Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Forum Moderation Issues

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Natalie Price View Post
    I thought politics wasn't allowed in these forums. By the way, this is the United Sfates of America, not the United Sfates of California.
    When MiceChat first launched we offered a subscription called MiceChat Gold. Members who purchased the subscription were given access to a special area hidden from public view. The original debate lounge resided there, and it still does.

    I decided that MiceChat needed a public place to have reasonable political discussions as long as it was somehow tied to Disney. I also created a subforum called Galaxy's Edge where other non-Disney political subjects could be discussed. There are only two threads there, which is what I expected. People don't come to MiceChat to debate politics, but there will always be Disney-related topics that have a political element. That is why this section exists.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Natalie Price View Post
      I thought politics wasn't allowed in these forums. By the way, this is the United Sfates of America, not the United Sfates of California.
      To be fair, although the article I linked to had a political bent, that wasn't really the aspect that I was interested in.
      Dumbo rats: the other lovable rodents.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by PhotoMatt View Post

        I agree the site needs more moderators. We are going to fix that. The new site will allow for community moderation, and we are going to ask the current Facebook moderators to split their time between Facebook and the new site.
        More moderators...I’m actually not sure that’s a good thing. Because some will be good (which in general I think you are), and some will be horrible, moderating to support their own personal agenda. I think it’s better to have one strong moderator with known standards, than a bunch of moderators with varying standards and agendas, and you never know or have a good idea what will be considered acceptable or not because it depends on which way the wind is blowing that day with whomever happens to be moderating that day, and what their personal prejudices are. Personally, I think moderation is better today than it was back in the day (lurked here for a long time) when there was this ridiculous “reputation points” system that affected a reputaion “meter” on everyone's profile, and it was used as a weapon by people.

        Think of it this way: Both the Walt Disney Company and Apple were or are successful because they were both led by by a single leader with a strong, singular vision. They were not run by committee. Do you get what I mean?
        Last edited by Blue Lagoon; 05-17-2018, 07:05 AM. Reason: typo

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Blue Lagoon View Post

          More moderators...I’m actually not sure that’s a good thing. Because some will be good (which in general I think you are), and some will be horrible, moderating to support their own personal agenda. I think it’s better to have one strong moderator with known standards, then a bunch of moderators with varying standards and agendas, and you never know or have a good idea what will be considered acceptable or not because it depends on which way the wind is blowing that day with whomever happens to be moderating that day, and what their personal prejudices are. Personally, I think moderation is better today than it was back in the day (lurked here for a long time) when there was this ridiculous “reputation points” system that affected a reputaion “meter” on everyone's profile, and it was used as a weapon by people.

          Think of it this way: Both the Walt Disney Company and Apple were or are successful because they were both led by by a single leader with a strong, singular vision. They were not run by committee. Do you get what I mean?
          They are surely run by committee now.
          Dumbo rats: the other lovable rodents.

          Comment


          • I think there are good arguments for solo moderation and moderation by committee. My personal preference is committee because I think others will see things in a way that a solo moderator would not. If all mods are motivated solely by the desire to make the boards the best they can be and adhere to the rules, then this is good. But as we know, not all mods will have this motivation, and some may get drunk on the power that comes with moderation. Thus selecting the right moderators would be imperative to achieving this goal.

            That does not mean a solo moderator is a bad thing, either, provided the solo moderator has the same goal. Some solo mods have the same nefarious intentions that the wrong mods in committees have. Every group has outliers who don't share the same vision or desire to achieve the same outcome. Ultimately this is Dusty's site, and if he is satisfied with the work Matt does as the moderator here, then that's all that matters. If not, that's for the two of them to work out.

            As far as Walt Disney and Apple once being led by a single leader vs. by committee now, it is important to remember that no one vision can be accomplished by one's own hands from start to finish. Both Walt and Steve Jobs had teams of people who were experts in their parts of the production to create their product. Roy got the funding for the park. Ub Iwerks and the other animators created characters that helped to identify the brand. Steve Jobs had Bill Gates as competition to fuel him. If one person tried to build the entire product from start to finish by himself, he'd be overtaken very quickly by those who worked by committee to create a better product that had a variety of impacts on their audiences.

            Times change. The world is moving so much faster than any one person can keep up with. Those who want to keep up and be successful have to enlist the help of others to keep moving, or they will be swallowed by the tsunami.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by UltimateSurvivor View Post

              As far as Walt Disney and Apple once being led by a single leader vs. by committee now, it is important to remember that no one vision can be accomplished by one's own hands from start to finish. Both Walt and Steve Jobs had teams of people who were experts in their parts of the production to create their product.
              Yeah, but at the end of the day, it was still Walt Disney’s or Steve Jobs’ overarching vision, and only one persons’s opinion mattered in the end. Walt’s or Steve’s. Every product in both companies lived or died based on whether Walt or Steve aprroved, or not. That was final.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by PhotoMatt View Post
                The AP program contributes to increased crowd levels (obviously). Reasonable discussion of the AP program and how it increases crowd levels is acceptable. Blaming passholders on theft is just taking another opportunity to vent frustration at the AP program, and we have beat this horse to death. Enough is enough.

