tackam said:

Just one.



Wouldn't it be Ironic if this thread was locked because of somebody who claimed we were all having screaming fits.


I'm putting my ear muffs on until the screaming stops
[Edited 12/6/04 15:59pm]

Lleena said:

MATT
I HAVE TWO WORDS FOR YOU,

PRENUP

tackam said:

Why are these posts even getting a response?

BRING BACK 2the9s!

bkw said:

(computer crashed - oops!)
[Edited 12/6/04 16:28pm]

bkw said:

tackam said:

Some people have been known to be banned for doing just that.

this is ridiculous.

people, don't respond to tackam if she bothers you so much. she says she wants to stop posting on this thread and you all want her to stop posting on this thread but she won't stop posting on this thread as long as people are responding to her. why that is so is beyond me, but that's what it is. so let's just not respond to her in any fashion, let her have her say no matter how insulting or combative you think it is, and then let her go on her merry way. This isn't a petition to make tackam shut up and behave, it's a petition to get back 2the9s. geesh. come back, david.

JasmineFire said:

Personally, Tackam doesn't bother me at all and my last post wasn't a reply to her, more of just an observation. I've always respected her, I just questioned her seemingly condescending/patronizing tone when voicing her opinion. It just seemed out of character for her... which she explained.

9s who?




.
[Edited 12/6/04 17:11pm]

You all are spot on, couldn't have said it any better myself! Ignore the crazy bitch!

And BRING BACK 2the9S!!!

AzureStarr said:

my post wasn't directed at any one person in particular. i just don;t want this thread to get jacked. that's all.

bkw said:

Someone asked me to post this...

JasmineFire said:

Reincarnate said:

... although reaching a decision seems to be taking rather a long time

matt said

I find this an odd comment. Did he actually renege on the agreement or did he state that he wasn't willing to follow a rule? Was he banned (as it appears in the original thread) for simply making a post challenging your decision? (As the post was subsequently deleted, we have no real way of knowing whether the original content was offensive or inflammatory in any way). Why was his previous history taken into account on this occassion, and not on the previous one (if there were many instances of him breaking the rules)? What was in his previous history that led to this decision in this instance? Why did his, seemingly inoffensive, post lead to a ban when the original post by somebody else didn't? (On this point, I don't personally think that the post Ian originally made should have led to a ban or disclipline of any kind, but I am still confused and baffled as to why 2the9s was banned over this).

I know you've tried to answer these questions before Matt, but I still don't understand why what 2the9s wrote was so bad. I think this is the real reason that this issue won't die. Many of us think that his treatment in this instance has been unfair. Had he written what Ian had written, then I think I could understand the reasons for the ban (although I wouldn't support that decision either) ... but it would be more understandable. I don't understand why the response 2the9s made to an inflammatory thread such as that one should lead to a ban. I don't get it

And I think, more worryingly, it makes me think that we all have to be careful about what we post. If we don't know the reason for 2the9's ban, then how will we know if what we're writing is wrong? Will we get banned for disagreeing or offending a moderator, whatever the content or point is that we're trying to make?
[Edited 12/7/04 0:29am]

This thread is a mess (lol) but I admit,it's highly entertaining

bkw said:

When my friend has left we can all get together on Yahoo and play some games, it would be awesome and I mean all as in all who...well, you know already who they are

Reincarnate said:[quote]

Reincarnate said:

Specifically, 2the9s made a comment asking why another post, which said (i paraphrase) "[after the Bush re-election], if more planes crash into skyscrapers in America, you've brought it on yourself", hadn't been snipped. Matt responded, told him that on balance he thought it hadn't needed snipping and telling 2the9s that if he wanted to discuss that decision, he should take it to orgnotes. 2the9s then replied, saying "no thanks," (and again i paraphrase), "i'm happy that you've stated in public that you didn't think that post [about skyscrapers] didn't need to be snipped."

that was roughly it, and i think that's a pretty objective description of the words used - i haven't tried to change anything to benefit anyone involved.


[Edited 12/7/04 3:39am]

TheFrog said:

Yep Froggy

and it's been over a month since 9s was banned.

Reincarnate said:

That's a lot of questions. But I'll do my best to answer them:

1) TheFrog's statement of the facts is IMHO accurate and objective. And if a user explicitly states that he/she won't follow a rule that he/she previously agreed to follow, then he/she has reneged on the agreement.

2) No. 2the9s was initially warned for publicly challenging the decision. What got him banned was a combination of three things: a) persisting in his "challenge" via a second post; b) explicitly stating that he wasn't willing to follow the rule against debating moderation decisions in public; and c) his moderation history.

