Page 3 of 3

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:41 pm
by crunchyKnees
Hanley wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:27 pm
crunchyKnees wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:04 pmBut, just because that's true in general doesn't make this specific treatment fair.
That wasn't my claim. I think it's unfair to challenge moderators and propose new rules any time they make a rules enforcement action.

I wasn't fond of the bans on Shug, Big Steve or this most recent banning of Mr. Niki.

###

Sidenote curiosity, though: did you read the thread them motivated the ban?
If the thread has not been edited, then no, as I think something ban-provoking would stick in my memory. If that's the case could you point me to it as I somehow missed it.

If it's been edited to remove the offensive material, then I may have read it, but not in its original state.

Either way your right in implying that I don't have first hand knowledge. The problem is, if that knowledge is hidden, that fact may give the wrong idea (or the right idea!). It seems like my reaction was not an outlier judging from the responses in this thread.

As a side note, I was not saying you personally were making any particular claim, but I see it looks like that from context as I was slow to edit and submit my message. I was speaking in general about not liking the current situation.

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:59 pm
by tersh
Also, I just wanna say, it's friggin' weird agreeing with Kyle about something.

I mean, choosing to moderate on BB sounds sort of like a self-hate kind of thing, but I can respect the community service and the ethic he describes as motivating how he operates there is pretty good.

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:12 pm
by EricK
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 pmAlso, 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:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=18

"Moderator decisions and actions are not open to public discussion. Contact a moderator or an administrator privately to discuss these issues."

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:22 pm
by Hanley
crunchyKnees wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:41 pm
Hanley wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:27 pm
crunchyKnees wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:04 pmBut, just because that's true in general doesn't make this specific treatment fair.
That wasn't my claim. I think it's unfair to challenge moderators and propose new rules any time they make a rules enforcement action.

I wasn't fond of the bans on Shug, Big Steve or this most recent banning of Mr. Niki.

###

Sidenote curiosity, though: did you read the thread them motivated the ban?
If the thread has not been edited, then no, as I think something ban-provoking would stick in my memory. If that's the case could you point me to it as I somehow missed it.

If it's been edited to remove the offensive material, then I may have read it, but not in its original state.

Either way your right in implying that I don't have first hand knowledge. The problem is, if that knowledge is hidden, that fact may give the wrong idea (or the right idea!). It seems like my reaction was not an outlier judging from the responses in this thread.

As a side note, I was not saying you personally were making any particular claim, but I see it looks like that from context as I was slow to edit and submit my message. I was speaking in general about not liking the current situation.
I thought Niki's comments ranked as some of the most offensive I've ever read on this forum. It was so over the top that it would have been funny as sarcasm or extreme parody...but given the history of Niki & Cody there simply is no world in which that type of sarcasm "made in jest"gets you off the hook for content

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:29 pm
by tersh
EricK wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:12 pm I don't know if this is a fact, if, reading his post (below) he makes a distinction between a ban and a suspension.
Given that the administrative action in question had taken place within a very short time span prior to my post, dude knew what I meant, and chose to gave a possibly technically correct answer that did not address the spirit of the inquiry. Where I come from, we call that not being truthful.
EricK wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:12 pm
...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.
I think perhaps you misunderstand. Cody responded, and then immediately locked the thread. It was later unlocked by I know not who, enabling the discussion to continue. Possibly after I sent all the other mods a response, possibly by the unquiet shoes.
EricK wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:12 pm 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?
Yes, I think there is.

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:57 pm
by EricK
tersh wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:29 pm
EricK wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:12 pm I don't know if this is a fact, if, reading his post (below) he makes a distinction between a ban and a suspension.
Given that the administrative action in question had taken place within a very short time span prior to my post, dude knew what I meant, and chose to gave a possibly technically correct answer that did not address the spirit of the inquiry. Where I come from, we call that not being truthful.
I guess we might just disagree here.
EricK wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:12 pm
...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.
I think perhaps you misunderstand. Cody responded, and then immediately locked the thread. It was later unlocked by I know not who, enabling the discussion to continue. Possibly after I sent all the other mods a response, possibly by the unquiet shoes.
Actually, that's what I assumed you meant. I was just saying that he quoted the relevant rule then locked the thread. That doesn't seem like an abuse of power if it is a straightforward enforcement if the rule. Immediately banning or suspending you and/or deleting th thread would be more in line with "abuse" (in my opinion).

Given @Hanley's post above (and my continued ignorance) maybe the offending post was over-the-top?

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:07 pm
by Hanley
EricK wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:57 pmGiven Hanley's post above (and my continued ignorance) maybe the offending post was over-the-top?
I can't imagine the cesspool forum where those comments would have been under the top (well, maybe Egypt). But then to be called-out for mod behavior on top of Niki's insults...fucking come on dudes.

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:15 pm
by tersh
Hanley wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:07 pm
EricK wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:57 pmGiven Hanley's post above (and my continued ignorance) maybe the offending post was over-the-top?
I can't imagine the cesspool forum where those comments would have been under the top (well, maybe Egypt). But then to be called-out for mod behavior on top of Niki's insults...fucking come on dudes.
Then the appropriate behavior would be to leave it in place and go "...and you're suspended for a month" and then everyone would have gone "that's fair", and that would have been the end of it.

