[hyteckit]

Since it's impossible to prove a moderator is being overly bias currently without knowing the moderating record of a moderator, I suggest that there should be some form of transparency, so we'll know now many infractions the moderator has given and to whom it was given to. That provides some sort of transparency.

I got banned for telling Captain Obvious to stop whining. Yet, many are going unscathed for calling me whiny or petty.

I get an infraction for going "from forum to forum and posting with personal antagonism towards him is not furthering discussion" according to vmarks, but Big Mac didn't seem to get banned for going "from forum to forum and posting with personal antagonism towards" me and not furthering discussion, in multiple threads.

Thus, I'm asking for transparency, so we can see if a moderator is being overly bias.

[OreoCookie]

The checks and balances work within the staff. We discuss these things and unlike rumors to the contrary, we do not allow renegade mods who imprint their own bias onto the forum at large.

However, I don't think other members should be allowed to have a look at other member's infraction point count, there are privacy issues that I think cannot be solved. So on that ground alone, I doubt this feature will come. Plus, we staffers don't want a mob rule where members complain that `Oh, I did get an infraction in that situation, but why didn't he?' That's a can of worms we don't want to open. We are a bunch of volunteers with no `agenda.' We just happen to like Macs, other than that, we're quite diverse. vmarks is not out there to get you.

I think you'd do yourself a big favor if you'd stop taking things that happen in the PL so seriously. This is a tech forum, not a forum on politics.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

This is a tech forum, not a forum on politics.

Which is why the Lounge and especially the PL should be removed altogether.

[OreoCookie]

The Lounges were started for idle chit-chat and topics that didn't fit into any of the other categories. I don't mind them, but the focus of these forums should be tech-related, I agree.

Most, if not all of the complaints, have their roots in the Lounges (mostly PL).

[Simon]

IMHO there's MySpace and the likes for the whole social baloney. This place should be about tech. No politics, no chit-chat. Of course that's just my opinion. But I can pretty much guarantee you that if you guys got rid of the Lounge, you'd also be getting rid of 90% of the idiots and 95% of the complaints/whining/nagging.

I'm aware that ultimately it's all about hits and the generated ad revenue. The Lounge and especially the PL attract a lot of users. And they generate a lot of hits. Since this is a private board run by a company it shouldn't surprise anyone that ad revenue trumps content.

[RAILhead]

There's no reason to kill the Lounges -- only a small portion of the posts are made by pure idiots, simply in there to be jackasses and cause trouble.

It would be much easier to perma-ban flame-starters and leave the Lounges intact.

And the transparency idea is ridiculous IMHO simply because this is a WEB FORUM, not some kind of organization in which we all share an interest.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Simon 

I'm aware that ultimately it's all about hits and the generated ad revenue. The Lounge and especially the PL attract a lot of users. And they generate a lot of hits. Since this is a private board run by a company it shouldn't surprise anyone that ad revenue trumps content.

So why are you complaining?

[turtle777]

LOL, transparency, LOL.

In your dreams.

-t

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

So why are you complaining?

I'm not. I'm stating what I believe would be best for this board. I adding that I am aware that business considerations might go against that.

[Dakar V]

Wouldn't more ad revenue and more regular visitors be best for this board?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Simon 

I'm not. I'm stating what I believe would be best for this board. I adding that I am aware that business considerations might go against that.

So, you think that reduced revenue is best for the board?

This is not a altruistic endeavor. They don't provide the tech forums just out of the goodness of their hearts and concern for helping people get their computers fixed.

They want to make money.

You don't like the lounge and PL, don't go in them. I don't understand why people lack such self control.

[Simon]

I am specifically talking about the board content and the quality of posts. And those would without any doubt be better without all the Lounge idiots.

It's also not about not going to the Lounge. I don't go there. Problem is, that's not good enough. A lot of the trash spills over into technical areas. And of course many of the idiots attracted by the Lounge end up decreasing the SNR in other technical threads.

Lighten up people. Nobody is taking your dear Lounge away from you (for reasons I already mentioned above). I'm merely stating my opinion.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Simon 

I am specifically talking about the board content and the quality of posts. And those would without any doubt be better without all the Lounge idiots.

