I didnt even get the courtesy of an orgnote explaining why.

This is getting ridiculous and obsene.

And this comment on moderation stays?

http://www.prince.org/msg/3/79056

Amazing.

bkw said:

According to the log, Dansa deleted it and sent you an orgNote explaining why.

Let me gently suggest that a thread title like "Well done Matt you fucking champion" pretty much says, "Please delete me."

matt said:

I never got an orgnote.

Well, the title could have been edited to remove "fucking" from it I suppose.

I didnt personally abuse or flame you in the post, just called into question certain events and your performance as moderator.

Is that not permitted?

If the title wasnt sarcastic you would have left it up.

Some people on this website need to GET A LIFE.

First off, we don't need to justify to you why the actions were taken. But, I will anyhow: most or all of those users had it coming for a long time. The notes on those guys' accounts are a mile long, when they've caused problems for moderators both past and present. They were problem members.

No banning has happened without my consent. We need to start enforcing the rules more strictly, across the board. What people did outside of the org did NOT and does NOT play into any moderating decision ON the org. You are based solely on what happens here. Personally I don't care if someone starts up an 'princeorgsucks.com' and slams the site and its members here all day (but I won't promote it, either.) The rules only cover what goes on here. I do believe what happened at quaid "spilled over" to here, though, and that's simply not acceptable.

Your the thread was unnecessary, and inflammatory. Insulting the staff of the org is going to get a thread edited or removed... we can take criticism (really... if you've dealt with us in private you know this is true) but the proper channel is just that--IN PRIVATE. Trying to slam us in public is going to get you shut down, period. You even said yourself, "if the title wasn't sarcastic, you would have left it up". Maybe that's true. Maybe you shouldn't have given it a flame-bait smart-ass title, then, eh? What did you expect? But regardless, it's not the right arena. We don't air the b.s. we get in email and orgnote to the world, and demand similar respect in public forums. You've got a problem, take it up with us in private. You can orgnote us, or email me.

It is possible you didn't get an orgnote--there seems to be some issues with that part of the software. That will be remedied shortly by 3.0, if that is what happened.

ben said:

So lock teller's thread about it, ben! And give him a strike for race-baiting!

Why should he get to make an "official statement" (which is far from either an apology or explanation anyway), but others, who were the targets of this hate-site, can't? He doesn't "answer questions" anyway.

And his continued justification of hate-speech is only making things worse here on the Org. Hate-speech is intended to make people angry! To rile people up. To make them respond in a certain way, blindly, out of anger. I am not justifying anything rdhull said in any of his posts (despite Matt's repeated attempts to suggest otherwise), I am simply asking that the context be taken into account.

For example: IceNine was deactivated, I believe, not for any local racist statements he made, but for a continual pattern of race-baiting, Christian baiting, Fam-baiting etc, over a period of more than a year. In this respect, he is in a league with IrishEcho/kellyanne, or maybe, more accurately, LouDawg, whose sole purpose was shit-starting and trolling. It's not any particular words or slurs they may use, but the constant, pathological desire to "get a reaction." He rightly should be banned.

rd, on the other hand, responded out of anger. If people feel that this reflects something about rd's deep-seeded feelings on homosexuality, so be it. But you can't moderate people's thoughts. I would say the same, frankly, about chemmie. I guess he has been banned, no? What he posted were dumbass shallow ideas. But he didn't bait. Unlike IceNine, chemmie actually posted ideas, as offensive as I found these ideas and as offensive as I found rd's comments.

You claim that rd has shown a pattern of this behavior. To many of us on the Org, who are here every day, unlike you and Matt, rd has also shown a willingness to admit when he is wrong and a deep love for this community. I think we need that kind of example here, as opposed to teller's completely unrepentant double-talk.

Please take these comments into consideration and reconsider your decision about rdhull, Ben.

Oh, and before someone chimes in and tells me to "get a life"...believe me, I've tried!!

bkw said:

actually i did send you one, but there must be some bug in the automatic orgnote-sending system. when i delete a thread you're supposed to get an orgnote explaining why. i had typed up this super-long orgnote to send to you...and it never went through. dammit. anyway, i may as well repeat what i had said in the orgnote:

1) the orgers you'd mentioned all got banned for the same thing they've continuously been in trouble with for lord knows how long: flaming and harassing others. i'm just as miffed as you are about them bein booted, bkw, but the site rules are the site rules. you cannot flame anyone here--which, btw, is the exact reason why i deleted your thread. it was inflammatory towards matt and pretty disrespectful towards him. that would've warranted a strike on your account but i didn't give you one; it makes more sense to warn you about it instead, because i know you weren't bein mean in sayin what you did. also, it would've been better off if you were to tell him your displeasure privately, as opposed to chewin him out in public. you should know by now how much the other mods and i have been dealing with these sorts of threads--tons of them, as of late--and how they end up. they're no big help to anyone, especially the mods who have to totally deal with the outcome in the end.

