Why are the "Dear Ones" sending everyone to JOB? - page 12
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
No! It just so happens that there are three fridges on the ground floor. One in the kitchen, one somewhere in the middle of the living space and one on the veranda. So the beer was in the last one. )))
Warning: advertisement for the trading system...
I'll add a little:
goldtrader:
"Старые модераторы" работали и работают больше в командно-административном стиле. Как командир в армии: "приказы и наказания обжалованию не подлежат".
This is the way to do it! That's what a moderator is all about - he has the last word in enforcing the rules. Enforcing the rules is the only thing a moderator is after.
The new ones are much more democratic: they correct spelling mistakes, explain the reasons for their actions, educate...
And this, to put it mildly, is completely unnecessary. They corrected one letter in the title of the topic - is this really grounds for serious talk about total democracy, enlightenment?
And where the "new" explains where to go to the author (and by the way, does not "decide where to go", but offers an alternative), the old instead of explanations would take down the topic or send the author himself to the ban.
Have the rules of the forum been violated? As far as I understand, no.
In my opinion, we are moving in the right direction.
I'm not against the new moderators and I don't mind at all that they have appeared, moreover, I'm glad that among their ranks is, for example, Alexey - a very worthy candidate.
I agree with many that there is noticeably less rubbish on the forum, and the decreased activity has objective reasons. Of course, you can't please everyone, points of view differ and that's normal, it's a pity that there is no possibility to create a poll and get more or less adequate statistics of opinions.
it is temporary! There are plenty of combinations of TA tools! Someone else will soon come up with a new idea, to cross a snake, a hedgehog, a cat and a raccoon. It will be a new interesting subject :o)
I think MQL5 will take a great deal of your time, so it's a pity, of course. I think they should have created a "portal" of sorts (I mean "single user space" and not technical division by servers). Many developments in MQL4 can be used in MQL5
I took your advice. Reread the whole thing this morning, with a clear head. Both what you highlighted and what I did. I'm impressed with the result. And amused, thank you.
I am mainly impressed by the way you interpret words to your own address. The word respectable, written without inverted commas and expressing my attitude to you without any tricks (!), you perceive as an attempt to insult. By comparison, you wrote about a man 'talks first and thinks later' - right in the forehead. To say that you "became a moderator " while before you were "a mere mortal" doesn't even imply humour, just a simple statement of fact. You put it in a different style: "You are not interested. You are interested in labeling ..."That is, your suspicions are reality.
I don't want to dig into the details and turn our discussion into a bazaar showdown. My task was to draw your attention to the style of communication between moderators and ordinary forumers and I hope I succeeded. Your response, Victor, seems to me to suggest that we understand each other and have drawn the appropriate conclusions. Both of us. If that is the case, then all is well and the goal is achieved. I would like for communication between forum participants and moderators to always be correct and constructive in the future as well. For this you need only one thing: both should listen to each other.
And in general, there is a suggestion. To all, moderators and ordinary members.
When a person here on the forum pursues personal goals: spamming, swearing, pushing advertising, etc., no one, as a rule, do not challenge the actions of moderators. And rightly so. Disputes flare up when questions are raised about the functioning of the forum as a whole, its internal policies and priorities. So, I suggest that disputants, before getting into a debate, should be aware of a simple fact: the opponent's point of view is dictated by the desire for the common good of the forum (if it is his personal interest, then see above). Therefore 1) if it is expressed correctly, one should not take it personally, consider the opponent a malcontent, provocateur, etc. 2) if it exists, there are motives for it and one should understand and take them into account 3) if it is constructive, it is all the more noteworthy 4) if it doesn't coincide with my own, it is not a reason for a duel, but a witness to the infinite variety of life, only thanks to which we exist.
I too smiled after reading your simple-minded semantic interpretation of what I highlighted. Let's consider that we understand each other. :))
Regarding the subject matter, there's practically nothing to add, you've outlined everything in detail and thoroughly. If you had started there, there would have been no reason for a discussion.
