 mths are revealed. Surely we can strike a balance between spiritual development, discipline and punishment?

Riboflavin · #16 17-10-2011, 07:38 AM

In that scenario.. I wouldn't do anything. Usually when that actually does happen someone calls them on it and points out their behavior then argument ensues and eventually just solves itself.

I have a few reasons
1) "rude" and "condescending" are somewhat subjective, and what really constitutes the level of being rude that requires punishment?
2) Every member has their bad days, and ive seen many, many people who dont normally act that way end up doing that in one thread or another.
3) Catching that kind of behavior requires posts to be read more carefully, which takes more time.. there is only what, 6 staff members and like 300 active threads at any given time? It gets meticulous to read that deeply into every thread, and some of these threads go on 30-100 pages before people start getting really nasty, or anywhere in between or beyond.
4) If in the event posts were reported, or that it was obvious things got out of hand i would warning>close thread> possibly reprimand instigator etc.

With that said, i think you already know most of that.

andrew g · #17 17-10-2011, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerlight

Hi members of SF,

We have seen your comments that we just ban people and do not give them a chance, or that we just close threads without any real reason. So we have decided to see how you guys would respond and react to a matter that has been brought to staffs attention. This is a mock issue and is not something currently happening at this time. We would like to see how you guys would respond and what you would do. Then we will show you how we would respond to it.

Here we go.

A member has created a thread on the forum in the Spiritual Development section. Member Bradly has responded to the thread with their views on the question that was posed. Member George has responded to Bradly's response. This is what George say in the thread in relation to Bradly.

Bradly, expresses their beliefs as if they are the only truth and there is no other way.. I posed a question that was related to the original question that was posted, and this Bradly stepped in to enforce their "mastery" over said topic and the only direction they want to go with it. Thus preventing anyone from having any sort of discussion about the thread. This is Bradly's way, their vain ego and egoistic mindset will not tolerate or allow contradicting opinions or beliefs.. Bradly and a few other members on this board make arrogant statements, and then they get defensive and confrontational when asked for clarification or state an opinion that goes against what they are spewing or when someone else tries to share something that differs from what they say.

How would you respond to this? What would you do and why would you do what you do?

This was a mock reply to a mock thread that only exists in this thread right here that a mock member made in regards to a post they found of a member on the open forum. None of this actually happened or is happening.

This was not in relation to any actual post. However, we do get posts that are similar in vain to this on the actual board.

Now we are turning it over to you guys to see how you would do to it. How you would respond. What you would do.

Its difficult for me to say because how I would handle it wouldnt just depend on this post itself. Obviously the way George is talking isnt great, but I think we have to take into account the history of the situation and the relationships. Is this the first time he has had an outburst? Is there some truth in what he is saying? What happened following the outburst on the thread?

But based ONLY on the info you have given, I would p.m George with a friendly warning and ask him to find a more forum appropriate way of handling his difficulties with Bradley, though I might be tempted to see what happens on the thread first.

You guys have a difficult job and I think you do a great job. Obviously I dont agree with all of the decisions made, but keeping everyone happy all of the time is impossible.

Dragonfly1 · #18 17-10-2011, 08:08 AM

I like the scenario that Sound has offered....I think unless the replies are with threats of violence or quite abusive in nature, each person should be given a cooling off time to reflect what occurred. Usually after a little bit of time, you can look over what has been said and see it in different light....well in most cases. Then if the same type of thing happens again after cooling off (or time out) for a short period of time, then harsher penalties could be applied.
I think everyone deserves at least a second chance.
Peace xxxxx

Gem · #19 17-10-2011, 08:13 AM

There are members who do not involve themselves in discussion, but rather pose as the spiritual master, and they speak in a nice way but are very irksome... so another member might slowly become fed up with that. and finally, after exersizing much tollerance, let fly like the example says, in which case Bradley is the one at fault, but can't be fingered.

I'd get on to Bradley and tell him to stop parading about like the head teacher, and tell George to perhaps tone it down a little, but in the end the preachy Bradley can't be fingered, and George can.

Ask: is it respectful to treat others as though they are your pupil?, and see it's little wonder George has had a gutfull.

sound · #20 17-10-2011, 08:30 AM

My model is based on members breaching rules. If i had my way we would have pass-worded forums for debates ... not sure how you deal with the teaching approach that some members adopt Gem ... if it becomes too intense it probably falls into the category of preaching ... there's a forum here specifically for preaching isn't there ... somewhere ... or there used to be I think ...