tackam said:

OMG! You rock!

Whats your take on members?!
[Edited 11/4/04 16:43pm]

matt said:

Frankly, I feel that you were trigger happy in my sense of the term, given that you also said this and I quote "It's no secret that you have it in for me, 2the9s." Are we to assume that your decision to ban 2the9s was made in an impartial and measured way when you make comments like this? Obviously you feel that 2the9s is singling you out for for some reason. I haven't seen any evidence of this. It is unfortunate that you feel this way. I hope that your personal feelings did not play a part in your decision to ban him...However, I feel that your moderation of 2the9s was heavy handed, and together with the above comment you made, I am finding it a little difficult to suppose that you did not allow your personal opinions to play a part.

As a moderator is it constructive to allege publically that a particular orger has a vendetta against you?

2the9s questioned a moderation decision that he felt strongly about (as it had a personal signifigance for him) Every orger has the right to request the moderation of a comment which they deem to be offensive. It is not the first time that a moderation decision has been questioned, Orgers have started threads about it, yet they have NOT been banned. This is why i said, "Is it in the rules to deactivate everyone who questions a moderation decision?"


Your personal opinions of 2the9s aside, I still feel that your moderation was over zealous and that he did not warrant a ban.

Lleena said:

Moderators aren't robots. We're all affected by our personal opinions. With that said, I did my best to put aside my personal opinions and ask, "From an objective standpoint, what moderator action does this situation warrant?"

Was my best good enough? Perhaps the answer lies in Ben's decision as to the duration of the ban. Maybe his decision will be the "impartial and measured" moderation you seek. One of the reasons I immediately submitted my decision for Ben's review is that I anticipated accusations of biased moderation.

(Another reason is that I expected 2the9s to appeal the ban to Ben. And that's proper under the rules: "If you cannot reach resolution with the Moderator in private, contact the site administrator via e-mail (ben@prince.org), explaining the entire situation, with all relevant links/excerpts/emails, etc.")

2the9s has presented a no-win situation for the moderators he targets. (I'm not the only one--Ian also was subject to harassment by 2the9s during Ian's tenure as a mod.) If the moderator takes action against 2the9s for violating the rules, he'll claim that he's being subjected to biased moderation (while conveniently ignoring his own role in creating any such bias) and gets to play the victim. But if the moderator doesn't take action, then 2the9s gets to violate the rules with impunity.



That's a reasonable question. Maybe the answer is no. OTOH, 2the9s has a history of trying to manipulate the moderation system, and IMHO it is fair to call him on it. Ultimately it might not be constructive, or the best thing to do, but I think it's at least fair.



Again, you're oversimplifying the situation and describing it in a way that's misleading. This is the sequence of events:

1) 2the9s questioned a moderation decision.

2) I took responsibility for the decision and asked him to respect our rule about discussing such matters privately.

3) In complete defiance of the rules, 2the9s posted a second time and continued to debate the issue. I snipped his comment, so I can't recall his exact words, but his response was something to the effect of, "No, I'd rather do it openly so I can expose how bad your decision was."

Note that he broke the rules, was asked to abide by the rules, and then proceeded to break the rules a second time. And in that second post, he indicated that he didn't intend to follow the rules.

Yes, other .orgers have tried to debate specific moderation decisions in public. And they've been subject to moderator action for it. The action taken depends upon the circumstances, including that user's history.



I'm sorry you feel that way. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. One thing I learned very quickly as a mod is that it's impossible to please everyone.

In any event, this thread is turning away from a general discussion about moderation (which is fine and good) to a discussion about the specific decision made re 2the9s. I've explained what was done, why, and what's going to be done in the future. So, let's try to put this thread back on track.

JDINTERACTIVE said:

I'll take on members. I like members. Can I see your member?



Ahem. We're supposed to be discussing moderation.

@ Matt : i know you're a 'rule' man, so I find it strange that moderation decisions are taken with a users history in mind: there's nothing in the rules about this.

