LMM's decision: dealing with the

At this point, we should be looking at ways that we might keep the situation from escalating to the point it did. Had a manager (or Carter for that matter) demoted lmm as soon as he spammed the thread, an arguement could be made that without his inflammatory final statement this whole situation wouldn't have been half as big as it has become. Plus you would have membership seeing that something was being done, rather than waiting two days for the LC to come back and do it's thing.

I think epic's idea would work well. lmm would have been warned for his first spam posts then had he continued -- as he did -- he could have been demoted by any manager or admin that was watching.

Then we can all go over to the "lord mauly maul doesn't have colors!" thread that someone in sure to start and make fun of them.

EDIT: clarification

 

Freedom of speech?

Not only is this an international board where the US Bill of Rights does not apply, but it also isn't a democracy.

It only is a contradiction if you choose to see it that way.

We have asked that LMM be held to higher standards, standards that at least equal those to which apply to the rest of us.

The rest of us would have been banned immediately and discussion of further punishment would have taken place afterwards. That is the instance in which he was treated differently and more gently that is frustrating. He was allowed to continue posting for days.

He, as a moderator, should know better than most that spamming is unacceptable. It is completely reasonable to expect that when someone who is supposed to enforce the rules breaks them, that he receives a stiffer punishment.

But this thread isn't about that issue. This thread is about his thinly veiled flames, abuse of his mod abilities by unlocking and relocking a thread for the purpose of flaming, the flaunting of his position, and the dismissal of other members simply because they weren't staff as he is. Those 'crimes,' whatever you want to call them, have not yet been addressed other than a promise of 'he will be spoken to.'

Most, if not all, of us accept the punishment dealt out for the spamming incident only, as Carter was kind enough to clarify. This thread is a push for more action to be taken on the other aspects of his behavior, spamming excluded.

 

OK, allow me to point a few things out:

Mods don't discuss each and every banning. Why not? Because that would be completely ineffiecent. There are dozens of bans each day. To discuss each one would be ridiculous. So why do we discuss Mod bans? Think on this - how often does it happen? How often does a mod break the rules? The reason it is discussed before action is taken is not because the mods are 'above the rules', but rather because banning them could have an impact on the boards that a simple member-ban wouldn't. What if I see a mod flame someone, but it later turns out to have been a huge joke that everyone knew about but me?

Mod discipline (and yes, discipline and punish are two entirely separate things. Get a dictionary and look it up) is a rare thing that needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. Is that 'different' treatment from normal users. Yes. But considering that we get punished harsher if we're found guilty, don't you think that's a fair trade-off? Yes, it takes longer to discuss the matter, but when a decision is reached, it's a stricter punishment.

I'm a manager, and formerly an Admin, and I still don't feel entirely comfortable immediately demoting and banning a moderator without due discussion. What if my judgement is wrong? I have to work with these people. We're a team. Second-guessing another moderator's judgement is not something I like to do without discussing it first with others. I know I am not always right. Yes, it may take some time, but in the end, if I'm right, and if it has been discussed and agreed upon, I feel twice as sure that the right thing was done.

I'm not saying I'm unwilling to change the status quo. If it is decided that managers should immediately demote and ban upon the first hint that another moderator may have possibly crossed a line somewhere, then, hey, I suppose I can learn to live with that. But at this point, although I know the rules, and know when someone has broken them, I have felt it was the responsible thing to do to discuss the matter when it deals with someone else who administers and moderates here. Yes, that's 'different' treatment, but I still don't see it as being unfair. If the person is 'guilty' of having done something wrong, then they'll be punished. Harsher than normal. Just because it took an extra couple hours or days to come to that decision doesn't change the fact that the person is ultimately punished.

Vertical

 

I'm going to ask again, did I just miss the memo where it said banner-making=mod making? I haven't had anyone answer the question as to why he was made mod for being a staffer in the first place. *taps foot*
_jOBO

 

Follow me:

A manager or admin (presumably even Carter) could and should have dealt with the problem ASAP by banning (or doing something to suspend LMM) immediately, and then sort out the problem later.

