PART FOUR
If you are reading this, I am assuming you have been keeping up with the forum politics and reading threads such as kaom’s Site News thread or the Announcements thread. I am assuming you are vaguely interested about ST politics and want to know about what has been going on this week. With that assumption, if you do not fit under the description, this thread is not right for you and is not interesting, thus you should probably bi-pass it.
If you do fall under the assumption, I ask that you read with an open-mind. I do ask that you do not go “BUT SO AND SO TOLD ME THIS AND THAT AND IT DOESN’T MATCH WHAT YOU SAID!!!” Remember, everyone will choose to highlight or casually remove information. It’s probably a good idea I’m taking an awfully long time to respond to this event so I can try to write as objectively as possible.
In advance, I am sorry for divulging any personal information. I know it’s our job as moderators to try and contain as much info as possible. However, like kaom, I feel that when too much shit explodes, people need to know what happened. Right now, to an outsider, it looks like a bunch of random stuff. No logic at all.
There is logic in all of this.
Are you ready to open a can of worms? Well, here we go:
************************************************** *******************
In the world of moderation, there’s a little thing called a Moderation Forum. Jokingly, it’s been called the Mass Orgie forum where we all post massive horny stuff. But, more realistically, it’s where we discuss issues such as keeping tabs on each other like “Hey, there’s an icky pornographic picture in your subsection. I banned the user who did it. Can you delete the thread? Thanks.”
As of March, 2007, a set of rules were given to moderators as shown
Moderator Behavior:- Moderator discussions and disagreements are to be kept private from the ordinary members.
- Moderators are not to insult/critique/criticize each other in front of regular members. This is not limited to the forum, but any public conversation.
- Neutrality and team spirit are to be feigned in public if not sincerely felt.
- Do not lift other moderators' bans without first consulting them.
- Do not critique other moderators' bans in front of members, even the members in question. Refer them to the moderator who gave the ban or agree to pass the message on instead.
- For convenience, try to give a ban reason as much as possible.
- Don't show favoritism, or at least not to the point where you allow one member to get away with something and ban another member for the same thing.
- Respect each other. All moderators are equal, and it is possible to object and be civil about it. Consider everyone's suggestions fairly.
- Don't let things get too personal, and be reasonable and level-headed about things.
General Moderator rules.
1. All bans must have a valid explanation. Any moderator has the right to overturn a ban if no reason for the ban has been given.
2. If a moderator disagrees with a ban issued by another mod, they should PM the issuing moderator. If an agreement cannot be reached, it should be put to vote, with the majority decision being used, after a one week time period.
3. If a moderator has a problem with a decision of another, it should be resolved by PM or in the mod forum.
If an agreement cannot be reached, it should be put up for vote (spanning one week), with the majority decision being used.
4. Moderators should not moderate another moderator's sub-forum, except when the section's mod has asked them to do so, does not mind, or if it is absolutely necessary (see: exceptions to rule 4). If a moderator feels that there is an issue that has been overlooked in another section, s/he should contact the relevant mod in a respectful manner, detailing his/her concerns.
If a moderator feels that s/he must carry out a mod action in another section, s/he should send a PM to all of the section's moderators, clearly explaining what s/he has done and why.
Any moderator has the right to overturn any decision made by another moderator, within his/her own section, providing that the moderator who made the decision is not also that section's moderator (in such cases, moderators should discuss the decision either over PM or in the moderator’s forum).
Exceptions to rule 4:
Notable exceptions where a mod may and should ban a member in a section not of their own, include:
-- a member who is trolling (i.e. openly and deliberately abusing/accusing another member);
-- a member who threatens or has the intent to threaten the personal privacy/anonymity/safety of another member;
-- a member who openly and deliberately attacks/accuses the site, its staff and/or its members;
-- a member who threatens the security of the site, staff and member accounts;
-- a member advertising/offering products (legal and illegal);
-- a member actively advertising/offering/posting links to warez;
-- a member who is actively creating a disturbance;
-- a member using an alternate account (including ban dodgers).