To get this back on thread: moderation has improved a lot with the extra hands; it seems that more mods have prevented the number of trigger-happy decisions (Less stress / mod seems the key here). I'm in a hurry now but will post some rules from another forum which may be something for discussion. later

which is now
So this is from a dutch forum:
"..it could be that a thread is started, which would be locked according to the rules, stays open: this may happen if the thread-starter has a track-record and has been around for a while. this user is trusted to keep the thread in check (and responsible enough to report to the mods if it doesn't work out; sometimes such a thread is pre-reported so the mods have their eyes on it)."
I think of this as someone who can start (questionable) threads but is also able to delete his/her own thread. Like we trust the mods to only start threads which abide the rules.

I know that Ben mentioned some time ago to install 'roles' for everyone. So far only the mods have those. So , i would like to argue for multiple user-levels, starting from the newbie up to old-skool, each level having it's own site-privileges.
And peeps, don't go flying of the handle here, the bold red is to discriminate between the fact that we are all humans with our basic rights and the fact that this is a web-site (benevolent, free-i might add, but as said before NOT democratic).
Site-privileges can be stuff like number of posts / org-notes / chat-time / starting threads (and the number of) / deleting your own threads / snip flames? / input smart ideas here.

You screw up, you lose site-priviliges. You screw up too much, deactivation / banning is still an option. IMHO deactivation of someone breaking the rules, like 9s above, should be for a fixed time (48hours ?) too cool down. I think this time period can be easily included in the rules. The decision to deactivate someone for a longer period should not reside by a single mod; have another mod to review such a decision.

To idd get this back on thread: moderation has improved a lot with the extra hands; it seems that more mods have prevented the number of trigger-happy decisions (Less stress / mod seems the key here). I'm in a hurry now but will post some rules from another forum which may be something for discussion. later

which is now
So this is from a dutch forum:
"..it could be that a thread is started, which would be locked according to the rules, stays open: this may happen if the thread-starter has a track-record and has been around for a while. this user is trusted to keep the thread in check (and responsible enough to report to the mods if it doesn't work out; sometimes such a thread is pre-reported so the mods have their eyes on it)."
I think of this as someone who can start (questionable) threads but is also able to delete his/her own thread. Like we trust the mods to only start threads which abide the rules.

I know that Ben mentioned some time ago to install 'roles' for everyone. So far only the mods have those. So , i would like to argue for multiple user-levels, starting from the newbie up to old-skool, each level having it's own site-privileges.
And peeps, don't go flying of the handle here, the bold red is to discriminate between the fact that we are all humans with our basic rights and the fact that this is a web-site (benevolent, free-i might add, but as said before NOT democratic).
Site-privileges can be stuff like number of posts / org-notes / chat-time / starting threads (and the number of) / deleting your own threads / snip flames? / input smart ideas here.

You screw up, you lose site-priviliges. You screw up too much, deactivation / banning is still an option. IMHO deactivation of someone breaking the rules, like 9s above, should be for a fixed time (48hours ?) too cool down. I think this time period can be easily included in the rules. The decision to deactivate someone for a longer period should not reside by a single mod; have another mod to review such a decision.

Well?

In general:

I have always been satisfied with the moderation of the Org. I have deep respect for all of those who have given of their time over the years and kept this place livable.

I think the moderation has become much stronger since the addition of all the mods this year. While thread locking still occurs, thread deletion seems to rarely now be used. This is a good thing as it allows for "a record" so disgruntled orgers can view for themselves why certain things are locked.

I appreciate that (for the most part) the mods are visible about their actions. Whether it be putting their name on a snipped post or giving a brief explanation on a locked thread, the moderation appers more transparent than I can ever remember it being.

Do I think mods have off days and on occasion overreact? Sure. But each of these mods are people with their own personalities and lives and stressors. I honestly believe they do their best and occurances of bad judgement are few and far between.

I honestly believe that many users forget that the mods ARE people willingly performing an unpaid task to keep the org running. I think the mods are often held to a standard that a disgruntled orger can't themself maintain.

Do we hold our mods to a higher standard? Yes. Should we hold them to this standard? Most definately. Should we expect them to be super human? Heck no.

Of course, I don't visit the P&R forum where my guess is the craziest moderation happens. Still, from what I've seen, I have no complaints.

