moderated Re: Restrict "Set Moderator Privileges" Permission #suggestion #done


Charles Roberts
 


What WRB said, 2x........
 
My Opinion:
The GMF is supposed to be a place for Owners to go to seek help.  At least that's my understanding.  Too often, an OP receives a chastation for not crossing their "I's" or dotting their "T's".....or for saying something a "Moderator" doesn't like.  Supposed to be Owners helping Owners, but rarely is a question answered by someone other than a "Moderator".  I was a Helper Responder in an old Excel Newsgroup and I know how difficult it is for Non-teckies to ask questions, let alone understand the answers given by Super-Teckies......but it's the Super-Teckie Helper Responder's obligation to make the effort to TRY to communicate, and in no way should the OP go away feeling embarrased for asking.....(even if they ask the same dumb question more than once).  Many times, in both beta and GMF,  I've personally had to delete an entire "fireback" message I'd typed in answer to some unthoughtful response...... 
 
As suggested by WRB, POLLS, (with good questions), might be a good answer for suggestions/improvements/fixes....I love data over arguments.
 
This is where Chuck gets down off his Soap-Box now and partakes of additional medication.
My best to all
Chuck
 
 
 
 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2020 12:57 AM
Subject: [beta] Restrict "Set Moderator Privileges" Permission #suggestion


On GMF under the topic "Membership Metrics there was an exchange between a contributor and a  moderator.  Following that exchange, the contributor posted:
"And very silly of me to think that things might have improved in three months and "I" not notified.
The moderator responded:  
"If something is wrong that can have serious effects, it's usually fixed within a matter of hours once It's been reported.  Feature suggestions, once posted on beta, get added to the pile and may or may not be implemented.  There was a feature added a couple of months ago that I requested in late 2015, so no need to get impatient.  The best way, I think, to keep up with things is to read the #Changelog on this group when it's posted.  Even better is to follow the beta group, but I know that not everyone will do that."

In my opinion some moderators are less than properly receptive to change.  I don’t agree, so 
I attempted to post this response to the above:

"I cannot envision “serious effects” greater than a moderator “permissions” that allows a moderator to demote or eliminate a group’s owner.  This has long been under discussion.  Reasonable consensus has been reached that this should be changed so as to be impossible.  All argument against is based on “what if”, or “it’s been that way for so long, what’s YOUR problem.  

I sometime wonder if all of us are speaking the same language.  When an important “fix” is apparently “lost in the pile” a way to “bump” consideration and invoke higher priority would seem appropriate.  Any suggestion(s) as to what to do when there IS just cause to get impatient?

WRB”

My “…message was not approved” for the  following reason:  

"While I agree that having that moderator permission allow any effect on owners is a bad thing, it is not in the same order of magnitude as something that blocks message delivery or otherwise impairs ongoing operation of the site.

There are enough topics discussing the Moderator permissions issue, we don't need to bring that discussion into this topic.”

OK, fine.  I’ll bring this matter HERE for discussion.  I believe it inappropriate that ANY moderator presume to unilaterally interfere with legitimate discussion on any “issue”.  Whether we discuss it HERE or THERE, there MUST be an acceptable place and way for such discussion.  

The subject above is the issue:  "Protecting the original Owner from rogue co-Owners #suggestion”.  Maybe this subject should have been submitted as a “Bug".  It certainly isn't a “Feature”.

It should be obvious that certain existing moderators presently enjoy the power to demote or remove an existing or rightful owner SOLELY because Groups.io checkbox descriptions were unclear as to disclose the full range of actions thus “authorized”.   These checkboxes are part of the initial process of setting up a group here.  It’s just plain wrong not to timely disclose what is being thus authorized.
  
The result is an ongoing unnecessary and undesired threat to the internal harmony and even continued existence of each such group.  It should be self-evident that ending this problem of long standing should receive support, not resistance; and higher priority from within Groups.io.  After all, this problem was NOT created by those owners, but by Groups.io.

Opinions?  Poll?

WRB

— 


Join main@beta.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.