3) Moderators almost always take a user's history into account when taking action against a user, especially when issuing a ban. It's almost impossible for a user to get banned if he/she has no prior offenses.

4) I don't think it would be appropriate to post the contents of a user's moderation history.

5) Different posts call for different responses.



I think the upset about 2the9s' ban stems from three things:

1) The ban was issued, in large part, because of his moderation history, which is not open to public inspection.

Here, we mods are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If we don't disclose his history, the situation does look as if 2the9s got banned simply for questioning a moderation decision. To be sure, this perception overlooks the fact that 2the9s persisted in doing so after he was warned, but I understand why the perception exists.

OTOH, if we did post the contents of 2the9s' moderation history, I expect that many users would be upset, and justifiably so. Would most users want their moderation history posted for public viewing and discussion? I seriously doubt it.

2) Too much time has elapsed between the initial ban and the yet-to-be-made final decision.

I fully agree with those who feel that there should have been a faster turnaround time on making the decision. One month is too long.

3) As a general matter, 2the9s was a popular member of the site.

People will understandably be unhappy when a friend gets banned.



IMHO, the fear of being banned for "contempt of moderator" is overblown. We've got a forum (this one) where we actively solicit feedback on how we run the site. (By contrast, I've been a member of various moderated forums where the policy on questioning mod decisions or policies is basically, "My way or the highway.") In fact, this entire thread is devoted to disagreement with my decision to ban 2the9s, and nobody's been banned for participating in it. Also, we're happy to discuss moderation decisions in private.

What we don't want is to have every moderation decision subject to appeal by referendum. So that's why we have this in our rules:

If you don't agree with a decision, you may discuss it with the moderator who made the judgment in private. 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. Under no circumstance attempt to start a 'debate' about specific moderation decisions in a public forum.

Granted, this very thread runs counter to the above rule. But again, we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. If we removed or locked the thread, we'd be fueling the perception that disagreeing with the mods will get a user in trouble, and we'd make a lot of unhappy people even more unhappy. OTOH, if we let it stay open, we're not enforcing our own rules.

In the end, I decided that taking moderation action against this thread would do more harm then good, given how many people are upset, and so I let it slide. Ever been pulled over by the police for speeding, but given a warning instead of a ticket? Cops call that "officer discretion"... I guess this thread is an example of "moderator discretion."

matt said:[quote]

Reincarnate said:

Matt,

Since you have agreed to this discussion, I am going to take you up on it.

You say:

You're not being entirely honest here Matt. You agree with what TheFrog said by calling it an accurate and honest "fact"; but you try to elide the "fact" of what he reported into the "fact" of your action. 2the9s did not "explicitly state" that he wouldn't follow the rules. That is an interpretation on your part and the "sole" reason for the banning; if this interpretation is inaccurate, why should his record come into it? Do mods have "records"?

2the9s said that he is glad you stated your opinion on Ian's comment in public.That was addressed to you as a user. He said "no thanks" to your offer, not "I refuse to follow the rules." You portray your interpretation of these comments as irrefutable fact, and yet you ignore the "fact" that you also said (apparently in the heat of anger yourself, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here) that you felt that "2the9s had it in for you." That is also not a "fact." It's an interpretation so wild that it's unclear why one month after the comment you would try to cling to objectivity when any anger that that thread started (and that the thread starter says later in the thread was deliberate) should have long abated.

You said:

It certainly wouldn't be; but it may be even more inappropriate and dishonest to constantly allude to it. 2the9s strongly feels that his "record" is wildly inaccurate thanks in large part to a previous moderator, and has repeatedly tried taking up his "moderation history" with Ben.

You

also said:

I'm sure they wouldn't like it. But how would moderators feel if they were forced to show a user their record in private? Would they have second thoughts about the manner in which remarks were made? Frankly, I think this whole thing has made a lot of people curious about their "private" records. I know it has made me curious.

You said:

How so Matt? Again your response was "It's no secret you have it in for me 2the9s" That is a purely personal response to a user's comment, a user who was personally offended by a remark made about planes being flown into buildings when his brother was in one of them. Your comment is a complete non-sequitor into some age old personal grievance. And since you are somebody who has repeatedly made your personal life the subjectof many ongoing threads and dicussions that have frequently descended into controversy, I think many people should rightly ask this.

Especially since although 2the9s certainly had something to say to you about
your participation at Quaidbowl, he never said anything at all against either you or tackam regarding your relationship. If everyone who you felt was "out to get you" was banned, it would be slim pickings at the Org. And I would imagine that has many people worried.

