[Laminar]

It seems that this sort of phrase:

I'll remind participants of this thread that they do not see other communication, particularly PMs but not limited to them, that have been of concern of late. We have to make decisions based on a lot of factors, many of which most members will never have any contact with, and this is such a case

comes up fairly often when controversy arises regarding a member punishment/ban/etc.

We also know from the Lateralus' posts in the Car Threads feedback thread that revealing specific details of infractions that led to a member's ban is kosher, so would it help or hurt the boards to provide moderator transparency? I can see a yellow or red square on a post of mine if it led to a moderator action, why not have that visible to everyone? It could serve as a reminder to everyone that sees it of exactly what is permissible and what is over the line.

On the other hand, it's possible that complaints over specific moderation actions could increase.

What do you think, and what evidence can you provide to back up your claim?

[The Final Dakar]

The only drawback I can think of is we might see an increase in people baiting posters who they know just received an infraction.

[Laminar]

And everyone would then see that baiting leads immediately to a warning or infraction.

[turtle777]

I'm not sure if we need more transparency.

I'd opt for a bit LESS moderation. This place has become a bit sterile, trying to make it a PG-rated family forum.
The discussion mentioned above is a perfect example. Yes, it got a bit heated, but so what ? Why quelch these kind of discussions ? What is the big harm that the mods saw in the posts ?

-t

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

And everyone would then see that baiting leads immediately to a warning or infraction.

ideally.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I'm not sure if we need more transparency.

I'd opt for a bit LESS moderation. This place has become a bit sterile, trying to make it a PG-rated family forum.
The discussion mentioned above is a perfect example. Yes, it got a bit heated, but so what ? Why quelch these kind of discussions ? What is the big harm that the mods saw in the posts ?

-t

When it comes to discussion of the moderation, those threads always get the expedited treatment as far as locking and moderation occurs.

[lpkmckenna]

I don't pay taxes to run this place, so I'm not gonna make any demands.

[Laminar]

I guess you'll have to point out where anyone suggested that demands were being made.

[turtle777]

Heck, I'd be willing to pay real money to get 'NN from 2002 back.

-t

[reader50]

Transparency is good.

While starting the morning with some Jack D, I patrolled the forums and spotted <fav member> posting again. Doesn't he ever learn his place? He even still supports Obama.

Quickly found a post with the word 'gay' in it. Bingo, 5-pointer. That should learn him.

Along the way, saw <clueless member> posting lies about my religion. All heathens secretly know God doesn't enforce that rule, it's just for public consumption. Another sip to celebrate. Time for <clueless member> to have a break. A quick edit so she said something more clear for the public to see, and a 10-day vacation. Hope she enjoys Tahiti.

Oh dear, <squabbler #1> and <squabbler #2> are at it again. I fire up a Marlboro while planning how to handle it. Maybe the board could be hacked to create PMs in their names, to each other. #1 could send a death threat to #2, while #2 could send personal opinions and a photoshopped pic to #1. They'll quickly ignore each other.

On the other hand, the cup-o-Jack is confusing my loops with GOTO statements, and PHP keeps making complaints against me. OK, something simpler. Delete #1's post, so #2 is now making an attack out of the blue. Some other Mod will get 'im for that, with no one the wiser.

Remove an infraction from the member I'm protecting, and put the cig out. Or was it the dog that goes out? Mornings are confusing. Time to head off to work, will check back in later.

[turtle777]

-t

[subego]

I'm pro transparency, but it's going to put a bigger load on the mods.

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Heck, I'd be willing to pay real money to get 'NN from 2002 back.

-t

We'd have to use Jagwire though.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm pro transparency, but it's going to put a bigger load on the mods.

Not necessarily.

Less moderation = less to explain.

-t

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

What do you think, and what evidence can you provide to back up your claim?

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm pro transparency, but it's going to put a bigger load on the mods.

This is the type of post I was trying to avoid. "This is exactly what will happen, just trust me."

[subego]

@turtle

Can you give examples of the over-moderation you're seeing?

What I see:

Every 6 months, someone takes a vacation.
Every few years, someone gets the hammer.
People get dinged for being jackasses in PWL.
Moderators ask a thread be moved back on topic.
Spam has a half-life of about three minutes.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

This is the type of post I was trying to avoid. "This is exactly what will happen, just trust me."

Sorry. I thought it was obvious enough I'd just be boring.

The mods would have many of their decisions questioned, and have to defend said decisions.

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

This place has become a bit sterile, trying to make it a PG-rated family forum.

I dunno about this either, I can get relatively filthy. The only thing I've been asked to tone down is vulgar references to the genitals of major political figures.

Not an unreasonable request when it comes down to it.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

@turtle

Can you give examples of the over-moderation you're seeing?

More mods take things personally than 5 years ago.
Promoting regular members to mods might have helped to spread the work load, but since those members now moderate with their individual opinions in mind, impartiality has taken a hit.

