tersh wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:34 pm
EricK wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:31 pm
I know @Cody and @Nikipedia have butt heads at least a couple times, but I haven't seen anything that could reasonably qualify as "abuse." I manage to get along pretty well with both of them, and have no reason to assign blame to one side over the other. I generally prefer transparency about bans and stuff from a community standpoint, but we do have this forum and thread to discuss this specific issue, so I don't know how much more is worth asking for (from unpaid staff).
@KyleSchuant I think it's great that you unban people who were banned for attacking you, but does bb.com take the time to make community announcements every time a post or thread is moved or a member is banned?
I understand that you recuse yourself from issues you're involved in, but how many other moderators are available to deal with things when you decide not to? I don't get the impression that this site has a lot of bandwidth to offload effort to other staff members. I don't think your analogy is quite apt considering I don't think there's been any abuse and I don't think that there is a distinct, insular cult of personality around here.
Again, this is not what is being asked for. Just post in the thread. That takes less time than it does to take administrative action. @mgil
demonstrates routinely that this isn't a difficult task, and I don't recall seeing people get upset him or question his actions when it does happen. Transparency breeds respect, or at the very least "yeah, okay" shrugs.
Ah. Misunderstanding on my part, then. I am inclined to agree with respect to a preference for different methods, but maybe not to the degree of making it a rule. I lack adequate circumstantial knowledge to have a strong opinion on this particular case. However:
tersh wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:29 pm
Also, are we just gonna skim over the fact that Cody flat out lied at the beginning of this thread?
I don't know if this is a fact, if, reading his post (below) he makes a distinction between a ban and a suspension.
...then attempted to stop it from being discussed by locking the thread? Abusing your authority and owning up to it is one thing, but doing so and then denying it when someone brings it up is BS.
I think discussing the merits of the rule that bans discussion of moderator actions is a good discussion to have, but it might be a stretch to call it a BS abuse of power when a mod follows through with it.
Sorry dudes, that is not appropriate mod behavior.
Like I get that dude is well-liked by many, and is often a valuable member of the community, but that doesn't make it acceptable behavior.
Is there utility in distinguishing "acceptable" from "preferable?" I think the voluntary detachment from vested quarrels is preferable, but is it the only approach that is acceptable?
As a somewhat frequent member of this community, I will flat out say that I appreciate you for starting this discussion, that I doubt anything said justified a ban or suspension, and that I think openly posting in modified threads that such and such was moved/modified or so and so was suspended/banned for such and such is greatly preferable to all of this mystery. I also disagree with the other couple bans that I'm aware of. But I don't moderate a forum in my free time, I have no experience with doing it, and I am not ready to assume that it's all just going to repeat the past based on what I have seen so far. I imagine that working out these kinds of kinks probably take time, mistakes will be made and cooler heads will (hopefully) prevail.
Cody wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:44 am
tersh wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:16 am
No secret banning of members.
First, no one has been banned. Second, we issue suspensions and bans as necessary, and the member is notified.
If someone has done something that requires that they be banned, the fact that they are banned, be it permanent or temporary, should be posted.
Preferably with indications what rules have been violated.
And reasons are indicated in the "reason for ban" section of the moderation panel, which displays to the individual as well. There will be no public "list of shame" or what have you.
Additionally, on a site with multiple people who have the power to ban members, I'd hope some sort of consensus would be required.
Yes, all moderator actions are discussed among the moderator team.
Also, if you're gonna move a thread that was purposefully posted in the highest traffic, non-training forum so that the issue raised could be seen and discussed, make a note about it in the thread.
This thread was reported to the team as it was not in the correct forum. The team discussed it, and a mod moved it as a result.
I would remind you of this excerpt from the rules, the full version of which can be found here:
"Moderator decisions and actions are not open to public discussion. Contact a moderator or an administrator privately to discuss these issues."