2) it would indeed be cool if all those guys were still here, because they've always been outstandin orgers to have around here and they're all well-loved...but most of the time they end up gettin riled up about somethin stupid, and totally get carried away with their little witch-hunts and snide remarks, so they get the boot for a while. i myself have talked to rd over and over and over and over, ad nauseam, tellin him to behave himself--he promises to behave and acts fine for a minute, till somethin starts poppin off and then he'll start to act up again.

the rules here are not hard to follow. seriously. i've seen all of those guys behave themselves before, so i know they know how to do so. anyway bkw, no mod here has personal vendettas against anybody here. it's totally childish, stupid, and quite honestly nobody has the time for such bullshit. folks just need to calm down and chill the hell out about all this and stop speculating silly shit, cuz it does nobody around here any kinda justice to walk around this place continuously angry. period.

I didn't get an orgnote explaining the deletion of my QQQuaidbowl performances thread either, I assumed Matt deleted it and didn't want it to be known who did. I have no way of knowing if that's true.

To Ben: That you as a person are capable of dealing with users' critique, doesn't mean that others in the staff are. Just to be clear, I exclude Dansa from these statements as usual. Dansa rocks! I have tried criticising both Ian and Matt in "private", to no avail. Ian deactivated me for it. He habitually flamed users who had issues with him, in email. If I could be bothered I would've saved the emails he sent me and the things he called me and friends of mine on this site, but I couldn't be arsed. This was nearly a year ago, and I stopped trying, as did many others.

As for Matt's moderation of this whole QQQuaidbowl mess, he stated that he wouldn't moderate any of it apart from 2 threads and some blatant threats. He then loaded his gun for elephant and ripped all over the place. That's bad judgement, if nothing else.

Bkw, I used to hate u. All of a sudden though... I HATE having to change my mind

Teacher said:

Yes he did. He would flame and then ANY response you made would be logged as troublesome, whether as a "flame" or as being "uncooperative."

In fact, I honestly believe that anyone who was deactivated by Ian's "moderatorship" alone should be allowed back and all comments on user's records made by Ian should be wiped clean.

I think Ian is in large part the source of the disconnect that exists between how user's see themselves and how moderators see users.

2the9s said:

I agree, as u know I would. Also, even though I think Aaron is a , he pointed out in his last (under the main user acct) thread that Matt acted on his emails as a part of his actions on the Org as well. Technically, as Ben stated earlier today, what goes on on another site, or in this case, in e-mail, should have no relevance. It certainly held no relevance for Ian anyway.

2the9s said:

bzzzt! wrong, man--shit don't work that way 'round here. a moderator's decisions aren't based on other mods' past decisions/notes/whatever. the decisions i make on moderatin the site are based on my decisions and mine alone, not because somebody else says different.

ben said:

As much as I like some of the people recently banned and BKW, I agree with your approach. Moderating shouldn't require getting deep into the motives and personalities of Orgers, what they say elsewhere and checking if they are in tune with some vague definition of "community" standards. That's not moderating, it's presiding a small claim court with no procedural restrictions or hosting an endless group therapy session. It's way too much to get into simply to provide a space where fans of a pop star can get together and socialize, no matter how much you enjoy the community feel.

With that in mind, moderation has to be kept simple. Here are the rules and here's how you can voice your concerns. A decision will be taken, and you'll even be able to criticize it publicly as long as you refrain from personally attacking the decision maker. Be aware that there might not be enough hours in the day to address all the public comments and read all the posts. If you absolutely require a response, Orgnote the Mods and they'll see what can be done. Don't threaten to alert the medias when things don't go your way -- it's your right to do so, but it's also the Org's right not to put up with such hostility.

Most of the mods the Org has ever had have been criticized regularly and subjected to repeated insinuations and personal attacks. Some Orgers have literally dared them to ban and deactivate them, and once it finally happened, their friends have cried foul and injustice.

Well, guess what? You shouldn't have to be a sage found on some tall mountain in the Himalayas to be a moderator, and that's what what some Orgers are practically demanding without even realizing it. We're talking straightforward rules and decisions, not an in-depth philosophical or legal analysis based on wide concepts open to a myriad of interpretations. You will never assemble a team of moderators who have the time and the skills to keep all the Org factions happy with those broad yet extremely demanding standards.

It would be nice if we all got along and somehow managed to build a community that's truly based on ideas and approaches that are acceptable to all, but like Uptown, that's an utopia. The various camps need to reflect on the practical and less on the ideal.
[This message was edited Sat Feb 7 10:41:08 PST 2004 by Aerogram]

Handclapsfingasnapz said:

I don't doubt that for a minute, Hands!