The latest temp-ban of RR would not have happened as swiftly if there hand't been some "history" involved.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

The only thing I've been asked to tone down is vulgar references to the genitals of major political figures.

It's not your fault, his name *IS* Dick Cheney, after all

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

More mods take things personally than 5 years ago.
Promoting regular members to mods might have helped to spread the work load, but since those members now moderate with their individual opinions in mind, impartiality has taken a hit.

The latest temp-ban of RR would not have happened as swiftly if there hand't been some "history" involved.

-t

Unless I'm mistaken, RR called Lat a sucky mod and accused him of destroying the forum.

Even if it's true (I have no opinion), this isn't how you deal with it. Case closed. "History" is irrelevant.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

Unless I'm mistaken, RR called Lat a sucky mod and accused him of destroying the forum.

Read for yourself, I didn't see RR's posts as being THAT bad.

-t

[Lateralus]

For the record, I never actually issued him an infraction for that opinion. It wasn't until he belligerently persisted (repeatedly) that I started clicking on stuff.

[Big Mac]

I've been on the receiving end of a few infractions in my day, and from my perspective the admins/mods do a pretty excellent job around here across the board. Not perfect, but pretty excellent.

Things are great as they are IMO, and the staff should be complimented for its tireless devotion.

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Read for yourself, I didn't see RR's posts as being THAT bad.

"You've handled your mod duties in an extremely poor manner. It has led to the detriment of the forums in my opinion."


Let's ignore for a second I think a rule where you have to be civil to mods WRT their moderation is a requirement for functioning user-mod communications.

Where the **** does anyone think this is going to end up?

[The Final Dakar]

Ladies, I believe we're straying off the OP some... You're tempting me to weigh in.

[subego]

To be fair to RR, I think it's wholly inappropriate for moderators to snipe at users in threads about moderation, however that doesn't justify RR's response.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Sorry. I thought it was obvious enough I'd just be boring.

The mods would have many of their decisions questioned, and have to defend said decisions.

This isn't evidence, it's just expounding on a presupposition.

[Lateralus]

Why? My 'snipe' at Railroader was plenty vanilla and more than justified.

The better question is why should I or any other staff member keep such opinions private? When a member spreads toxicity publicly and causes feuds that the staff has to put actual effort into cleaning up, why should that member only be confronted privately about it? Doing so makes it look to those barely-concerned that nothing is being done, and the result is a dolling out of punishment that isn't in any way commensurate with the act(s) committed.

Seriously though, some of you have some sort of entitlement issue for which there seems to be no treatment. Go fly around some of the other boards on the internet, even prominent, professionally run ones... see how some of the same personality types we have here get death with elsewhere.

[subego]

@Laminar

The very mechanism I described is about to stealz ur thread.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

Why? My 'snipe' at Railroader was plenty vanilla and more than justified.

The better question is why should I or any other staff member keep such opinions private? When a member spreads toxicity publicly and causes feuds that the staff has to put actual effort into cleaning up, why should that member only be confronted privately about it? Doing so makes it look to those barely-concerned that nothing is being done, and the result is a dolling out of punishment that isn't in any way commensurate with the act(s) committed.

Taking shots at people is how you "clean up"?

[Lateralus]

You see... I honestly don't care what anybody thinks of what happened, and the extent of explanation you'll get for what goes down around here will only ever go as far as I or anybody else choose to give. I was bored and thought I'd voluntarily chime in here for some clarification, but I'm already being reminded of what a Pandora's box moderator participation in Feedback threads can be so I think I'll take my leave now.

[subego]

That wasn't anywhere near as constructive as it could have or should have been.

Allow me to make a better attempt (or not, I already made the bed, so I'm prepared to lie in it).

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Unless I'm mistaken, RR called Lat a sucky mod and accused him of destroying the forum.

Even if it's true (I have no opinion), this isn't how you deal with it. Case closed. "History" is irrelevant.

RR probably also earned some infractions in my religious figure ranking thread too where he was harassing me.

[subego]

Is there anything like a "mission statement" for the moderators when it comes to moderating the interpersonal side of the forum, or is it more seat of the pants?

[Laminar]

Mods: I'm hoping this thread leads to some good discussion, I'd prefer it not get locked.

[subego]

Me too.

I'll leave.