                From this point forward, any negative discussion of the AP program that shifts to the people who hold the passes will be sent to the Litter Box. If this keeps happening, members will be banned.

                I realize that the posts in question do not directly attack a forum member, but the intent of the posts are obvious, and it's just getting to an absurd level. It is time for the AP bashing to stop.

                Thank you.
                The new rule ("From this point forward, any negative discussion of the AP program that shifts to the people who hold the passes will be sent to the Litter Box. If this keeps happening, members will be banned") clearly addresses posts written by one MiceChatter (Natalie Price) in the "Theft in the Parks" thread and elsewhere.

                However, the broadness of the rule calls for clarification.

                In past years, there have been posts by CMs who described the personal abuse they and their fellow CMs received from AP holders who demanded privileged treatment because they had purchased an AP. CMs have posted about their experiences with repeat-visit AP holders who flagrantly abused the wheelchair policy that Disney had at the time. And CMs have posted about AP holders who ran unauthorized for-profit tours on Disneyland property. There also have been posts from non-CMs criticizing of the behavior of AP holders that they witnessed.

                As I recall, those posts -- while not as frequent as Natalie Price's -- clearly were about "the people who hold the passes," and therefore would seem to be subject to the new rule.

                Under the new rule, if those posts were made today would they be sent to the Litter Box, and if repeated, would the posters be subject to banning?

                A literal interpretation of this new rule forbids all criticism of all negative behaviors of all AP holders. Is that the intent of MiceChat administration? And if not, exactly what criticism of what negative behaviors of AP holders is allowed?
                "With the acquisition of Marvel and now of Lucasfilm,
                Disney may have finally found the grail. You don't need
                imagination or art. All you need is a brand."

                - Neil Gabler

                "I didn't know the story of baby Jesus could be any better,
                until Thor told it to me."
                -
                Young girl at Disneyland's 2017 Candlelight Ceremony
                narrated by Chris Hemsworth

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mr Wiggins View Post

                  The new rule ("From this point forward, any negative discussion of the AP program that shifts to the people who hold the passes will be sent to the Litter Box. If this keeps happening, members will be banned") clearly addresses posts written by one MiceChatter (Natalie Price) in the "Theft in the Parks" thread and elsewhere.

                  However, the broadness of the rule calls for clarification.

                  In past years, there have been posts by CMs who described the personal abuse they and their fellow CMs received from AP holders who demanded privileged treatment because they had purchased an AP. CMs have posted about their experiences with repeat-visit AP holders who flagrantly abused the wheelchair policy that Disney had at the time. And CMs have posted about AP holders who ran unauthorized for-profit tours on Disneyland property. There also have been posts from non-CMs criticizing of the behavior of AP holders that they witnessed.

                  As I recall, those posts -- while not as frequent as Natalie Price's -- clearly were about "the people who hold the passes," and therefore would seem to be subject to the new rule.

                  Under the new rule, if those posts were made today would they be sent to the Litter Box, and if repeated, would the posters be subject to banning?

                  A literal interpretation of this new rule forbids all criticism of all negative behaviors of all AP holders. Is that the intent of MiceChat administration? And if not, exactly what criticism of what negative behaviors of AP holders is allowed?
                  I think we, for the most part, can be adults about our discussions and make sure they don't veer off-topic and become broad generalizations. "I had a terrible experience with a Jungle Cruise Skipper" is a unique experience and should not devolve into "Jungle Cruise Skippers are the lowest rung of the CM ladder." Similarly, we can say "I really wish they'd get rid of strollers in the parks because they take up too much walkway space and make it impossible for me to walk anywhere without getting clipped in the ankles" without it becoming "people who bring their 4BR/5BA strollers with concierge service are ridiculous and should stop coming to the parks because clearly they can't control those things." As you can see, those are different topics that have different agendas, and we should know better which path to take when discussing.

                  It's as if you were reading a legit news article vs. an op-ed piece with a click-bait title. Which would you take more seriously?

                  1. Jane Doe advertised her unofficial Disneyland park tours on Craigslist to tourists. By holding a Disneyland annual pass, she was able to conduct an average of 3 2-hour tours per week at a cost of $100 per tourist.

                  2. Jane Doe takes advantage of her Disneyland annual pass, which she pays for using the park's convenient monthly installment payment plan, to market her expertise of the parks to unsuspecting visitors. She visits the park 3 times a week and brings in enough to cover the cost of the pass, plus a meal or two if she wants.

                  You can see that these two sentences address the same story, but have two different narratives attached to them. The first is meant to tell the story of the action, while the second is meant to tell the story of the person who committed the action. It's meant to villainize her as a passholder who takes advantage of the system, while also blaming Disney for offering the installation payment service in the first place.

                  I would hope that we don't have to have all of our posts micro-moderated, and that we can continue to discuss the events that happen without them becoming about the people they happen to or from.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X