Unhappy with moderation and personal attacks?

[AnxietyRanger]

Thank you, Ocelot.

In any case, I do understand and sympathize that the history of Tesla Motors - and that of Tesla Motors Club - is significantly intertwined with its investment history. And thus, with all the shenanigans that brings. In addition, as the Tesla story gained prominence, many a person in the troubled media may have seen them as a click-baiting meal ticket. Finally, I also understand and sympathize that a lot of very reasonable folks very reasonably take Tesla's eco/EV mission seriously and found it worth defending from such drama.

I am not disputing this history, nor am I disagreeing with it. I don't doubt that in the past some very shady motivations guided investors, analysts and media, when it comes to Tesla Motors and Tesla Motors Club. Some of these may remain today, but their relative numbers and effect are greatly dwindling as larger forces take over.

My point is: In 2015, I doubt most people on TMC even know what "short on Tesla" means. Tesla has, thankfully, evolved from that startup quagmire into a relatively mature company. Today an increasing number of people joining TMC are looking at the experience as car owners, buyers and enthusiasts, not investors and/or eco-mission stakeholders. They should be interpreted as such.

Interpreting and responding to those car owners, buyers and enthusiasts, and their motivations, as if they were clandestine investors and/or click-seeking media is IMO a grave mistake more often than cautious. This is good change people, I say we embrace it. Tesla is growing up and cementing its place in the world. We can afford to discuss them like we would discuss any mature company.

 

[dsm363]

I believe you quickly read and quickly misinterpreted AR's comment.

Don't believe so.

 

[Ocelot]

Don't believe so.

Maybe you could explain why not? In A R 's post right above mine he acknowledges there was an error in questioning him as he does know the history. when you read his initial post...the phrasing states he knows the history.
The mistake was in Doug's Interpretation/misreading. He mistake itself is irrelevant. It's a small one and usually not worthy of even pointing out. My whole point in commenting..rather than let things lie is to show how moderators...do comment...and do influence peoples thoughts and positions on other posters....even if those comments are wrong. Yes it is the same for any forum member, yet moderators wether they like it or not are in a position of power, and with power comes responsibility. Ms. Electrics OP ..if taken at face value shows how things can potentially snowball.

 

[Doug_G]

I do know the history and referred exactly to it. My missed point: Like I said, the "don't quote" signatures represent a response to real historical attacks

My point is, many are unfortunately still in this defensive of Tesla mode that may have started with real reason but seems to continue today even in cases where no such attack is present.

Nonsense. The people whose quotes were scraped without attribution or context had a valid reason to add those statements. That doesn't mean they will always defend Tesla against all comers. I don't. If a criticism of Tesla is valid, I will agree with it. If it is IMHO invalid, then I will point out the error.

In other words, IMO due to past real attacks, some people are too fast to assume present-day criticism of Tesla as such and react IMO inappropriately defensively.

Totally disagree. This is an internet forum. A certain percentage of people will go overboard with their viewpoint. The role of the moderator is to keep the ad homenin attacks out of it, and to maintain a civil tone. If people disagree strongly that's fine, as long as they don't start getting nasty to each other.

The real reason why there is more negativity on the forum is simply because it's a much larger community now. It's no longer a place for the early adopters asking and answering questions about Roadsters. It's a consumer forum, with a greater variety of viewpoints.

Do you think it is normal behavior to ask someone if they are short on Tesla?

Nope, I think it's bad behaviour. It imputes a dishonest motive. I don't know if it's strong enough to warrant always moving those comments to snippiness; these things are a judgement call, and a topic of constant discussion by the moderators. Is calling someone a "fanboy" also a personal attack? It's on the same spectrum.

 

[bonnie]

I would argue it is probably about more than just individuals, it is in the culture of TMC to be fairly defensive of Tesla. Much of this probably is historical, defense of Tesla against real attacks and dismissals media, analysts etc. The "don't quote" signatures, as odd as they are, tell of this history.

Maybe you could explain why not? In A R 's post right above mine he acknowledges there was an error in questioning him as he does know the history. when you read his initial post...the phrasing states he knows the history.
The mistake was in Doug's Interpretation/misreading. He mistake itself is irrelevant. It's a small one and usually not worthy of even pointing out. My whole point in commenting..rather than let things lie is to show how moderators...do comment...and do influence peoples thoughts and positions on other posters....even if those comments are wrong. Yes it is the same for any forum member, yet moderators wether they like it or not are in a position of power, and with power comes responsibility. Ms. Electrics OP ..if taken at face value shows how things can potentially snowball.

