tPF authenticator discussion

[BeenBurned]

True, because someone who is not an authenticator would have no good ideas when it comes to setting up rules and protocols. Someone who simply reads the threads or has experience on other sites would not have any valuable input. smdh

OK, I apologize for being snarky, but that struck me the wrong way.

Thanks for the apology but that's not what I said at all. Twisting someone's words or making 'inferences' is seldom helpful.
I thought this thread was started to help out the AT's run their sub-forums more smoothly. I don't remember saying anywhere that those who aren't AT's have nothing substantial to add.

Apples and oranges......

There's no apples and oranges here and she didn't twist your words.

Mods, please understand that I'm not trying to be contrary and not "attacking" another member, but since that member is disputing what others have posted, I'm responding to her.

During the course of this thread, as someone who admitted to not being an authenticator and supposedly not even using the serivces provided here but instead, using a paid service, you've had plenty to say about how authenticators should behave, what they should and shouldn't do and now saying that this is a discussion that should be hashed out privately.

Early on, you complained about authenticators picking and choosing among members and requests and whether they wanted to authenticate for them. You believed that those authenticators should respond to everyone. (I believe you had some AT requests that were ignored and you weren't happy.)

Then, in a more recent post, you thought the more appropriate way to respond to rude posters was to be "professional" and ignore them.

So which is it?

Carlpsmom wasn't twisting your words or making inferences. She was pointing out that some of the attitude seen in this thread among non-authenticators here, while not specifically rude and entitled is definitely interpreted as a passive-aggressive way to try to get one's points across.

This isn't to say that comments and suggestions from the general population aren't helpful but telling people who do the job how to do it and how to act and behave is pushing it.

 

[missbanff]

There's no apples and oranges here and she didn't twist your words.

Mods, please understand that I'm not trying to be contrary and not "attacking" another member, but since that member is disputing what others have posted, I'm responding to her.

During the course of this thread, as someone who admitted to not being an authenticator and supposedly not even using the serivces provided here but instead, using a paid service, you've had plenty to say about how authenticators should behave, what they should and shouldn't do and now saying that this is a discussion that should be hashed out privately.

Early on, you complained about authenticators picking and choosing among members and requests and whether they wanted to authenticate for them. You believed that those authenticators should respond to everyone. (I believe you had some AT requests that were ignored and you weren't happy.)

Then, in a more recent post, you thought the more appropriate way to respond to rude posters was to be "professional" and ignore them.

So which is it?

Carlpsmom wasn't twisting your words or making inferences. She was pointing out that some of the attitude seen in this thread among non-authenticators here, while not specifically rude and entitled is definitely interpreted as a passive-aggressive way to try to get one's points across.

This isn't to say that comments and suggestions from the general population aren't helpful but telling people who do the job how to do it and how to act and behave is pushing it.

A thousand times YES!!!!!



I hope the 'powers that be' see that it's NOT just me who sees that buttons are being intentionally PUSHED.

 

[zippie]

Great post BB

 

[Prada Psycho]

A thousand times YES!!!!!



I hope the 'powers that be' see that it's NOT just me who sees that buttons are being intentionally PUSHED.

Ooooooh yeeeeeeah..... :true:

 

[Nikki_]

Great post BB

It certainly is a great post.

 

[clevercat]

Great post BB

Completely agree.

 

[devik]

I was also pretty bothered when I saw the statements that this thread should be made private to only authenticators. That would be counter to the whole purpose of the thread - and personally, I think this discussion should be required reading for all members!

 

[missbanff]

I was also pretty bothered when I saw the statements that this thread should be made private to only authenticators. That would be counter to the whole purpose of the thread - and personally, I think this discussion should be required reading for all members!

A condensed version, absolutely.

I don't know why the hell this discussion should be 'private' when it is you guys - the members here - making the AT requests. Y'all SHOULD have your say.

From what I've read, the MAJORITY (definition: most, not all) of you defended the authenticators against rude, entitled people OR those who can't or choose not to read.

If the MAJORITY of you stated that the 'rules for authentication' were "too difficult" to follow (as one person did state) or that the authenticators themselves were by and large rude, I would gladly go with what the MAJORITY rules. Shorten/simplify the rules, answer ALL requests, etc. I'm sure that perhaps an authenticator here or there has gotten snarky in their answer, but my GOD when you've been doing it a long time, and some people are too thick to understand what a clear, close photo is, it DOES get tiresome. Why we continue to do it is because MOST posters are polite and gracious, we love doing it, and we love helping people spend their hard earned money wisely. NOBODY is polite and "professional" 10000000% of the time - and I don't know why WE should be the exception.