[imitchellg5]

I like the way things are handled by the moderation staff for the most part. Whenever there's a huge issue that everyone is interested in, like last night, Lateralus and Glenn both did a good job of explaining what had gone on to lead to RR's ban. And I also think that most moderation issues here seem to be handled very effectively behind closed doors, and most of these issues are very benign and not worth even knowing about, such as diffusing some discussions that have begun to approach chaos in the PWL. I'm reminded myself of a few months ago when I was arguing with Athens about something, we both received infractions, took our discussion to PM, and realized that we were really arguing for the same reason. Both of us left the thread though and continued via PM, and it was a good discussion. In my mind, that's the picture of perfect moderation: You send a warning, then you stand back and let the situation fix itself. Which I'm sure it does 90% of the time. It seems to me that is what Lateralus did, but RR completely ignored the warning, shot back, got another infraction, and then was banned by the system. It's not the first time that's happened here at all. No matter if RR was right or wrong, he should have backed down and let things cool down after that first infraction. And that's exactly how Rob has been too. There have been plenty of threads where Rob has technically been correct in what he's saying, or brings up very good points. The manner in which he conveys his argument of support for his points is simply completely inflammatory and anecdotal.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

I like the way things are handled by the moderation staff for the most part. Whenever there's a huge issue that everyone is interested in, like last night, Lateralus and Glenn both did a good job of explaining what had gone on to lead to RR's ban.

But they went about it ways that were completely opposite. At no point did it seem that Glenn had a bone to pick with any one. But that thread was locked and that discussion ended for a reason, and that's beside the point of this thread.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

But they went about it ways that were completely opposite. At no point did it seem that Glenn had a bone to pick with any one. But that thread was locked and that discussion ended for a reason, and that's beside the point of this thread.

That is true. I think there can be a discrepancy between moderators, who, let's remember, were generally regular users here for years, and admins, who have a different approach to issues.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Things are great as they are IMO, and the staff should be complimented for its tireless devotion.

I agree.

[reader50]

I had to reset the poll results. Someone tampered with them, and there was no way to sort out what the totals had been.

If you voted, please repeat your vote.

I've switched it to a public poll to reduce further mischief, since the vote counts have to match the number of names.

[imitchellg5]

It won't let me revote.

[reader50]

Never mind, I was able to retrieve the lost data anyway. All votes restored. Guess I'm not that good at poll fixing.

Laminar, if you want it reverted to a private poll, let me know.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

That is true. I think there can be a discrepancy between moderators, who, let's remember, were generally regular users here for years, and admins, who have a different approach to issues.

Um. Glenn was made admin after many years here as a non-admin.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Um. Glenn was made admin after many years here as a non-admin.

I know. But I'm assuming that Glenn got to become an admin after many many years of basically not doing anything stupid. And then he was a mod after that, and then an admin. He's held to a much higher standard, and one that he doesn't seem to have any issue meeting.

[ghporter]

I joined these forums in April of 2001 to learn about wireless networks, and along the way I got caught up in "needing" a Mac. I was asked after quite some time if I wanted to provide some modding help in the Networking forum, which eventually became help with the Alternative OS forum, and so on. I'm sort of honored that Laminar quoted me (from the thread that died last night), though (of course) I'll remind all members that citations help with any quote.

As the system is built, User A's infractions are not visible to anyone except himself and the staff. This is based on a very old and I think very wise management axiom: "Praise in public, punish in private." Public negatives can have a lot of side effects that are not conducive to the point of whatever the negative was. On the other hand, as the ban last night happened "live," in that thread, there really wasn't any mystery to the situation, only the particular events that triggered the ban, so explaining that particular infraction was not, in my opinion, violating that particular management rule, any more than explaining to the rest of the employees present why the guy that started the food fight in the cafeteria wound up suspended instead of just sent home for the rest of the day.

Our staff is intentionally diverse in just about everything: personality, background, experience, attitude, you name it. It would just be plain BAD if we were all pocket-protector geeks, or mock-turtleneck wearing Steveites. And we have developed a strong relationship among ourselves that allows our chaotic mob disparate assembly to be relatively consistent in managing the forums. We could hardly be said to agree on much, let alone some grand conspiracy, unless you call "keeping the forums as user welcoming and trouble free as possible" the stuff of a conspiracy.

I am personally opposed to making it obvious to everybody in the world who has earned what infraction today. Most infractions wind up totaling up to one or two points that expire within a week or so, and that's the point: a one point infraction that gets a user to stop and consider that someone feels he/she stepped over some line is far more effective than publicly calling out a user for some minor (yet technically prohibited) slight, in part because the infraction is private.

To me, "open" management, where everyone can depend on the same basic set of rules being enforced basically the same way throughout the forums, is superior to "transparent" management where Mod A's decisions can be picked apart by Monday morning quarterbacks merely because it was obvious that Mod A actually took the action in question. Who cares who clicked on "infract that user" if all of the staff generally takes pretty much the same approach to the same circumstance? And when it comes down to it, the biggest difference in how the whole staff handles anything is a matter of "right away" versus "it didn't settle down by itself so I'll go do something about it." And most of the time that difference in timing is so small that it really doesn't make any difference at all.

Finally, I'll restate why I closed the Feedback thread that turned from a fossil into fresh poo: it had strayed so far from the original topic, and that topic was so obsolete in the first place, that even if it could be salvaged, where would it go?