It's also not about not going to the Lounge. I don't go there. Problem is, that's not good enough. A lot of the trash spills over into technical areas.

I disagree.

Originally Posted by Simon 

And of course many of the idiots attracted by the Lounge end up decreasing the SNR in other technical threads.

Huh? You are completely contradicting yourself.

Originally Posted by Simon 

Lighten up people. Nobody is taking your dear Lounge away from you (for reasons I already mentioned above). I'm merely stating my opinion.

Look in the mirror. You're the one calling people names and getting worked up about the lounge.

[Dakar V]

Where's subego when you need him?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Where's subego when you need him?

You rang?

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Plus, we staffers don't want a mob rule where members complain that `Oh, I did get an infraction in that situation, but why didn't he?' That's a can of worms we don't want to open.

If this was really the way the vast majority of users thought, you and all of the other mods would have been eaten alive long ago.

Look at the reactions in the vmarks threads. The "mob" came to his defense. Really. It's not policy keeping you safe from the "mob", it's that we like you.

Of course, I fully understand how you might not feel that way, but think about it for a second. Remember how we smacked around NewsFactor? Do you honestly think it's your moderator powers keeping that in check?

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Look in the mirror. You're the one calling people names and getting worked up about the lounge.

Names? Actually I'm totally calm. But I am indeed surprised you're having such trouble to accept somebody else's opinion.

[Dakar V]

It's MacNN that should live in fear of its members, not the members that should live in fear of MacNN!
They may take our accounts, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!
GATTACA! GATTACA! GATTACA!

[Maflynn]

My $.02 is the PL appears to get out of hand so much so that I'd be one who would not miss that forum if it disappeared. The lounge itself is a great way to get people here, discuss things that not directly related to the other forums. Removing such an active forum would only stifle communication not enhance it.

Generally the conversations in the lounge are civil and there's many threads there that have substance, where as the PL seems to degrade into left wing vs. right wing arguments.

[subego]

If you get rid of P/L, you would have a whole lot more lockination in the regular lounge. I don't think that would enhance communication.

Separately, define "out of hand".

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Look at the reactions in the vmarks threads. The "mob" came to his defense. Really. It's not policy keeping you safe from the "mob", it's that we like you.

Not everyone spreads his problems with other staffers in the Feedback forum. So I wouldn't judge something like that by the reaction in a feedback thread.

Infractions are a tool for staffers to keep track of problematic members. It helps us make more objective decisions. It's not meant for other members to keep a score board and to complain that member A didn't get an infraction when they themselves did (even though they were doing and saying the same thing). The vast majority of people wouldn't care, but a small percentage who are into tit-for-tat would.

The fact that the community doesn't organize virtual protest marches just means that we're doing a fair job and are not some bunch of egotistical megalomaniacs.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by subego 

It's not policy keeping you safe from the "mob", it's that we like you.

[sallyfields] you like me, you really like me![/sallyfields]

Excepting, of course, those who do not.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Which is why the Lounge and especially the PL should be removed altogether.

Man, you're like a broken record.

Haven't you got some Macs you can be polishing or something?

[Chuckit]

I think what Oreo's saying is not that he's paranoid about how the members are out to get the staff. It's that there are enough members who insist on making even 1-point infractions into a federal case (mostly via PM, so you can't get the whole picture from the Feedback forum) that we're kind of hesitant to invite more criticism. Even if the majority of members don't do it, there are enough people here that a fraction of the membership doing it all the freakin' time would be enough to make anybody think about resigning — and I think those are the members who would be most…er…interested in this feature.

[Dakar V]

It certainly would keep this Forum bustling with new threads.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Not everyone spreads his problems with other staffers in the Feedback forum. So I wouldn't judge something like that by the reaction in a feedback thread.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but the fact that most don't spread their problems around here was my point. They don't have a problem.

Likewise, how is the reaction in those threads (i.e. the vast majority of people offering the opinion that the user in question was an idiot) not the ideal example by which to judge this?