You said:

Yes Matt and as a friend I am upset. But you are conveniently presenting a select version of the people's objections for your advantage. Many of the people on this thread and others come right out and say that they didn't really know 9s" but want him back. There are people I've never seen here speaking for him, people who never had much interaction with him.

I must say what particularly bothers me about this, in addition to your hiding your personal motives behind the minutiae of legalese detail, is that the new mods who have been doing such a great job and who in my opinion have finally gained their sealegs must feel like they have had their legs cut out from under them. Just my opinion.But the moderation here had finally achieved a balance and maturity that it never had before, until all this.

lleena!

This situation is dragging hard and as someone said earlier it is ridiculous.


Lleena as well as many others here who truely care about 2the9s have said


more than enough to make it obvious that he is loved. If he constantly offended


people here nobody would have started a petition because nobody would have


cared! It seems people are and have been upset since he was outed but what I


really wonder is how does 2the9s feel at this point. If I were him would I be


over it especially if I didn't deserve being banned? I wonder what the other


moderators think of all this (minus Tom) and have they accomplished any major


decision with ben in their private meetings?


still waiting edit
[Edited 12/7/04 10:59am]

tackam said:

define counterproductive

Oh, the ironies. Lleena, you yourself have:

• Slanted the facts (e.g., describing my request to 2the9s that he follow the rules as an "offer," and presenting out of context my comment about 2the9s' animosity toward me)
  
• Ignored unfavorable facts (e.g., that the ultimate decision has been out of my hands for weeks, and that nobody has received even a strike for publicly complaining about 2the9s' ban)
  
• Engaged in hyperbole (e.g., "you are somebody who has repeatedly made your personal life the subjectof [sic] many ongoing threads and dicussions that have frequently descended into controversy" and, "If everyone who you felt was 'out to get you' was banned, it would be slim pickings at the Org.")
  
• Glossed over your own obvious bias
  
• Interjected irrelevant matters into the discussion (e.g., QuaidBowl) and in doing so, contradicted your own request that people keep such issues out of this thread
  

I'm not going to write a point-by-point rebuttal to your post... this is getting so lawyer-esque that I feel as if I send out a bill for my services.

matt said:

Oh my lord, you are not in the court room now Matt. You can save your final submissions.

I truly suspect that you lack the ability to be self critical.

That you can be so dismissive of that wonderful post by Lleena without the slightest hint of contrition is amazing. I suspect you will not reply on a point by point basis because you cant, and instead, accuse her of "hyperbole" and "slanting and ignoring the facts".

Let's put things in perspective here. Put aside all the crap and interpretation and look at the basic facts:

1. Ian posted a thread that was inflammatory and contained an exceedingly inflammatory remark about the US deserving planes being flown into buildings.

2.2the9s had a brother in one of those buildings.

3. The vast majority of 2the9s moderation history is to do with Ian (and a lesser extent yourself).

4. Tempers were flared on that thread, no doubt including 2the9s.

5. In response to your moderation efforts, 2the9s made a comment in regard to your request that he follow site rules.

6. You banned 2the9s.

7. This was one month ago.

Do you really think that 2the9s comment/action was that bad in the circumstances i.e "no thanks, I'm happy that you have stated in public that the comment didn't need to be snipped".

If that is worthy of a banning then I think that amazes nearly everyone here, regardless of his history.

matt said:

Here's a question for you Matt!

With the benefit hindsight, do you feel you made the right moderating decision when you banned 2the9s?

doctormcmeekle said:

Yes. In hindsight, things would have been much easier for me if I'd let it slide (or taken lesser action, such as issuing a strike). But I still feel that the initial ban of 2the9s was the right decision, in light of the circumstances. Being a mod sometimes involves making decisions that are difficult and/or unpopular.

From that point forward, I'm not so sure. I still question whether allowing this thread was the best decision, as it runs directly counter to the exact same rule that got 2the9s banned. And in this thread, I certainly made a mistake when I joined in the QuaidBowl-rehash threadjacking.

At this point, my biggest concern is the time it's taking to reach a final decision. One month and counting is way too long. Unfortunately, my hands are tied here.

Matt, I thought that you, as the moderator that banned him, can decide to reverse your own decision. Didn't I read that somewhere?

matt said:

Thanks for answering!

One final question, if it was your decision, what would you do?

matt said:

As a moderator though, isn't your objectivity called into question when tempers rise?

Can you operate with a clear and non-biased head without taking things personally in those instances and is might that have been a definite part of the outcome we're in at the moment?