The only thing to keep in mind is that public moderators are ordinary users with enhanced rights, with all the consequences that entails. At any time, the administration can suspend, replace or ban them. So the most productive thing is not to vent your accumulated frustration on them, but to send the administration a valid complaint about the moderator's actions. I have no doubt that the appropriate conclusions will be made by her. This suggestion is not addressed to you personally, but to all those dissatisfied with the quality of moderation.
The only thing to keep in mind is that public moderators are ordinary users with advanced rights, with all the consequences that entails. At any time, the administration can suspend, replace or ban them. So the most productive thing is not to vent your accumulated annoyance at them, but to send the administration a valid complaint about the moderator's actions. I have no doubt that the appropriate conclusions will be made by her. This suggestion is not addressed to you personally, but to all those dissatisfied with the quality of moderation.
The discussion regarding the work of new moderators has not subsided, and mutual understanding is, unfortunately, becoming less and less common. And that suggestion of yours, Victor, in line with the topic looks very characteristic.
"Public moderators are ordinary users with enhanced rights". This is what creates the lack of understanding of the situation and the resulting conflict. When you new moderators were rank and file users, I personally agreed with each of you 90 times out of 100. And in the other ten, I agreed with reservations. Now you participate in the discussion with the same vigor as before, however, your role has changed, your opinion has become essential, and your decision is not even allowed to be discussed. And you will convince someone that you are still an ordinary user ? That would be 100% dishonest. I don't mean to say that combining the position of an ordinary user with the duties of a moderator is impossible. But you need to have enough tact, patience and awareness of equality with others. Instead, we have examples like this:
I have no desire to explain myself to you. No obligation to respond to you either. You do not solve the problem, you hang out around the problem. Flinging words around is not interesting, really. Your question about my aims will be answered by VOTE of users unambiguously. So I leave your question to the devastation of the public with a clear conscience.
It is possible, of course, to write "you" with a capital letter, but insulting the human ear with every sentence. Such "paradoxes of correctness" change the sign in the work of public moderators from plus to minus.
Moderators, if you are public, your job is to maintain close contact with the public, to maintain order on the forum by the public itself and thus public opinion, as well as to help the public and the administration understand each other. All of this is true insofar as it is useful not only for the public, but also for the administration.
However, judging by the points highlighted in the quotation and the position in this discussion, the moderators hold a different point of view: the administration - God and judge, the task of moderators - to execute the orders of the administration, all dissenters - fire away. As for the suggestion to increase productivity by snitching on moderators - that's a waaah. So the word "public" doesn't really fit here. I wish I were wrong, but so far all I've seen from moderators is confrontation.
Moderators, if you perceive the topic of discussion as an active attack on you, as a complaint, criticism, a shift to personality, it is not so. It's just the public in this (yes, unflattering) form trying to re-establish contact with you. Human contact. You closed yourself with the slogan "the actions of the moderator are not discussed", derived from this your unquestionable right, took a circular defense. How can there be mutual understanding along the way? And when there is no understanding, any administration will be violent and of little use.
However, if it is a conscious choice, there is nothing to discuss. There is no need to use the adjective ' public' and dress up as ordinary users.
Yurixx: Модераторы, если вы общественные, то ваша задача - поддерживать тесные контакты с общественностью оставаясь ее частью, поддерживать порядок на форуме силами самой же общественности, а значит и общественного мнения, а также помогать взаимопониманию между общественностью форума и администрацией. Все это верно постольку, поскольку полезно не только для общественности, но и для администрации.
Exactly, Yuri. The main purpose of a public moderator (OM) is not to cut down/cut out/destroy what doesn't fit his personal opinion, but simply to maintain order, using extreme means as infrequently as possible.
You probably know Peter's principle:
Everyone reaches a different level of incompetence in their career advancement.