But no one took the initiative and instead we had to wait while you tried to get enough people to discuss it. Regular posters get banned immediately and then the problem is discussed. Mods don't. Why? Because no one was willing to do it.

Here's a suggestion, when you see a problem user, be it mod or regular user, ban him then work out the problem NOW instead of going through all this crap LATER.

All this "drama" is a result of the administrations inaction.

 

Something like -- Manager sees Mod abusing TOS, PMs him about it first, situation is hopefully resolved.

I'm all for that as long as regular members are afforded the same luxury.

So why do we discuss Mod bans? Think on this - how often does it happen? How often does a mod break the rules?

Of course it doesn't happen often. There are 80,000 regular users and what, 50 mods? And those mods are supposed to be the best of the best and are supposed to know the rules better than everyone. That's no reason not to ban them when they've broken the rules.

The reason it is discussed before action is taken is not because the mods are 'above the rules', but rather because banning them could have an impact on the boards that a simple member-ban wouldn't.

If by "impact" you mean reduced coverage, I don't buy it. If a mod is banned, you just start a thread in the Mod Squad letting everyone know what's up. Besides which, I'd be willing to bet that mods often don't log in for a day or two, but never actually tell anyone. That would hurt coverage just as much as a mod being banned.

What if I see a mod flame someone, but it later turns out to have been a huge joke that everyone knew about but me?

What if you see a regular member do the same thing?

What if my judgement is wrong?

Do you feel the same way when you ban regular members? I understand you're a team and you have to work with these people, but you really have to put those differences aside if they are breaking the rules.

And I'm not talking about borderline TOS violations. In those cases, I can understand some discussion. But in the LMM case, I think it was pretty clear cut. I don't see why he wasn't banned immediately, then discussed. And after the two day discussion if the Leadership Council decides that's enough, let him off with time served, as I said in a previous post.

Amazing.

 

What if my judgement is wrong? I have to work with these people. We're a team. Second-guessing another moderator's judgement is not something I like to do without discussing it first with others. I know I am not always right. Yes, it may take some time, but in the end, if I'm right, and if it has been discussed and agreed upon, I feel twice as sure that the right thing was done.

Why can't it be the same as a regular user being banned? If I had done what he did, no doubt you would have swarms of PM's saying that I needed to be banned immediately, or at least given a warning. LMM got his warning, and continued. He obviously abused his mod powers to open the thread, add his inflammatory comments, and then lock it again. Regardless of whether it was a joke or not, it pissed off a huge amount of members. I think a lot of moderating lies in judgement calls, and I believe this is one case where the managers and admins should be be allowed to make one of their practiced judgement calls on whether or not to quickly demote or ban him. I'm not passing judgement on that, because I'm not the admin here. But I don't think that it's too unreasonable to ask for something less than a two-day wait.

Also, on the issue of having to working with these people, I don't think that's really an issue. If one of my co-workers is acting like an ass, I will call him on it. If the person is decent enough to realize that what he did was wrong, he won't hold it against me or even bring it up at work. I think (especially in the case of moderating) you should have people on the team that can understand what is and isn't acceptable, and that their opinion of acceptable isn't the same as everyone else's.

 

"What if I see a mod flame someone, but it later turns out to have been a huge joke that everyone knew about but me?"

Irrelevant. The last time I was banned, it was over what I intended as a harmless joke. The mods decided I was baiting, no matter how much I attempted to apologize and explain myself. So no, I don't think the joke scenario makes much of a difference, as the trend has been set long ago.



"...discipline and punish are two entirely separate things. Get a dictionary and look it up..."

dis?ci?pline n.

1. Training expected to produce a specific character or pattern of behavior, especially training that produces moral or mental improvement.