I want to address the rest of your post, but since I'm not getting you here, I'm worried I'm not getting you there.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I think what Oreo's saying is not that he's paranoid about how the members are out to get the staff. It's that there are enough members who insist on making even 1-point infractions into a federal case (mostly via PM, so you can't get the whole picture from the Feedback forum) that we're kind of hesitant to invite more criticism. Even if the majority of members don't do it, there are enough people here that a fraction of the membership doing it all the freakin' time would be enough to make anybody think about resigning — and I think those are the members who would be most…er…interested in this feature.

Then, I think you would be shocked at the number of people who would come out in your defense. In fact, I think you would probably feel better as moderators if you knew just how much most people agreed with most of your calls most of the time.

As I said, it seems to me that's exactly what happened in the multiple recent vmarks threads.

You had the OP who complained.
You had the usual suspects (only one or two) say "right on! You suck, bee-yotches!"
You had a bunch of back and forth about whether someone who moderates a board should participate, none of which rose any specific allegations against vmarks (except when levied by the OP or the usual suspects).

Every other post, with one possible exception I can think of, came out in defense of vmarks. At least six people did so, not including other moderators.


Edit: I would also like to add that at least two, if not more people who would be considered usual suspects are permabanned. Nothing to make me think the same won't happen with the others.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by subego 

Then, I think you would be shocked at the number of people who would come out in your defense.

I would be shocked if people knew whenever I got an angry PM or somebody PMed Demonhood demanding that I be fired or whatever. That would be kind of eerie.

I agree with you that most people aren't that way. But some people (not everybody, but more than a couple) are just tetchy about being moderated, and the fact that 100 other people agree it was the right decision doesn't make it less of a hassle having to respond to a PM a minute about how that post TOTALLY WAS ON TOPIC. And inciting more Feedback holy wars isn't exactly a happy option either, IMO.

[brassplayersrock²]

<crosses off PM Chuckit> from the to do list

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

But some people (not everybody, but more than a couple) are just tetchy about being moderated, and the fact that 100 other people agree it was the right decision doesn't make it less of a hassle having to respond to a PM a minute about how that post TOTALLY WAS ON TOPIC. And inciting more Feedback holy wars isn't exactly a happy option either, IMO.

Someone who gets god's-honest tetchy over a moderation call needs to take an instant vacation.

If you make that the über-crime, the people you're worried about get a clue or Darwin themselves out of the system.




Edit: I've absolutely seen this type of system work on boards three times as large as this. There is very little to no complaint from the user base that the sanctity of not having users mouth-off to you (as a mod) is inviolate. In fact, it's actively supported.

The end result of this is that very much of the mod-user punishment is transparent. Warnings go in threads, not in PMs. Bans are listed and justified (usually in half a dozen words) in the equivalent of the Feedback lounge. This works, and the mods are willing to take criticism (even reverse their calls), because if someone isn't playing the game politely, they get instantly ganked.

They used to lock ban reports once written with the idea that if someone wished to discuss it, they could start another thread. The current experiment is not to lock them, as they felt the old system discouraged feedback. Even that move, as of yet, hasn't precipitated a spate of nit-pickers.

I can tell you, the people on that board not only know the rules, they know how each moderator interprets the rules. This makes them better users whether they want to be or not.

The mods there, like you, are reasonable and fair people, and are thus defended by the users, as you would be.

[Atomic Rooster]

What I'd like to see them do is open the mod forum (read only).

[brassplayersrock²]

That'd just boost your ego Roo

[red rocket]

How about an unmoderated ‘flame forum’ or ‘dumpster’ where all the personal attacks can take place?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but the fact that most don't spread their problems around here was my point. They don't have a problem.

Your statement is correct -- except for the last sentence. We're getting a lot more `fan mail' than you see here. I'm not talking about abstract possibilities, the staff discusses many of these cases amongst each other.

Regarding your example, the tech forums I help to moderate need very little, well, moderation (except for the ubiquitous spammers, of course) and I doubt the other tech forums are any different. The exceptions are the Marketplace (because it's not about winning a fictitious argument on the interweb, but about real money) and the Lounges. In all other forums, moderation is very light-handed. But perhaps that's because people share a common interest, we didn't have a troll infestation for very, very long and discussions are not as heat as about politics.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

How about an unmoderated ‘flame forum’ or ‘dumpster’ where all the personal attacks can take place?

