So you don't have a problem with how things are run? Its other people's perceptions?
*shrug*
Then the other people should really PM us. Many posters have done so and usually we're pretty good about getting back quickly. (I still owe one person just such a PM though... )
Ahem, the perception problem is a *reflection* of how things are run; so therefore, yes, while I don't think there's an active bias at play in the moderation of this site, I *do* agree with the perception of bias in the way decisions are meted out. Some things just look bad, even if after you look at all sides it's not really that bad after all. Like I said before, some it's because you can't divulge disciplinary decisions, some of it's the way personal like/dislike plays into the interpretation of rule-breaking, and some of it's the fact that you can't moderate the entirety of the site, meaning certain things slide when they aren't reported by members...
So, yeah, while I don't think there's much bias in the moderation on this site, I do think you could do more to correct the perception of whether there is a bias.
I don't think the majority of people have a negative perception of either the Celticsblog membership or staff.
Nobody said anything about a majority of anything. What I did say is that in my experience the most common complaint against C-blog (when complaints are made on other C-related sites) is the in-crowd, out-crown perception of favoritism.
Among those that do, there are certain members who have an agenda, there are others who disagree philosophically with certain rules (i.e., no profanity, etc.), and there are others who find this site just isn't their cup of tea, for whatever reason.
I think the number of members we *could* make happy, but don't because of our application of the rules, is practically nil. To that very small minority, I'd recommend PMing the staff. I feel that we're all remarkably accessible, although certain members of the staff may take awhile in getting back to you due to having other stuff going on.
Meh--'practically nil' is hardly accurate, if you count the ones who've left in a huff over perceived inconsistency in the application of the rules. IMO, Celticsblog has lost more good members than it's retained because of the application of the rules. This isn't about agendas, or philosophical differences over certain rules, or cup-of-tea defections--this is about perceived unfairness.
I've heard that Celticsblog has a reputation of being too strict, but I really haven't seen too many complaints about an "in crowd". The ironic thing is that some of the folks people presumably perceive as being "staff favorites" have been disciplined in the past, whereas many of those who aren't necessarily seen as being in any sort of "group" are universally respected by the staff.
I think if you randomly took 20 different posters and asked them who the "in" and "out" groups were, you'd get wildly divergent answers.
Yeah, the thing with perception is that it's often unreliable
I don't doubt that things like "in-crowd" and "staff favorites" are subject to wildly varied interpretations depending on who you ask. Regardless of the irony involved, though, there could done more to create the appearance of objectivity, even if those measures were only for appearance's sake and don't have any real effect on the running of the site.
Perception problems are special--first you have to somehow determine whether the perception exists, and then you have to make decisions that change that perception, decisions that might not actually result in any real change. I'm hearing a lot of defensive-sounding justifications of the process around here, and while I understand the need to justify one's process, the actual process is beside the point. What I'm talking about is a way to improve the perception of fairness and that involves taking a look and finding ways that improve perception...