But MOST of you have shown tremendous support for the authenticators here, which makes me believe that the change should not be on OUR side. Why some people continue to argue just makes my head hurt

 

[Martha34]

sorry to hear

 

[alansgail]

Hmmm. Weren't you just trying to get an LV authenticated about a week before this post? A little disingenuous one week later to say you "always" go elsewhere for authentications when that clearly isn't the case. If the methods here are so clunky, why do you use them and then disavow them and say you never use them? A little strange.

I for one am extremely grateful to our authenticators. I think they do a wonderful job. Especially when they have to cope with the same people who ask for their help a week later being publicly critical of their methods.

Yes, I was TRYING to get an AT here but never did. Am I bitter about it? Hardly, it's an AT. I simply went elsewhere, no big deal.
Clearly I'm in the minority here with thinking that this discussion should have been private.
I still feel it would have been beneficial in the beginning for the Mods to get feedback from the AT's themselves since they're the ones actually putting in the time to do so.

The AT forums need to work smoothly for everyone but if they aren't working for the AT's then they're the ones that need to come up with solutions for improvement (along with the Mods of course who can say whether or not something even CAN be done or not).

In any event, my arms are tired from swimming against the tide so I'm outta here. As many have pointed out it doesn't matter to me since I don't use that forum anyway. Not that I haven't in the past but I guess that still makes me irrelevant to put in my two cents which is quite contrary to what many are saying to me. Use the AT forum? You get a say. Don't use the AT forum? You don't get a say.......but wait, everyone should have their opinion heard.

Too tiring......carry on.

 

[threadbender]

There's no apples and oranges here and she didn't twist your words.

Mods, please understand that I'm not trying to be contrary and not "attacking" another member, but since that member is disputing what others have posted, I'm responding to her.

During the course of this thread, as someone who admitted to not being an authenticator and supposedly not even using the serivces provided here but instead, using a paid service, you've had plenty to say about how authenticators should behave, what they should and shouldn't do and now saying that this is a discussion that should be hashed out privately.

Early on, you complained about authenticators picking and choosing among members and requests and whether they wanted to authenticate for them. You believed that those authenticators should respond to everyone. (I believe you had some AT requests that were ignored and you weren't happy.)

Then, in a more recent post, you thought the more appropriate way to respond to rude posters was to be "professional" and ignore them.

So which is it?

Carlpsmom wasn't twisting your words or making inferences. She was pointing out that some of the attitude seen in this thread among non-authenticators here, while not specifically rude and entitled is definitely interpreted as a passive-aggressive way to try to get one's points across.

This isn't to say that comments and suggestions from the general population aren't helpful but telling people who do the job how to do it and how to act and behave is pushing it.

Thank you. I did not see where I had twisted anything.
I agree 100% with your post.

 

[Apricot Summers]

Ooooooh yeeeeeeah..... :true:

I'm glad you said this - absolutely agree!

 

[Apricot Summers]

Can I just say - I hate the quote function on here? I was agreeing to the fact that buttons are being pushed ... absolutely.

 

[threadbender]

If people, in general, have issues with how the AT are run, then it needed to be addressed. That is what is happening. If the only opinions taken into consideration were the authenticators themselves, then there would likely be other problems down the road. Simply because some of the members asking for help may have other issues/questions/concerns.
Getting input from all parties and working from there is a smart way to proceed. Do the mods' and authenticators' thoughts and opinions carry a lot of weight? Of course, they have the most experience in this area. Will members also have valuable contributions? Of course! Life experience is another tool.
The whole point is to make the process one that is pleasant, accurate and efficient. It will take some work and compromise to get there, but if the parties involved work together, it will happen.

Again, I appreciate all of those who volunteer here on TPF, in whatever capacity. Making it a positive experience for everyone is a win/win.

 

[charleston-mom]

Yes, I was TRYING to get an AT here but never did. Am I bitter about it?

In any event, my arms are tired from swimming against the tide so I'm outta here.

Too tiring......carry on.

I hope you get some rest and it brings you some peace.

I do realize it's hard to supply the necessary photos for authentication and it can be disappointing if they aren't able to help you as a result.

I suppose blaming the messenger can seem simpler for some than trying to supplying what's necessary for a good authentication (speaking metaphorically rather than to any one person of course). It can speak to sour grapes at times though.

It is a shame that personal responsibility for supplying what's necessary (in some instances for some people - not zeroing in on any particular poster) is instead replaced by being angry at the wonderful authenticators who are trying to help. I think that's what's upsetting to the vast majority of us who are deeply and eternally grateful to the people who give of their own time, without any cost, to help.