I was sort of thinking that, too. The only problem is that it would be about 99.9 per cent sure to spill over into all the other forums, as well, making it relatively useless in the end. Or at least I think so.

Oddly enough, though, I’m a member of another (quite large) forum which has near to no moderation whatsoever—and there’s generally a lot less name-calling there than there is here.

[OreoCookie]

Does it also have a subforum on politics? It seems to me that it is the PL that entrenches a lot of mutual loathing.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

How about an unmoderated ‘flame forum’ or ‘dumpster’ where all the personal attacks can take place?

The PL already spills over now, that would be even worse. But how about every single personal attack is countered with a 14 day ban.

Seriously, is there a good reason personal attacks should be tolerated at all?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

How about an unmoderated ‘flame forum’ or ‘dumpster’ where all the personal attacks can take place?

Wow, seriously, you think this would work ?

I'm really having to hold back from posting a big FAIL ! Oh, wait, I just did ? Nevermind.

At any rate, don't you think that even people that do not participate in that sh!thole would be the target of all kinds of personal attacks ?

-t

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Does it also have a subforum on politics? It seems to me that it is the PL that entrenches a lot of mutual loathing.

It doesn’t have any subforums: everything just goes into one big melting pot of a forum. Political discussions/arguments/bickerfests do happen, and people do call each other names in there, but they usually deal with it and get over it without moderator interference.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Simon 

The PL already spills over now, that would be even worse. But how about every single personal attack is countered with a 14 day ban.

Seriously, is there a good reason personal attacks should be tolerated at all?

The idea would be that every instance of somebody engaging in a personal attack would see the post/thread moved into the designated flame forum where the participants could fight it out. Meanwhile, the original thread could proceed in a more genteel fashion.

I think any forum should have a way of accommodating flamewars. As it stands at the moment, there is a preponderance of right wing militarists, sociofascists and Zionazis dominating the tone in certain sections of the forum because elements friendly to them happen to have moderator and admin status. Every time an argument arises between these forces of evil and the leftist rebel alliance, the left is automatically at a disadvantage because exposing the dark side’s lies and stupidity leads to unjust and biased punishments meted out by the authorities.

Hence, there needs to be a place where the metaphorical gloves can come off, so to speak. There is a good reason places like that abound in the real world, it allows men to settle their differences without disrupting the functioning of society.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Wow, seriously, you think this would work ?

I'm really having to hold back from posting a big FAIL ! Oh, wait, I just did ? Nevermind.

At any rate, don't you think that even people that do not participate in that sh!thole would be the target of all kinds of personal attacks ?

-t

Your argument lacks logic and coherence. If we had a flame forum here, I might call you out over those apparent intellectual deficiencies of yours, but, as it stands, there really is no point in attempting to reason with you, Mr. Turtle.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Every time an argument arises between these forces of evil and the leftist rebel alliance, the left is automatically at a disadvantage because exposing the dark side’s lies and stupidity leads to unjust and biased punishments meted out by the authorities.

That has been brought up before. And it appears to be highly debatable. I am no right winger so I won't defend any wrongdoing on their behalf. But honestly, if other liberals believe what you say is true, then why the heck are they still in there? If there's an rigged battle taking place and you have no chance at winning, why not just walk away? If there is such a clear and automatic disadvantage, why run up against it when you know you'll lose? The fanatics usually disappear when there's nobody left to argue with.

I think there is no reason to tolerate personal attacks at all. I would deem it appropriate to meet every ad-hominem attack with an immediate ban. I think the current enforcement is a bit too slack in this regard, but in general I think moderation is better than ever (at least since I came here in 2000). However, if in the PL there is indeed a bias towards one side where certain personal attacks are met with bans while others aren't it should be easy to prove. So far I haven't seen that proof though.

Apart from other solutions like closing the PL altogether, moderation could also be changed. Rather than having one supposedly conservative mod, why not have two mods that both openly declare they have a bias. A left/liberal mod and a right/conservative mod. They would moderate the forum according to consensus reached between themselves.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Simon

But honestly, if other liberals believe what you say is true, then why the heck are they still in there?

The case has been made that the lefties largely don’t bother anymore, that the PL has degenerated into a right-winger playground. Can’t allow that to continue.