AlfofMelmak:

you have some interesting suggestions. I like the idea of multiple user-levels based on time on the org to have some 'priveleges.' Specifically, being allowed a larger number of posts, orgnotes and number of threads started seem like good ideas. I don't think the differences would have to be HUGE, but it could be nice. If anything, this may discourage all the identity hopping that we see on the org. If longtime orgers are given more posts and notes, they will have less need for multiple accounts. People may be less likely to delete their account in a huff only to come back a few weeks later as a different user if they will lose some "privileges."

Of course, this may be a headache to set-up and monitor, that's something only Ben and the mod squad can decide.

I don't like the idea of non-mods having the power to lock and delete their own threads however. I think this could allow a loose cannon to open up a mega flame thread only to delete it before it being seen by a mod. This could potentially throw the whole Org into a tizzy. While I think this idea would work for MOST, I think the potential bad side is too big for it be done. Besides, mods are very responsive to locking a thread when the author requests it.

As for banning. This is Ben's site and I know he gets final say on a "permenant ban." I feel it is absolutely fair that this exists. When users repeatedly violate the rules here, apologize, come back and play nice for a minute then do it all over again there SHOULD be a real consequence. Besides, most of those "banned" end up back here as a new user which can typically be figured out quickly.

anywho, that's MY input.

AlfofMelmak said:

I like this idea. Somehow a total ban seems very harsh and personal feelings can play into a heated moment and blur objectivity.

I am very sad to see 2the9s deactivated and the action seemed to be an over-reaction. Nov 2nd was a difficult day... and everyone should be cut some slack for emotions running high.

Anyway.. I miss 9s.

ian said:

It shouldn't be a suprise to anyone on here, when someone gets banned permanently for doing that.

If an orger cant at least shoot us over an orgnote/email first, but instead opts to make a mess of the forums, then bye.

Sometimes these ordeals are like watching a bad espiode of The Practice.

Back to the topic though... I do think moderation has been really good lately - some very fast responses I've particularly noticed Matt, Anx and Sos doing a great job in the P&R forum. And I know from experience that is a tough forum to manage So, pats on the back to all concerned.

The only criticism I would make is this whole "Senior. Moderator" title shit - that really is just plain stupid. What the fuck is that about? Stop it, please.

Also, I think there's a couple of trolls on the forum that, whilst occasionally entertaining, have been indulged a bit too much, Particularly in the P&R forum I'm not saying get rid of them, but a slightly tighter leash would be welcome.

I also want to express my appreciation for Matt. Matt's been around this site so damn long, and he has put in so much work and takes way more shit than I ever would or did.. Matt was always my sounding board when I was moderator - he's such a laid back guy, and I'm an intense kinda guy, so usually if something bothered Matt I knew it was issue worth paying attention to.

AlfofMelmak said:

It already is that way. I'm not sure what you consider the difference between banning and deactivating, the bottom line is they cant post here during that time. People can be banned for a day or two, a week or two, or permanently.

In a sense, the other mods do "review" it when a mod bans another orger. We are all notified. So we can all chime in, and reverse that action if we felt it was out of line.

ian said:

co-sign

Tom said:

Thanx for the info! The difference for me : banning has a permanent ring to it. My idea, among others, was to include deactivation-time in the rules. Break this rule - 48hrs, repeatedly - week. continuously - ban. So i'm glad to read that a ban is notifed to all mods.

What do you think about the multiple user-levels?

AlfofMelmak said:

There already are multiple user levels, well - sort of. I'm pretty sure Ben has changed some peoples posting limits, etc, on a one-on-one basis occasionally. If you look at your profile, it will say your membership level, but I have no control over setting or changing that. Perhaps membership levels will be more fully implemented in future versions of the site, who knows. I do agree that it would be a nice incentive to discourage people from creating multiple accounts.

ian said:

you know, i gotta agree with this...i know i should have said something to the team in private but i think its silly...

i do like having anxiety id'd as the news mod cause people can orgnote him directly if they have something urgent to submit (i used this to great success for the wendy and lisa announcement...which btw: thanks anx!! the turn out from the org was much appreciated by the girlcamp!!)...

at anyrate.....im really appreciating all the comments thus far.....thanks all!!

sosgemini said:

The title isn't really hurtin anyone, its just some text under their name to show a little respect for how long they've been donating their time to the org. Perhaps more people will give them the benefit of the doubt and trust their decisions on here a bit more, since they've been doin it for a while.