5. ALL moderator discussions/arguments/conversations must remain private and may not be talked about outside of the mod forum unless PMs or other private message tools (e.g. AIM, email, etc...) are used.
6. All rule changes must be drafted and submitted for approval. For the changes to be allowed, they must receive a majority approval, after a one week time period.
7. Moderator’s may not be de-modded unless a majority vote is made to remove them, or as an admin decision.
8. A member may not be given modship unless a majority decision is made, or as an admin decision.
9. A moderator who wishes to contest a decision by Moderator Vote must notify the maker(s) of that decision 1 day prior to making the thread. The thread can be created 24 hours from sending the message,
or upon confirmation that the Letter of Intent was received by the maker(s) of said decision.
**********************************************
In the past, any moderation actions in Chit Chat specifically have usually been told to the moderators. I’ve gotten many pms or threads in the Moderation Forum that have been addressed to myself, Jyuu, and Kaze about people they have banned.
For example, (taken from 11/27/2007)
“I banned a guy for his ridiculous necroing and the disrespect he was doing in CC, just so the CC mods know, his screenname: mechacooler If you disagree or whatever or just don't like me interfering in your section, you can do whatever but I figure anyone who says that he doesn't care what (ST people and mods) say or think... needs to go :P” -martyr
“okiez. thanks guys.his thread is deleted.”-cpr
No problem
**********************************************
But recently, like how other regular members, I saw an influx of 3 bans with no real explanation. Granted, it has been difficult this particular week for me to keep on forum politics (I have finals this week) so I was a tad behind (two days behind). Out of curiosity, I started researching them, but couldn’t find a real suitable reason to how Stealthmoose was banned.
When regulars become banned permanently, I take a personal interest as to why they were banned. After all, a regular generally has been able to last long on the fourm because they have been obeying the rules. Majority of regulars can recite, quote, and often are those who are scolding newbies for disobeying the rules. Regulars tend to respect the rules and to respect majority of the moderators. So, why would somebody with that ability have been permanently banned? Disclaimer:
I have been bashed by people by saying “this is called favoritism!” No, this is extremely logical. Somebody who was here for 7 months has gained 7 months of exposure to rules. Someone who has been here for 1 day has 1 day of exposure to the rules. See the reasoning as to why I think it’s a little odd when regulars get banned since they should know the rules?
**********************************************
Two days have passed since the ban and there was no note, no explanation, and no notice given to me.
Why the sudden change?
I asked around, and moderators were pointing to this thread.What surprises will you find in your ketchup?This thread regarding the debate of martyr and Stealthmoose is how he got banned. - By, post #166 & 167 the 4 page debate is basically over with the conclusion to “agree to disagree”
- By post #168-170 Jakko and Stealthmoose are trying to joke it off.
- Jakko wrote in the moderator forum that he “decided to interrupt before the debate got started up again, and try to turn it into a joke to head things off. I guess it didn't work well, but I should make it clear that I wasn't trying to argue with him, or insulted with him.”
- Stealthmoose wrote how during the time they were talking “At first I thought you were just light-heartedly dissecting the idiom, which, given its nature, doesn’t take much work.” (post 172)
- By post #171, less then 24 hours later, martyr posts his statement of banning Stealthmoose on the grounds of “trolling” for a time period of 7 days
- Well, Stealthmoose obviously didn’t feel like he was. Logically, he came back and banddodged to voiced his complaint as seen in post #172.
- As consequence, Stealthmoose is permanently banned.
And that’s the core root of the situation.
The opinion of the moderators who participated in the discussion are as follows:
- Martyr & Vol were in agreement. He did troll. He deserved a 7 day and then a banddodged deserved a perm ban.
- DE thought he deserved the original ban, although perhaps maybe it would have been better as a few-day ban instead. She did not think banddodging was appropriate and thus bannable..