Sorry, Ocelot, I disagree with you.

The implication in the quoted post is that the signatures (see mine for example) tell of a history of defending Tesla. As DougG explained, it is because of posts being taken out of context. That's all. The mistake is not irrelevant, as you claim.

To use this as an example of moderators unduly influencing is erroneous. It was simply correcting something being spun in the wrong direction, to support an ongoing hypothesis.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Doug_G: I appreciate your post. Just to clarify, my comments on being defensive of Tesla on TMC were related to the OPs overall analysis on TMC culture in general - not in particular to the moderation/editing of that one thread the OP complained about.

As said, it is my opinion that the tumultuous Tesla history has left a defensive attitude in some, that manifests itself in seeing ulterior motives in perfectly innocent (and to use a word you used) consumer commentary. I also agree that some people seem to identify stronger with Tesla the company than with fellow Tesla owners, which causes friction at times.

In any case, I do wish we can all get along.

 

[bonnie]

In any case, I do wish we can all get along.

Differences of opinion do not equate to a 'need to all get along'. I saw nothing disrespectful in the responses. Saying that makes it sound like one person is being unreasonable & the other is simply reasonably asking that we get along.

I'm sure you didn't mean it like that, but that's how it comes across.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Sorry, Ocelot, I disagree with you.

The implication in the quoted post is that the signatures (see mine for example) tell of a history of defending Tesla. As DougG explained, it is because of posts being taken out of context. That's all. The mistake is not irrelevant, as you claim.

To use this as an example of moderators unduly influencing is erroneous. It was simply correcting something being spun in the wrong direction, to support an ongoing hypothesis.

That was not why I used it, though. Ocelot understood me perfectly.

IMO the "don't quote" signatures don't tell of a history of defending Tesla. They tell of a history of others attacking Tesla and/or TMC members. This is an important distinction.

I used the "don't quote" signatures as an example in the same vein as noting why people do things like ask "are you short on Tesla". It was not a comment on moderation - it was a comment on history of Tesla and TMC, why some people have been rightfully very defensive of Tesla and TMC. It is, IMO, because of a history where these actually had to be defended against suspect investor and media attention, when the startup nature of the business and smallness of the community contributed to dubious attention and considerable volatility. Those signatures and questions used to be, I'm sure, very valid.

But, and this is the second important part, I further offered the opinion that those times have now changed. As Tesla has matured and the community overtaken in volume by car consumers, there is less need to treat critical voices suspiciously. The odds are, they no longer are worthy of that suspicion. Indeed, my assertion is that while this suspicion used to be valid some years ago, it is no longer not only not needed, but also now hurting the inclusivity and constructiveness of this community, at worst bordering sometimes near fandom.

I sincerely doubt MsElectric is on a mission against Tesla - as was implied in the responses OP received and that they felt moderator attention didn't improve, but actually harmed in some ways.

 

[Doug_G]

It's perfectly fine for people to disagree with each other. It's okay to say, "You're wrong, and here's why". It's NOT okay to say, "You're an idiot, and here's why". Somewhere in between those examples there's a line that you shouldn't cross.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Differences of opinion do not equate to a 'need to all get along'. I saw nothing disrespectful in the responses. Saying that makes it sound like one person is being unreasonable & the other is simply reasonably asking that we get along.

I'm sure you didn't mean it like that, but that's how it comes across.

My wish for a need to get along is more in the sense that there is genuine goodwill towards one another, despite differences of opinion - even grave differences. The kind that were at the end of the day we could all say of each other, even if nothing else, something like "yeah, he/she's a bit out there for my taste and sees the world in a crazy way, but in the end he/she is allright as a person and we can tackle the occasional topic just fine" kind of thing. I know that is unrealistic in some cases where people's relationships deteriorate for whatever reason, but I think in many ways that is a good goal for members of any community.

Sometimes it is mere misunderstandings that can stop that from happening, though. For instance, in this case I did not mean to imply anything bad about anyone with my wish - as, I welcome, you note in the part I have underlined.

 

[doug]

Admin note: changed the too long, click baity title.