2. Controlled behavior resulting from disciplinary training; self-control.


• Control obtained by enforcing compliance or order.


• A systematic method to obtain obedience: a military discipline.


• A state of order based on submission to rules and authority: a teacher who demanded discipline in the classroom.
4. Punishment intended to correct or train.


5. A set of rules or methods, as those regulating the practice of a church or monastic order.


6. A branch of knowledge or teaching.

pun?ish?ment n.

• The act or an instance of punishing.


• The condition of being punished.
2. A penalty imposed for wrongdoing: "The severity of the punishment must... be in keeping with the kind of obligation which has been violated" (Simone Weil).


3. Rough handling; mistreatment: These old skis have taken a lot of punishment over the years.

What am I missing here?



"...you really have to put those differences aside if they are breaking the rules."

Perhaps more aptly, you have to put the friendships aside if they are breaking the rules.

 

If it is decided that managers should immediately demote and ban upon the first hint that another moderator may have possibly crossed a line somewhere, then, hey, I suppose I can learn to live with that.

i don't think anyone's asking for that... don't be overdramatic. you follow that up with what you're supposed to do when you "know when someone has broken" the rules... that's two different situations.

people aren't asking for action when there's a chance that maybe someone did something, they're asking for action when you KNOW someone has broken the rules.

 

Going back to Verticle's official post of two day's ago:

There is no rule against being an arrogant member. There is no rule against being rude. There is no rule against being pompous, big-headed, or a jerk. Thus, the moderators, as a rule-enforcement body by nature, cannot impose any sanctions on LMM for his attitude.

Within a sense, yes, but isn't purposely being rude to your fellow members covered in trolling, which is a bannable offense? If I understand trolling, it's posts that are made to stir up trouble. If someone is purposely rude, the response will be unpleasant, and, depending on how rude, could cause a large scale negiative reaction. People who post in this matter know this to be true -- thus, they are trolling. No*?

Should not, at least, some degree of civility be enforced -- espically (but not exclusively) in regards those who represent the TFN?

------
* Such as the case with TrueJedi, who was permbanned for being this way repeatedly and blatantly.

 

What we need to see is quicker ModSquad response time when it comes to punishments. Managers have the ability to promote and demote. Since not every member of the ModSquad is a manager, and those that are have some seniority and experience, they should be allowed to make spot decisions concerning the demotion of moderators and VIPs, after a warning, if the situation merits If the moderator is violently breaking the TOS, he or she should be immediately demoted, pending future decisions. We cannot have vips, mods, managers or admins breaking the rules and being given their punishment several days or a week after the incident. PreacherBoy's December demotion is a prime example of this. It took quite a long time to finally get everyone to agree on a punishment for days old offenses - offenses that would have lead to the immediate banning of a regular member.

There is a difference between the Administration and the Regs when it comes to being punished. Time is a factor, severity of punishment is greatly diminished the higher you go on the food chain. What can be done about it? A long time ago (well...a little more than a year), I proposed a new, small and indepedent branch of the Staff or Administration be created, sort of like a Judiciary that immediately hears and rules on mod abuse. I thought earlier this year that the Advisory Council could do that, but they take too much time talking about inconsequential things and are little more than a gesture by the Administration. I hate to say it, but unless people take it seriously and use it, the AC should be dismantled and chalked up as a failure. They were to be the checks and balances to the Staff and Administration, regular users giving voice to regular users. What we got did not fit our expectations and I must apologize for not pushing for more changes in its structure. The idea still stands of a group that can decide in a day a mod is guilty by looking at facts and history and then giving the decision to the "Leadership" Council, who then immediately carries out the sentence, regardless of their personal feelings.

This would also lead into a change with the Leadership Council, but I'll get back to that at a later time.

 

Thanks for your input, Lord Bane. Very well said!

 

Yes, nicely said.
_jOBO

 

Lord Bane's plan sounds pretty good to me.

