“...wildly off - topic for beta”.  Ahhh, the not-so-hidden sneer of the superior to the inferior.  The polite way to remind someone to not forget their “place" in the overall scheme of things and demand “rights” to speak as necessary to the intended purpose.

When the “guardians” within GMF act as advocates or so as discourage empirical discussion, who guards the guardians”? Only [beta] and Groups.io can intervene when and if that becomes necessary.  Do we, mere owners, REALLY need ask for that to be a [beta] hashtag?  If so, consider that done right now by me.

We are reminded again and again that GMF is “peer to peer” and not part of Groups.io.  It doesn’t always exhibit that “floor and feel”.  “Position posts” by a moderator or founder are not inherently more credible.

No one has proposed moderators are not necessary.  They need to remember their function is that of police, not judges.  They should NOT intimidate verbally nor act with conspicuous bias.  In “peer to peer” debate they should leave their “official function and uniform” at the door and come in as intellectually naked as the rest of us.  ;<)

Best!

WRB

— 

 

On Feb 16, 2020, at 1:23 PM, Chris Jones via Groups.Io <chrisjones12@...> wrote:

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 06:37 PM, Charles Roberts wrote:

The GMF is supposed to be a place for Owners to go to seek help.  <snip>  Supposed to be Owners helping Owners, but rarely is a question answered by someone other than a "Moderator".

Although this is wildly off - topic for beta one reason is that many Group Owners on GMF only go there to pose a question and look at the responses; they don't go there to try to help others and generally see what is going on. They are only interested in their own problems and not anyone else's.

Take away the moderators and see what happens...

Chris

On Feb 16, 2020, at 1:23 PM, Chris Jones via Groups.Io <chrisjones12@...> wrote:

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 06:37 PM, Charles Roberts wrote:

The GMF is supposed to be a place for Owners to go to seek help.  <snip>  Supposed to be Owners helping Owners, but rarely is a question answered by someone other than a "Moderator".

Although this is wildly off - topic for beta one reason is that many Group Owners on GMF only go there to pose a question and look at the responses; they don't go there to try to help others and generally see what is going on. They are only interested in their own problems and not anyone else's.

Take away the moderators and see what happens...

Chris

_._,_._,_

----- Original Message -----

From: txercoupemuseum.org

To: main@beta.groups.io

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

—