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:21 pm
by tersh
EricK wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:57 pm Actually, that's what I assumed you meant. I was just saying that he quoted the relevant rule then locked the thread. That doesn't seem like an abuse of power if it is a straightforward enforcement if the rule. Immediately banning or suspending you and/or deleting th thread would be more in line with "abuse" (in my opinion).

Given Hanley's post above (and my continued ignorance) maybe the offending post was over-the-top?
An appropriate response to "I think maybe we should talk about this as a change to rules" is for one mod out of several to say "no" and then lock the thread? After essentially zero discussion of the merits of the idea?

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:22 pm
by Hanley
tersh wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:15 pmthe appropriate behavior would be to leave it in place and go "...and you're suspended for a month" and then everyone would have gone "that's fair", and that would have been the end of it.
No way, dude. Leave up patently inflammatory insults/harassment in the name of forum transparency?

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:38 pm
by tersh
Hanley wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:22 pm
tersh wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:15 pmthe appropriate behavior would be to leave it in place and go "...and you're suspended for a month" and then everyone would have gone "that's fair", and that would have been the end of it.
No way, dude. Leave up patently inflammatory insults/harassment in the name of forum transparency?
The forum has kind of a lot of patently inflammatory insults and harassment already. So, yeah.
Gilchrest's tactic of changing key words is a reasonable compromise, as it leaves the gist of things in place, and putting something in a spoiler tag would also be fine if it's just the worst thing ever.

Beyond that, I don't believe in making things go away to solve problems. If someone screwed the pooch or just willfully did a bad thing in public, they deserve to take the heat for their mistake and for everyone to be like "Seriously, wtf?" and reassess their opinion of that person, or whatever. If someone said a load of hot garbage about me on this site, I would 100% want that to be publicly visible.

If something is unacceptable, air it out. Making it disappear doesn't solve anything. All this is mysterious to most of the forum, because they have no idea what was said. They are thus unable to form an opinion on the fairness of that action. And I reckon that matters. Other people don't, whatever that's their call.

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:43 pm
by Hanley
tersh wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:38 pmI would 100% want that to be publicly visible
And I 100% would not want something akin to what was said about Cody to be publicly visible if it were said about me.

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:45 pm
by EricK
tersh wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:21 pm
EricK wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:57 pm Actually, that's what I assumed you meant. I was just saying that he quoted the relevant rule then locked the thread. That doesn't seem like an abuse of power if it is a straightforward enforcement if the rule. Immediately banning or suspending you and/or deleting th thread would be more in line with "abuse" (in my opinion).

Given Hanley's post above (and my continued ignorance) maybe the offending post was over-the-top?
An appropriate response to "I think maybe we should talk about this as a change to rules" is for one mod out of several to say "no" and then lock the thread? After essentially zero discussion of the merits of the idea?
I dunno. I'm not sure where to place "appropriate." "Acceptable?" Seems like it could be construed as a violation of the cited rule, so...yeah? Preferred? Probably not, but the thread isn't locked currently, and we don't know why, so I'm having a hard time taking a strong stance on it. Again, I don't know what the exchange was, but it's starting to sound like it was pretty bad, and I think the crew generally does a great job, so I question whether any significant changes need to occur. I would classify the examples you give of @mgil and voluntary reclusion as best (or at least better) practices, but I don't think I'd sign a petition saying this better be the new standard.

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:58 pm
by tersh
Hanley wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:43 pm
tersh wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:38 pmI would 100% want that to be publicly visible
And I 100% would not want something akin to what was said about Cody to be publicly visible if it were said about me.
Well, I've been unjustifiably called a defender of pedophiles and a rape apologist among other things, sometimes in association with my name, in places where lots of people could read it, so to each their own.

If you'd be so kind as to PM (or email, whatever) me a transcription of the offending comment, I'd appreciate it.

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:28 pm
by CtMcBride
My take:

The rule about not discussing moderator action is garbage.

It would be nice if there was some transparency when posts are edited or people are banned (suspended, whatever.)

It sounds like the ban was reasonable, but I'm not just going to take the word of internet people and call it a day.

Re: Proposed Forum Rule

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2019 5:28 am
by mgil
***Cleanup Complete***

I am reinstating this thread, but it will be locked.

The moderation/administration team will work to do better coming to a thorough consensus in the future. However, coming up with general rules can be difficult and most of these incidents have to be treated on a case-by-case basis and sometimes a lack of available moderators creates an additional triage condition.

ETA:

Given that there will be a case-by-case requirement, the current "sketch" for abuse of forum policies is as follows:

-First degree offense = warning
-Second degree offense = account suspension*
-Third degree offense = account removal/ban

*Note that when a suspension is implemented, the forum software notates this as a "ban".

Again, that's a sketch. Degrees may have to do with severity and/or repetition.