Nicholas King said:Do you have any posts over at the R&D section? If there’s an existing thread I missed, then please accept my apologies—I clearly overlooked it. However, if you don't actually contribute to R&D, then I have to wonder: what exactly is your authority for leading the charge on this specific topic? I’ve checked the list, and your username isn't among the moderators for the main forum. Honestly, banning someone without cause and then lecturing them about "attention-seeking" is—well, it's just a joke. By the way, what would actually change if we just spun this off into its own separate thread?
My assumption that you aren't familiar with the R&D section itself stems from the fact that you seem unaware that the restructuring of R&D actually began—quite specifically—with the overhaul of the moderation team. You see, the shift in the "direction of the wind" within R&D was triggered by changing the makeup of the moderators; the technical reorganization (the establishment of new sub-forums) is, one might argue, merely the second step in this entire process.
Let me reiterate: the manner in which that sub-forum is moderated affects its "restructuring"—and I suppose it shouldn't be that difficult to grasp that term in a sense much broader than just "rearranging the furniture"—far more than any simple shuffling of sub-forums. In a situation where the individual most responsible for this "change in course" is no longer moderating R&D, and the co-author of these changes likely has less time to dedicate to R&D due to other forum duties, this very discussion becomes the deciding factor in whether the intended goals succeed or fail.
We aren't going down that road, folks. Anyone is welcome to chime in as long as they actually have some insight to offer or a constructive perspective, regardless of whether people agree with them or not. Honestly, I know plenty of other users who love to nitpick how people communicate or how things are moderated on various PDFs without even contributing anything themselves! 🇲🇰
Tomisličak, since you’re acting as part of the forum administration here, this kind of tone and attitude is really more than unnecessary.
A quick request to everyone: please, let's dial it back a notch. Read through your posts before you hit send, and try to step into the shoes of the person actually reading your words.
Nicholas King said:Do you have any posts over at the R&D section? If there’s an existing thread I missed, then please accept my apologies—I clearly overlooked it. However, if you don't actually contribute to R&D, then I have to wonder: what exactly is your authority for leading the charge on this specific topic? I’ve checked the list, and your username isn't among the moderators for the main forum. Honestly, banning someone without cause and then lecturing them about "attention-seeking" is—well, it's just a joke. By the way, what would actually change if we just spun this off into its own separate thread?
My assumption that you aren't familiar with the R&D section itself stems from the fact that you seem unaware that the restructuring of R&D actually began—quite specifically—with the overhaul of the moderation team. You see, the shift in the "direction of the wind" within R&D was triggered by changing the makeup of the moderators; the technical reorganization (the establishment of new sub-forums) is, one might argue, merely the second step in this entire process.
Let me reiterate: the manner in which that sub-forum is moderated affects its "restructuring"—and I suppose it shouldn't be that difficult to grasp that term in a sense much broader than just "rearranging the furniture"—far more than any simple shuffling of sub-forums. In a situation where the individual most responsible for this "change in course" is no longer moderating R&D, and the co-author of these changes likely has less time to dedicate to R&D due to other forum duties, this very discussion becomes the deciding factor in whether the intended goals succeed or fail.
Yes, Tupelo and I are the ones who kicked off the changes on Rhode Island. She stepped away because she just couldn't balance moderating two different PDFs anymore, and frankly, my own schedule is getting tighter too—sometimes days go by before I can actually sit down and focus on a PDF. I feel bad about it and wish I could give it more of my time, but right now, my role there is mostly centered on launching new PDFs and coordinating with my colleagues to figure out the best way to roll everything out.
If you (or anyone else) have a grievance or a question regarding a moderation decision, please, just provide a link and a specific example. I’ve mentioned several times now that we shouldn't be leaving vague, undefined accusations lying around, and I'm certain that hasn't gone unnoticed.
As for that comment about moderation decisions not applying to you, I believe they were specifically referring to someone else's warning card, which had caused some confusion for the moderator.
My personal take is that moderators should explain their reasoning if users ask, because that's how we can potentially prevent the same mistake from happening to someone else. That hasn't been the standard practice on this forum for a long time, so the moderators have been trained a certain way, and I realize my approach might feel a bit jarring to some. I suppose we all just need a little more time to adjust; maybe then we can all start talking to one another with a bit less antagonism.