Tom said:

but length of tenor does *not* and should not equate to respect....being fair does that.....further, it could actually undermine those moderators who arent "senior"...

just something for us all to think about.

The "senior moderator" thing makes me giggle. Spending as much time with Matt as I do/have, I fully recognize how long he has been at this, how hard he tries to do it well despite the no compensation, little appreciation, and lots of crap that he gets for it, and just generally how much he has given to this place.

But honey, I told you you'd get shit for the title.


Let me say this: these people are volunteers who keep this place running, and if they (all of 'em!) want to call themselves Great And Grand Princesses of the Universe, I don't give a fuck.

tackam said:

AlfofMelmak said:

The rules are basically a statement about what users can and cannot do, not a set of "sentencing guidelines" for those who break the rules. Should we include more information about the consequences of rule violations? Possibly so. Thanks for the idea.

With that said, I think it's almost common sense that repeat offenders are subject to harsher penalties. It's like the criminal justice system... judges and prosecutors tend to go easier on defendants with a clean record.

In a sense, we have tried something like your suggestion before: the old "three-strikes" system. Although I don't believe that we ever put it in the official rules, it was common knowledge that a user who received a third strike was automatically banned until a mod removed a strike.

The old strike system was well-intentioned... the goal was to have more consistency in penalties. But it didn't work as well in practice, and that's why we scrapped it for v3.0 of the site.



Maybe something got lost in the translation. but it doesn't sound as if the site allows users to delete their own threads. Rather, it seems that the thread-creator is charged with serving as an extra pair of eyes for the mods and expected to report anything warranting moderation.



Those mostly sound good, but I have reservations about allowing users to delete their own threads. If a user can do that, he/she will probably take down a bunch of "innocent" posts with the thread. Also, I fear situations where users delete threads simply because they dislike the responses they're getting.

Additionally, allowing users to snip flames (i.e., edit posts of other users) makes them de facto moderators. Right now we seem to have just about the right number of mods. As the old saying goes, too many cooks spoil the soup.



Users already have the option of "appealing" their case to Ben. This system gives them a clear option to take the matter to a higher authority, and it prevents users from trying to play one mod against another. And in some situations, I've essentially appealed on behalf of users that I've deactivated by asking Ben myself what action he thinks is appropriate.

Thanks for your thoughts and suggestions, AlfofMelmak.

i'd like to throw my support for thread creating being allowed to delete their own threads.....

i loved this option over at rottentomatoes....i dont know if there was a "delete only if no other user had created" but i often used it when i reconsidered the thread i had created..


people do this all the time here..they just end up orgnoting me (or others im assumming) and we do it for em..

this would knock out the middle man..

sosgemini said:

Perhaps we need an official policy on this. My usual practice is to decline such requests (unless there have been no follow-ups), because they take down other people's posts with the original post. Also, I tend to think that people should take responsibility for the threads they start, rather than having the option to make them disappear instantly.

DiminutiveRocker said:

The problem here is that we've had multiple chronic violators (and their supporters) try to defend their actions on grounds that they were "baited" into flaming and deserve some leeway because of strong emotions. We've consistently rejected that argument. As it says at the top of General Discussion, "Don't flame people. If someone flames you, report it to the moderators and it will be dealt with."

Now, to be sure, one can't report the U.S. elections to the mods. (Well, one can, but we're powerless to do anything about it. ) But I still find it problematic to allow users to invoke the "heat of passion" defense. After all, many folks here (including myself) were unhappy with the election results, but most of us managed to keep our emotions in check.

endorphin74 said:

Thanks, endo and ian, for your kind words.

AlfofMelmak said:

I agree. We mods toss around the terms "ban" and "banned" a lot because the site software refers to a deactivation--even one for 24 hours--as a "ban," and during that time, the user's status is listed as "banned." Perhaps "deactivate" and "deactivated" would be better terms, with ban/banned reserved for those users who have been deactivated indefinitely.

ian said:

I'll take the blame here. A month or so ago, Ben and I spoke for several hours on the telephone to discuss .org business. During that call, I informed Ben of my desire to step down from day-to-day moderation, but offered to remain available for situations like mod shortages (e.g., November 3rd in P&R) and blatant abuses that warrant immediate action (e.g., a poster offering bootlegs for sale). He agreed, and off the top of my head, I suggested the term "Senior Moderator" to describe my role.