 

[bonnie]

My wish for a need to get along is more in the sense that there is genuine goodwill towards one another, despite differences of opinion - even grave differences. The kind that were at the end of the day we could all say of each other, even if nothing else, something like "yeah, he/she's a bit out there for my taste and sees the world in a crazy way, but in the end he/she is allright as a person and we can tackle the occasional topic just fine" kind of thing. I know that is unrealistic in some cases where people's relationships deteriorate for whatever reason, but I think in many ways that is a good goal for members of any community.

Sometimes it is mere misunderstandings that can stop that from happening, though. For instance, in this case I did not mean to imply anything bad about anyone with my wish - as, I welcome, you note in the part I have underlined.

So you're saying you're going to stop casting a segment of this community as defending Tesla at all costs?

That would be fantastic, seriously fantastic. Nothing more frustrating than to be speaking from personal experience and have someone else dismiss it as 'just defending Tesla'.

 

[Dave EV]

Admin note: changed the too long, click baity title.

Why doesn't the original post say that and give a record of the old title? I had to read 4 pages of posts to find this explanation and frankly I think the reason is weak and degree of editing overboard. If I were in MsElectric's position this would likely push me over the edge.

At the very least capitalize the subject properly so it does not reflect poorly on MsElectric.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Admin note: changed the too long, click baity title.

I agree that now the name of the thread is more appropriate. First of all I would like to say that the Moderation of TMC is very good and of high level as a Forum treating very important matters as renewable energy and electric cars deserves.
But I also hope that the Moderators on TMC will reconsider my state of being under Moderation for life that I don't think to deserve.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

So you're saying you're going to stop casting a segment of this community as defending Tesla at all costs?

That would be fantastic, seriously fantastic. Nothing more frustrating than to be speaking from personal experience and have someone else dismiss it as 'just defending Tesla'.

To be realistic I doubt I'll ever do anything but speak my mind, whatever that is, but almost never (perhaps in a few moments of human irritation, but those are exceptions) do I do so in any kind of ill will or even anger. Often with some level of affection for the community and its members - concern even, hopes for improvement, that kind of thing. I wouldn't hope for anything more from anyone else.

You know, if we'd do this ten years and at the roast afterwards we would still mostly disagree but could make a few poignant jokes about the pet topics and style of the other, and do it in a genuinely friendly manner... I'd say ten years not wasted.

 

[dsm363]

So you're saying you're going to stop casting a segment of this community as defending Tesla at all costs?

That would be fantastic, seriously fantastic. Nothing more frustrating than to be speaking from personal experience and have someone else dismiss it as 'just defending Tesla'.

That is great news. I thought he was telling a large segment of TMC that although they mean well they are simply blinded to the truth and are dismissive of alternative viewpoints because they were traumatized in the past by negative comments about Tesla. Glad to know that isn't the case.

 

[MorrisonHiker]

Why doesn't the original post say that and give a record of the old title? I had to read 4 pages of posts to find this explanation and frankly I think the reason is weak and degree of editing overboard. If I were in MsElectric's position this would likely push me over the edge.

At the very least capitalize the subject properly so it does not reflect poorly on MsElectric.

The original title was something like "Bullying harassment arbitrary moderation why some regular contributors leave" but could've had some additional punctuation.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

FWIW, I don't agree with the constant editing of subjects either. This time the subject seems misleading too, considering MsElectric's message was about a lot more than just unhappiness with moderation.

 

[tezzla]

Speaking of MODS, I just had reputation points taken away because they didn't like one of my posts.

 

[Ocelot]

Sorry, Ocelot, I disagree with you.

The implication in the quoted post is that the signatures (see mine for example) tell of a history of defending Tesla. As DougG explained, it is because of posts being taken out of context. That's all. The mistake is not irrelevant, as you claim.

To use this as an example of moderators unduly influencing is erroneous. It was simply correcting something being spun in the wrong direction, to support an ongoing hypothesis.

Sorry Bonnie I think we are miscommunicating. I am not claiming 'the mistake was irrelevant'. I am claiming there was no mistake.

I am pretty sure Doug, Yourself, AR, and myself ALL actually agree on how those "signatures" came into being! ( I even remember it happening) .

That is what I took from the original AR post. Yet you and Doug seem to be taking something different. There was nothing being "spun" and nothing to "correct" in the first place. Hence when I feel subjectively (and later one could argue objectively as AR verified his meaning) that a poster is 'called out' and corrected when there was no error to be corrected, but rather misinterpretation by the reader ... I would argue that has potential to influence (both negatively and positively) on whomever the poster was, including moderators.