 

Quote:

---

I'm a manager, and formerly an Admin, and I still don't feel entirely comfortable immediately demoting and banning a moderator without due discussion.[hr][/blockquote] [face_laugh]

 

I like the Judiciary concept, but it would naturally have to be a bunch of posters who are online a large amount.

¤Night

 

It could be composed by region - two or three heavy posters (online time, not necessarily post count) from each major timezone that the JC runs in. Situations are handled in a single day; any more than that, it must be a huge problem for the board as a whole and lo, it will herald the return of the Chyren.

 

Lord Bane, I find your sudden "un-retirement" to be a joyful occasion and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

I'm back to whip the damn Administration into shape, then I'll most likely fade away, no parades, no ending speeches, like the last shot of Patton walking into the field.

Gen. George S. Patton Jr.: For over a thousand years, Roman conquerors returning from the wars enjoyed the honor of a triumph -- a tumultuous parade. In the procession came trumpeters and musicians and strange animals from the conquered territories, together with carts laden with treasure and captured armaments. The conqueror rode in a triumphal chariot, the dazed prisoners walking in chains before him. Sometimes his children, robed in white, stood with him in the chariot, or rode the trace horses. A slave stood behind the conqueror, holding a golden crown, and whispering in his ear a warning: that all glory is fleeting.

 

They should also have at least a Manager on call to demote when nessesary. An admin would be even better. All these admins, one never seems to be around when ya need 'em.

¤Night

 

I don't mean to be a brown noser, but honestly, the Mod's are human too. If they make a mistake, why should their punishment be any different from one that any normal JC'er woudl recieve. Its not like they are going to just sit there and take peoples mocks and stabs. Although I can contain myself quite well now, I think that after a long period of time I would also lash out. And he didn't even really lash out. All he did is tell you his position. And just because it was "arrogant" doesn't mean he should be banned for it. If I say something arrogant, am I banned for it? No. So I think that the punishment is fine. I understand that he spammed so he should be punished for that, but thats it. He didn't really do anything else that is deserving of a ban, or an extended ban.

Peace and Unity

JMA

 

the Mod's are human too.

I honestly don't know where you people learned about apostrophes, but you don't use them in plurals!

 

"And he didn't even really lash out."

For the 16,396,259th time, he reopened a closed thread, he flamed Darth_AYBABTU directly, and then flamed the rest of the thread in general. He then relocked the thread so that no one could respond. Flaming is unacceptable for regular members, and using his mod abilities to do it is just that much worse. He mocked and antagonized people in 2 threads, and continued to do so for 2 days. The entire debate started because of how he behaved himself in the TPM banner thread, flaunting his position. He created the mess, no one sought him out for conflict. And this isn't the first time he has pulled this kind of stunt, we are lucky there aren't any spoilers out yet.


He was warned to stop, and he ignored that warning. After he spammed, he made a smug and insincere (which was the conclusion of regs and mods alike) apology for the spamming, and intentionally refused to acknowledge the rest of his behavior was inappropriate. By not enforcing a punishment for those behaviors, it sends the message that they were acceptable. If you tell a kid not to eat the cookies, you see him take one, and you don't do anything, then he learns there are no repurcussions and keeps doing it.

Mods take crap every day. They are sent less than pleasant PMs and flamed pretty regularly. They have threads in Comms created about them every other week. It is a job hazard that, for the most part, they accept wordlessly. They deserve some credit for that. They are volunteers, they do take a lot of abuse, and they manage to contain their anger pretty well.

But this is nothing compared to what most mods deal with. Someone called his banner, not him, "craptacular" and he flew off the handle. If he can't deal with being in the spotlight as a mod or a staff contributer, then there are plenty who are more qualified to fill the position and won't turn threads in create their own SpamFest when they come under fire.

 

I would like to point out that "craptacular" is one of the funnier words that we crazed English-speaking fools have managed to concoct.

JMA

 

And it came from The Simpsons, of all places.