Hello, MS! Regarding the ban length policy

I worked for years having some control over the lives of people desperate enough to attempt to enter Australia illegally as my widgets. If it affects you, then maybe you need to drink more or care less.

Harsh? Yes. Sound? Also yes.

 

This thread does not deliver.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

Wow, man.... sorry that your job was so stressful. This isn't that job, though... this is a Star Wars message board, Nobody was sexually assaulted. In the jcc, we often do walk the line. Innuendo is pretty common, from mods and users. Most people are generally pretty respectful of where the line is, in most cases. I'm sorry that Diggy's signature triggered bad memories for you, but it really is just a quote from a TV show.

 

I think it's in everyone's interest that we do not move it to PM. You have admitted that you're prone to subjective judgement based on your professional and personal life. That is, certain triggers will render you incapable of being objective and the downstream implication of that is that moderator action can be taken that arguably should not be taken, such as with Diggy's signature.

I mean, my advice about learning not to care so much is for your piece of mind. But the other part, about whether or not a trigger could cause you to subjectively view a situation? That's very much a public (JC) interest matter.

 

Please tell me the quote sig. Is it Arrested Development?

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

Nah... I'm good. I said what I wanted to say. Like I said, I don't think this thread was even intended to discuss that ban in particular. It just came up, so I commented. The sig was restored, and he's not banned, so I have no need to discuss it. Like I said earlier, I'm just glad the ban doubling thing isn't an actual policy. That's all I really care about.

Edit: Ender does raise a valid point about the importance of modding objectively, though.

 

Tobias wasn't a victim, therefore your objections are irrelevant, Counsel.

Overruled.

 

I really don't see how continuously walking over others feelings and criticizing and putting others down is going to solve anything...

 

Thank you, Shira. I'm glad even complete strangers are on my side.

 

Your sarcasm is duly noted, and I'm not a stranger to everyone on this discussion. Even if I was, I have equal right to my input as you do.

 

This is erroneously predicated on the assumption that any actions that were taken were taken in a vacuum. As it happens, the matter of the signature was discussed in MS, and was acted on when a couple of other moderators - presumably without Baz's precise subjective judgements - agreed with him that it ought to be removed. Then it was discussed further by still more staff members.

In general, excepting very clean cut situations, we're discussing a lot of situations/posts/etc. in MS before acting on them, precisely because we're aware that every moderator brings their frame of reference to the table.

Now - is this thread about ban length policies, or is it about Diggy's sig, because I am absolutely going to insist further discussion on the latter be taken to PM.

 

With due respect, Ramza, I disagree. The admission was, frankly, startling, because it implies that a criteria of posts can trigger a subjective response.

Now, mods are (mostly) human too, so expecting that they will never feel a flash of annoyance, a hint of anger, or even full red mist is just absurd. The difference is mods are expected to keep it in check; I say this as a mod who did just that. But Bazinga'd suggested that the trigger will impact objectivity:

"My "sense of humor" on this issue comes from the fact that I was a prosecutor who had to put back together the destroyed psyche of sexual assault victims. So if you want to talk about why I (and some other mods) may be sensitive to this, PM me"

This isn't saying "we're human", it's saying that particular issues will create problems in maintaining objectivity. Now, if it's bad wording on Bazinga'd's part, that's one thing. If it's an admission, then you cannot expect us to just park our concern.

i.e. if a mod said "I have a problem with people advocating religion/atheism/homosexuality" and banned someone for a post which was borderline but contained those elements, it'd be much the same.

Happy if you can clarify further but in this instance I would argue it is an appropriate public discussion. No disrespect intended.

 

I wasn't being sarcastic.

 

Well then consider me completely confused...

 

Please don't take this to PM….I'm finding this conversation fascinating, and I didn't even mean to click on it…..

And seriously, anyone who hasn't seen "Arrested Development" needs to do it. RIght now. Like, log off and go stream it on Netflix this very second.

 

I interpreted that as Baz saying that his prior experiences meant that, totally free of context (As he was observing it), Diggy's signature seemed to him like something that should be discussed. This is perhaps because I'm in a privileged position given my ability to view MS and can therefore read Baz's actual actions into his statement - namely, he brought the signature up for discussion, because he wasn't sure. Then several other moderators chimed in to the effect that it seemed borderline and probably not okay to them. At that point, Baz acted - this is pretty common procedure in borderline cases no matter what the circumstances, so if anything I would say Baz responded in a very "professional" (Insofar as a bunch of volunteers can act professionally) manner - to the point that I was also somewhat surprised to see, in this thread, that he had additional, personal hangups about the content.

So, basically, to use your different example

I under no circumstances view that as an analogous scenario as the resulting procedures (Consultation of MS vs unilateral action) are very, very different.

 

What exactly is the attraction of Arrested Development?

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

It's hilarious.

 

Okay, I'll consider it. But, I may not be considerate.

 

Can we please move on from my signature? We need a nu start. This really wasn't supposed to be about my sig, or my two bans, but about my -apparent - misconception that the policy was ....well, you know the rest. Ender Sai must be Bazingas father, however, because he has totally put him to bed.

 

Ramza, I was careful to couch my post in wordings of "if this is as it appears, then we have an issue" and noting that it could be the wording (implied was a lack of context) that causes the perception. I trust you; if it is how you say, then thank you for clarifying.

 

Not a problem; borderline cases are precisely why we encourage discussion whenever possible.

That said, I'm still attempting to program my Calculus Moderationator, which will utilize a brilliant new characteristica manageralis to resolve all borderline cases with mechanical precision. The edit, warning, and ban buttons will all be replaced by a "Calculemus" button.

 

So you're reinstating Kimball then?