If there's an rigged battle taking place and you have no chance at winning, why not just walk away? If there is such a clear and automatic disadvantage, why run up against it when you know you'll lose?

Warrior code.

Rather than having one supposedly conservative mod, why not have two mods that both openly declare they have a bias. A left/liberal mod and a right/conservative mod. They would moderate the forum according to consensus reached between themselves.

Good idea. Perhaps we should have an avowed anti-Zionist co-moderating the PL along with vmarks, that’ll give it a bit of balance.

[ghporter]

Flame wars are not helpful or useful for anyone. A person gets a better cathartic experience from punching a heavy bag, and when they do that nobody ever knows that their wording gets sloppy when they are extremely upset. Our forums are here for DISCUSSION, not argument for the sake of argument. If I strongly disagree with you, I can state it succinctly and clearly, or I can simply say "I completely disagree." Either way, am I going to change your mind about a subject you find to be very important to you? Historically, logic and evidence have NEVER changed the minds of members truly committed to some concepts, so I'd say it's HIGHLY unlikely that if we disagree about almost anything that either of us will change the other's mind. It's easier just to say "I disagree" and walk away. Besides, what does it matter that some anonymous person somewhere else in the world disagrees with you? What is it to you?

Finally, how is it that anyone who disagrees with you becomes somehow diametrically opposed to you in every way? Does a person's politics HAVE TO be at odds with yours if the other person disagrees with you on a philosophical or economic issue? Or is this simply a matter of "he is opposed to this idea, so he must be opposed to ALL of my ideas"? That's silly, you know.

[subego]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

The case has been made that the lefties largely don’t bother anymore

Isn't anyone finding it curious timing wise that all these bullshit accusations are coming out now, like, during an election cycle?

vmarks has been the one and only mod the P/L has had, ever.

Nothing has ****ing changed.



Edit: TI used to be a mod there I think. I forgot, because he retired years ago.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by subego 

Isn't anyone finding it curious timing wise that all these bullshit accusations are coming out now, like, during an election cycle?

I'm not sure what you're implying here.

The liberals will win that election (odds right now are 17:1) so they should be celebrating rather than complaining. Or are you saying that since the conservatives know they're gonna lose, they're just venting on liberals and that's what this is all about?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Simon 

The liberals will win that election (odds right now are 17:1) so they should be celebrating rather than complaining.

I'm not going to muddy up a feedback thread to explain basic politics and remedial internet dynamics.

If you're so interested, go start a thread in the P/L about it.

[Simon]

I wasn't so much interested in the "basic politics" as in what it was you were trying to imply with such a statement in a feedback thread.

[subego]

Well then, the problem is that you're looking for an implication, when the point I'm making was explicit.

These complaints are an artifact of the heated political atmosphere rather than a legitimate indication of the state of affairs.

If the state of affairs were as alleged, why weren't there more complaints in 2005, 2006, 2007, and the first half of 2008? Why is the only person permabanned from the P/L a right winger?

Remember, we're not even talking tempbans, but infractions. ole' pigeon got a tempban a bit back, but other than that I can't even think of the last time someone got tempbanned because of how they behaved in the P/L, though I'm discounting anyone for whom I can find more than 50 examples of excessively abusive behavior.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Your statement is correct -- except for the last sentence. We're getting a lot more `fan mail' than you see here.

No doubt. I don't know about you, but that would make me cranky.

I don't think I'm blowing smoke by saying if you tempban people who get an attitude about moderator calls, you might not receive less fan mail, but the tone would decidedly change.

Honestly, I can't imagine the torture you subject yourself to with the current system.

I've gone on the record as exceedingly permissive. I say allow Kevin to come back. I say let abe back into the P/L. I like threads that have no semantic content.

This being said, I draw the line at abusing moderators.

[OreoCookie]

We rarely (temp-)ban members (I exclude spammers here). It's quite rare that we have more than three people temp-banned at the same time, usually that number is either 0 or 1 -- and we have thousands of active members!

I don't want to recap ancient history and discuss the bans of Kevin and abe, but suffice it to say that we `could have banned them earlier.' I think we are a pretty patient bunch.