- Jakko was completely neutral in the discussion trying to get both sides to communicate more properly.
- Cpr was against the 7 day ban thus noting that if the original circumstances were not worthy, the banddodging is forgivable
- By the time kaom and Jyuu stepped in after pages of debate, both were more or less annoyed at behaviors of mods then the actual Stealthmoose issue.
**********************************************
So, over in the moderator forum thread we basically have the arguing of Rule 4. Consistantly, the reasoning I keep hearing was “he trolled = 7 ban.” Then, “he bandodged = perm ban.” When asked for source of the trolling, I was given post #167 which was
“Indeed. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.”- Stealthmoose
This is what got 3 moderators agreeing that Stealthmoose was trolling. In the end, every little detail was argued. And, I do mean every such as What is the definition of trolling? Is that really a short ban? Does that really count as a justifiable act to ban?Sidenote: Around this time, another regular, Atrum, sent me a pm and requested to be banned. He left no explanation. Ask mart and he’ll say Atrum was mad about pulp_chicken and morten being banned. Ask me, and I’ll say Atrum was mad about Stealth getting banned because of the thread that Atrum created.
In closer detail, moderator rules #2,3,4 were argued and twisted to support both parties.2.If a moderator disagrees with a ban issued by another mod, they should PM the issuing moderator. If an agreement cannot be reached, it should be put to vote, with the majority decision being used, after a one week time period.
3.If a moderator has a problem with a decision of another, it should be resolved by PM or in the mod forum.
If an agreement cannot be reached, it should be put up for vote (spanning one week), with the majority decision being used.
4.Moderators should not moderate another moderator's sub-forum, except when the section's mod has asked them to do so, does not mind, or if it is absolutely necessary (see: exceptions to rule 4). If a moderator feels that there is an issue that has been overlooked in another section, s/he should contact the relevant mod in a respectful manner, detailing his/her concerns.
If a moderator feels that s/he must carry out a mod action in another section, s/he should send a PM to all of the section's moderators, clearly explaining what s/he has done and why.
Any moderator has the right to overturn any decision made by another moderator, within his/her own section, providing that the moderator who made the decision is not also that section's moderator (in such cases, moderators should discuss the decision either over PM or in the moderator’s forum).
Exceptions to rule 4:
Notable exceptions where a mod may and should ban a member in a section not of their own, include:
-- a member who is trolling (i.e. openly and deliberately abusing/accusing another member);
-- a member who threatens or has the intent to threaten the personal privacy/anonymity/safety of another member;
Examples of what we argued about was
Opinion pro-ban: “rule 2 says you should have just pm-ed me instead of making this thread about stealth’s ban! Rule 4 makes it under the exception so I don’t need to pm you cause he was clearly trolling. Plus, he banddodged after that! That’s unforgivable and he deserves punishment.”
Opinion anti-ban: “rule 3 says I can use the mod-forum to state a case. Rule 4 says you’re not supposed to moderate a forum not yours. Besides, that’s hardly trolling or abusing another member! I know he banddodged, but in retrospect if the original ban was inappropriate doesn’t he have a right to come back and say so?”
Tensions elevated, and it is no surprise that Rule 5, was broken by both parties, first being broken by myself and then of the pro-ban. It was broken more on IRC, but also on the forum. Rule 5:ALL moderator discussions/arguments/conversations must remain private and may not be talked about outside of the mod forum unless PMs or other private message tools (e.g. AIM, email, etc...) are used.”Disclaimer: Why did I openly complain? When hearing that this one sentence was enough grounds to get you to lose a week, I was furious as shown in post #178. I posted that in the hopes to show pulp_chicken that not all mods have a “god complex syndrome.”
Like most threads at ST, this one derailed as well to the point people wanted to appoint more moderators of CC. By then, Jyuu came and locked the thread.
**********************************************
Bookmarks