"Senior Moderator" wasn't intended to suggest that I'm somehow on a higher level than the other mods, or even to refer to my long tenure. Rather, I borrowed the idea from the U.S. legal system... a "Senior Judge" is a judge who has semi-retired, but continues to help out his/her colleagues by working with a reduced caseload and stepping in when assistance is needed. (For instance, I had a case before a judge who was called up to active military duty for a year. Fortunately, the court had a senior judge who was able to take over the bench in the regular judge's absence.)

My mistake here was thinking like a lawyer, and I failed to realize that most laypeople wouldn't make the connection to senior judges.

If anybody has an idea for a better title, I'm happy to hear it. For that matter, I'd be fine going back to plain old "Moderator"... I'm not even sure that a special title for me is needed. Or maybe "prince.org Staff" would be a better description of my role, as I'm turning my attention toward things like rewriting the FAQ's.

matt said:

I am a supporter of fairness. I'm not on here suggesting that orgers be excused for rule violations, all I am saying is that the penalty issued should fit the crime. You are completely losing sight of why 2the9s questioned the moderation decision in the first place. If you go back to the initial thread where it all started, you will see that he was not the only one that objected to the comment made. Even the author of the thread admitted that his words had seemed harsh. Yet this fact has been totally overlooked. Your insinuation that 2the9s was banned for flaming is misleading.

You yourself said moderators aren't robots, well neither are orgers Matt. If passions didn't run high around here why would there be any need for moderators? Wasn't your comment, "It's no secret that you have it in for me, 2the9s," a passionate response?

Like I stated earlier, I feel that the moderation on this site is by and large well done. I am aware of how much time and effort it must take up and like the majority of orgers appreciate the work put in by the mods.


Anyway, Last evening, 2the9s emailed me and asked me not to respond any further to anything regarding this matter, as he has taken the matter up with Ben, as he is entitled to do, and doesn't want it dragged out in the forums. (Though I did want to clear some things here up) I ask that other people have the same courtesy.


I think you'll find that friends, or SUPPORTERS as you put it, of 2the9s are not a band of louts that support rule violations, but rule abiding orgers. I have never been deactivated or had a comment snipped. I have been respectful on these boards for two years and would appreciate the same back.

Thankyou.
[Edited 11/6/04 5:14am]

matt said:

i disagree....good people do bad things.....i say this not only as a orger but as a moderator..call it my sunny bay area outlook but to be honest i have often considered "the heat of the moment" as a diffence....


like human league sings; "im only human...born to make mistakes..."

sosgemini said:

Yeah, but that's where considering a person's record makes sense. If a person loses it "in the heat of the moment" once or twice over a long history, fine. But if a person seems to have a lot of, uh, heated moments, I think it makes perfect sense to get rid of 'em.

I know 2the9s has a devoted following. I'm a fan, personally. But generally, the biggest assholes here have also had big fanbases. That doesn't meant they aren't bad for the community as a whole, and in any case, a temporary ban just doesn't seem like a big deal, unless your life totally revolves around this site, in which case ya might want to appeal to the mods for a longer-term ban to get a freakin' grip. You know?

Consider this: big, loud, and sometimes obnoxious members add spice to this place. But it is the collective of quieter members who sustain this place as a community. Many of those people can't feel welcome if the rules aren't followed. That structure is what allows people to feel safe to express themselves.


Oh, and I think "prince.org staff" would probably be an apt title change, my love.

June7 said:

tackam, you rock girl

Us mods, including me try to do our best. Ya just cannot please everyone all of the time. And with all those different personalites on here. And some of the BS that gets pulled here.....

When you signed on you agreed to the rules. We are not here to be "hard-handed". We try to keep this place as pleasant as possible. I just hate it when an orger has a beef with a mod and decides to make a public thread.

I put in as much hours as I can. I don't get paid and I am happy to be here and moderate, I love volunteering my time, and plan to do it for as long as this place is around. Yeah, there is a lot of bullshit that goes on.

Moderating this place is not an easy job. The chaos on here would be "nasty" if I and the other Mods were not here.
[Edited 11/6/04 17:02pm]
[Edited 11/6/04 17:24pm]