I was responding to what Ben

said above:

I take it that Ben means here that his decision (as site owner and final word on all deactivations) is based on the accumulated comments of various moderators. So, my point still stands.

When you, as moderator, decide to enter a strike or notes into a user's account, you do so not necessarily being aware of the impact that this comment will have on possible deactivation, no?

2the9s said:

strikes take impact, yes...mere notes, no. notes are only there to document what a particular orger does, in order to give the other mods a 'heads-up' on any past incidents they were involved in or any correspondence that may have been passed between them and the mod who wrote the note down--the notes are not used to tally up stuff, y'know like, "well according to these notes, orger x has done all this, that and blahblahyakkitysmakety in the past, so they're a bad seed! let's ban 'em!"

see how silly that is? this is just what i'm gettin at here...we don't work that way around here. none of us do.

Xpertlover said:

I assume you are talking to me?

Well, after I kick in my employment, boot out my wife and kids, say goodbye to all my friends, I will go out in search of a life.

Thanks for the advice mate!

ben said:

I think the thing you will find is that they were all passionate members of the org. They usually got in trouble when being passionate about a particular incident (usually race related it seems).



Yes, I largely agree. The problem here is that it has spilled over and that a member of that site is a moderator here. My complaint is that he should NOT be moderating any threads/posts on this issue, or that has spilled from this issue.

He is as compromised as he could possibly be.



I was angry when i posted it and maybe I shouldn't have. I expected the thread to be deleted or maybe snipped. I expected an orgnote telling me why.



The issues with matt have been laid out here in these forums for quite some time yet nothing has been done about it. That's fine I suppose, it is your site and your decision. Just dont expect that this isn't going to cause some frustration around here, especially when Matt goes around deactivating orgers left, right and centre.



Ben, it isnt just "possible" I didnt get the orgnote I told you that I didnt get one.

2the9s said:

Well said (as usual).

Handclapsfingasnapz said:

Dont worry Dansa, I believe that you sent me one it just seems it didnt make it to me.



Thanks for the explanation.

All I'll say is that the issue isnt so much about personal vendettas against certain orgers, but Matts ability to be impartial on the whole issue when he is so deeply involved in it all. I've said it a hundred times now and I'll say it again. He is compromised on this issue.

Teacher said:

EXACTLY!!



Nobody can hate me forever.

My initial post if it were not so "angry" would have been more like this:

Is it not ironic that the orgers to whom most of the venom at Quaid was directed are now the orgers who have been banned i.e

Cthe Uncanny

Rdhull

Bliss

MD7

It is even more ironic that the person who has banned them all is Matt, who is a member of that site, and is now moderating the issue here.

If 2the9s and handsclap were banned (God forbid) then all of Quaids dirty work would be complete (well, mostly).

There is some incredible irony in all that dont you think.

(p.s I do apologise to Matt for any unintended insinuation in my initial banned post that he was doing the dirty work of Quaid and its members. I was trying to point out the irony in it all (albeit in a rage). )

bkw said:

Well, I tried I want some credit dammit!!


Seriously, I'm feeling like we're hitting a here, getting no serious response on the issue we bring up over and over and over and over...

Oops, I used the , will I end up in Rd-land now?

What I am saying is that Matt is compromised on this issue and should not be moderating on it.

I cant say anymore.

Teacher said:

I think we have made our point. It is Bens site and he can do whatever he pleases with it. We are powerless to do much else I guess.

It's just so fustrating.

The issue IS over. I agree that there is a problem with "the issue we bring up over and over and over and over...". They key problem being, people keep bringing it up. It's over. So get over it. No one was banned from the site who didn't have it coming for a long time. Moving on...

Teacher said:

The moderation software won't allow a thread to be deleted without an orgNote being sent to the user who posted it. At least, that's how it's supposed to work... as Ben indicated, there appears to be a bug in the system. I can say that I don't recall deleting any threads by you.

Let me suggest, BTW, that "QQQuaidbowl" has the appearance of flamebait.


I don't recall having any private discussions with you regarding my moderation. I do recall that you've disparaged me publicly and called for my removal as a mod.



No, that's not what I said. What I said was this:

"Aside from snipping two blatant flames and locking a thread that involved veiled threats, I've generally refrained from taking moderator action in order to avoid reactions like yours."

I was referring to past actions, not what I intended to do in the future. And I've limited my moderation to things such as flames, threats, and homophobic comments. I haven't moderated people for speaking negatively of Quaidbowl and its users, or even criticizing my moderation.

Sorry Ben, I guess you locked the thread before I clicked "post."