Mod Squad Update for the week ending April 23

Go-Mer: How many times should Quix give a chance?

Aunecah

 

Go-Mer what he's saying is if you would not have made the same mistake over and over again. Then maybe people would be more welling to hear you what on this matter. You also would even be able to post in the BS thread.

 

He has already told me that one more "screw up" will cost me a perma ban.

So it would only be one more chance.

 

To answer that, I will quote Quixotic Sith: "Because for four years you've demonstrated quite a bit of difficulty sticking to the topic at hand. You fall too easily into personal comments and attacks in that environment, so I took the temptation away. Enjoy what you have left - 800+ threads of discussion, and 13,000 across five forums."

That sounds like protection but Quix is not his mother.

If Go-Mer doesn't follow TOS he'll face the punishment. If not, let him be.

 

Go-Mer, for now let's consider the fate of those threads over in terms of Comms discussion. They're going to stay open. I'm going to ask you to refrain from openly knocking on someone, Quix, in Comms. I would say this to him if he were doing this to you. So I want you to be clear that I am not singling you out or protecting him because he's a mod. Just let this go please. This is the reality of those threads and you're either going to have to live with them being there and basically ignore them or find another constructive solution.

 

I did not see the last part Spaient sorry.

 

Mace Windu: It is done then.

 

Thanks for making a command decision Darth Sapient.

I may not agree, but I am content that both sides were treated fairly.

 

Sapient, now that you've endorsed the idea that the threads will stay open for now, fine. But please, let's have an outline of what actual things are going to be done improve the modmanship of the TPM forum and the posts in the BS.

If these threads are to be open, the TOS and Rules of Conduct expect no less than full compatibility. Not wishy washy, well he's a gusher so we'll punish him, but he's a basher and we'll let it slide mentality.

I'm talking full FAIRNESS. What steps are being taken to ensure that happens? Because we have demonstrated the current amount of fairness is questionable at best.

 

Perhaps that can be a break-away thread from the MS update in Comms. Or perhaps this could be an aside worked with members and moderators of that forum.

 

If these threads are to be open, the TOS and Rules of Conduct expect no less than full compatibility. Not wishy washy, well he's a gusher so we'll punish him, but he's a basher and we'll let it slide mentality.

I'm talking full FAIRNESS. What steps are being taken to ensure that happens? Because we have demonstrated the current amount of fairness is questionable at best.

If you have any questions about the quality of the moderation in the TPM forum, talk to Steve or I.

But first, I would recommend that you get in touch with strilo or Shelley and ask them about the issues they've raised that I've addressed, or talk with the "bashers" I've banned because of bad netizenship.

I don't really care where one falls on the ideological spectrum towards, the films - I ban trolls, spammers, and flamers. If you see one, feel free to PM me and I'll address it. That's the way the system works and has always worked. The other posters there seem to trust Steve and me to take care of the forum and address behavior problems; I suggest you give it a try.

 

Here some further notes on the matter:

I've noticed since (edit:November) a reoccuring cycle. Somebody asks for proof. PPOR they say. Link me to some proof, let me some proof they cry, etc.

Then I supply the proof and what happens? It gets brushed aside. "Oh, you know. That's the sort of thing that you should send to our biased TPM mods. They'll look into it. "

"Well that's a mighty fine example you give there bjbrickm, just one problem, we want to keep this stuff hush hush, so you'll have to stop talking about it now. Forget what uh I said uh earlier about PPOR. Oh yeah, btw, what do you think about those Braves?"

"Well it's not *that* bad. Nevermind you've been banned for less."

The whole charade is funny, ironic, sad, and blood puking induced all wrapped up into one, welcome to the JC, enjoy your stay.


RE: links
Sorry about the links AS, I thought I had the link stuff down pat, I guess not. In case, I gave examples from the last few days, they shouldn't be that hard to find.

RE:social thread.
It's one of those funny/ironic/sad/bloodpukinginduced (FISBPI)things when certain defenders of the Basher's Sanctuary insist it's more than just a social thread. And then as redxavier demonstrated (and also RebelScumb on several occasions, and more bashers) they claim and defend it *is* a social thread, and not to take their precious community of hate away from them.