We are learning to apply the "principle of minimal impact" in practice and have managed to make few mistakes in the meantime. We have been working for a little under a month, but we always analyse on a daily basis the actions of our team members who seem questionable and draw conclusions.
It's not snitching, but sensible feedback, designed precisely to ensure that OM's activities don't become uncontrollable. And this is where the word "public" comes in very accurately: the fate of each of us as moderators depends on both forum members and the forum administration.
If we really wanted to exercise our incredible power, we would have taken this thread down right from the start, after the first post. But we didn't, and we weren't even going to. We need feedback.
The discussion around the work of the new moderators continues unabated and there is, unfortunately, less and less understanding...
... Now you participate in the discussion with the former activity, however, your role has changed, your opinion has become essential, and your decision - even forbidden to discuss....
... However, judging by the points highlighted in the quote and the position in this discussion, moderators hold a different view: the administration is god and judge, the task of moderators is to execute the orders of the administration, all dissenters - ftop. As for the suggestion to increase productivity by snitching on moderators - that's a waaah. So the word "public" doesn't really fit here. I wish I was wrong, but so far all I've seen from the moderators is confrontation...
... Moderators, if you perceive the topic of discussion as an active attack on you, as a complaint, criticism, a shift to personality, it is not so. It's just that the public in this (yes, unflattering) form is trying to re-establish contact with you...... However, if it is a conscious choice, there is nothing to discuss. Just don't use that adjective - public - and dress up as rank-and-file users.
For ease of discussion I have highlighted the key points of your post and will try to respond as best I can.
Discussion is a useful thing and there is more and more mutual understanding. There is an active process of lapping up, misunderstandings are eliminated, and matters of principle in the rules are declared and firmly defended. Periodic aggravations are exactly the evidence of the normal course of the process and are occasions for correction, if necessary.
This duality of our situation poses certain communication difficulties which have to be overcome, and not always successfully. It is difficult to participate in thematic discussions, because the situation requires you to observe the rules of the forum at the same time. And this causes difficulties for the moderators themselves, limiting their personal freedom. The rules do prohibit ignoring a moderator's remarks and openly disrespecting the administration, but this only applies to organizational matters. There are not and will not be any crazy moderators demanding, under threat of banning, to be recognized as the best TA experts.
Some provisions of the third paragraph are silly to argue with. The administration is indeed the judge, the moderators' job is to follow the administration's orders. The orders are to obey the rules of the forum, which is what we try to do. As for criminal language (snitching), it belongs in the zone, not here. If your roof leaks, you don't go looking for a builder to punch him in the face and end up in the monkey house, you file a report with the housing authority. I mean, you file a report on command. This is the basis of normal operation of any hierarchical structure. We have adopted the following order of appeal: a dissatisfied moderator writes to the personal objection, then personal to the senior moderator group (Mathemat), then the personal to the administrator (Rosh ). His decision is final, as it always has been. If instead of directly discussing the incident with the moderators, the victim appeals to the public, he probably knows who ate whose fat.
About the hit-and-run it's hard for me to answer for everyone. Specifically your first post is difficult to consider other than a personal attack, it is. Constructive suggestions are accepted with gratitude, remarks on the matter with embarrassment followed by internal discussion. Confrontation only arises when the very need for moderation, forum rules, and when opponents step out of line. And there is no need to re-establish contact because it has not been interrupted. There are messages in private with support or condemnation of moderators' actions, we ourselves ask people for advice, we solve many issues without taking them to the forum. This process is simply invisible to most. And the topics do not only contain sweeping denunciation, but also support, and sometimes very helpful criticism.
As for making a conscious choice, I don't want to make up pretty words, we didn't plan to sacrifice our free time and reputation for noble goals. The administration has introduced public moderator posts to assist the full-time ones and made offers to candidates of their choice. To refuse, with the team so busy with new projects, would have been sheer pigheadedness. For this we now listen to your not always fair complaints.
I hope I have stated my position fully enough on the points you have raised.