Then can have their precious community of hate...where it belongs...in SW Community. They can also clean it up because the Rules of Conduct and TOS will not be kicked around and used for the amusement of the Basher's Sanctuary any longer.


RE: fairness issue
A thread in Comms would be nice, but probably closed. Nope, past dictates if we want to be heard, we have to say it in the Comms update, otherwise the thread will be closed. Hey, that's not our fault. We're not the ones who closed the thread, and often we're not the ones that cause it to be closed either.

Now the idea of members and mods collaborating sounds like something. Of course all movie forum mods and you Sapient should be invited. We'll even bring along the AC. Any further ideas/details on how to set this up?

 

bjbrickm - it's okay (about the links).

Somebody asks for proof. PPOR they say. Link me to some proof, let me some proof they cry, etc.

It works both ways in my experience - but I don't have much of it in the TPM forum.

So I think I'll bail out until I have something to contribute.



Aunecah

 

Then I supply the proof and what happens? It gets brushed aside.

I addressed it, I just didn't agree that it was all flame baiting. But I can symopathize, I posted lenghthy proof yesterday that the TPM Forum was not going down hill and that active discussion was taking place outside of the two threads, and it was whole heartedly ignored.


Now the idea of members and mods collaborating sounds like something. Of course all movie forum mods and you Sapient should be invited. We'll even bring along the AC. Any further ideas/details on how to set this up?

Sorry, I missed something -- collaborating on what?

 

Strype, brick alleged that a conversation needs to be had regarding how the Sanc is moderated. Sapient said that is a conversation for "members and moderators of that forum." brick then suggested that outside mods, Sapient, and even the AC should have an impact on the decisions.

Yea..... no. Forum mods make forum decisions. The other movie forums don't have similar threads and those forum mods made that decision for their forum. The TPM mods didn't get to make those decisions. It would be unfair to let other mods make a decision for TPM.

Sapient could be involved if he wants, I assume. Kadue didn't, he agreed that forum mods make forum decisions.

Since some individual AC members are also regulars in TPM (and the Sanc and DF), I'm sure they will want to participate in discussion. strilo has already been very active in the discussion here.


But, since the suggested discussion would pertain to the Sanc, that again suggests that this whole claim that the Sanc and DF both were polarizing the forum was a just ploy to get the Sanc. closed.

 

But do you not see that there are posts in the Basher's Sanctuary that often skirt the TOS and even surpass it, yet they are left unedited? Or do you choose to ingore it, even promote this rule breaking?

Unacceptable. There is a bias. That is why other mods are being asked to have a say in this in addition to the TPM mods. I'm not saying don't listen to the TPM mods, just don't listen to *just* them.

Darth-Stryphe, rest assured I read all of your post and did not ignore it. For good measure, I just read it again. I still don't see anything I wish to comment on, except this:

"And to top it off, these people, for the most part, weren't even violating the TOS."

I know you were referring to people outside of the Sanctuaries, but that's not what I want to address here. It's the attitude. It's the, "well they weren't breaking the rules *that* bad" mentality. It's not just you that has it.

There have been far worse breaking of the rules in the Basher's Sanctuary, and I was banned for far less. I've seen others banned for far less, so this isn't just a "personal" issue. It's only as personal as the moderator who banned me made it. He singled me out, he chose to crack down on me and not other offenders. I'm returning the favor.

I'd like to thank everyone who did stand up and give their support. Far many more support these ideas (I know from PM), but a lot are afraid to speak out for fear of harming their reputation. I don't care about my reputation, I just want the TPM forum to be FAIR to everyone, whatever that takes. Right now I see it leaning towards punishing the gushers far more than the bashers when both sides are guilty of several rule breakings as demonstrated above and in other threads.

This cannot continue. And all movie forum mods, Sapient, and the AC should be collaborating on this. Surely some compromise can be met.

Extreme: Close the Sanctuaries.

Compromise: Move the Sanctuaries to the Community forum and support the existence of these threads by prohibiting flaming and flame baiting rather than encouraging it.

Other Extreme: Do nothing.

See, it's not that hard.

 

*sigh*

bjbrickm, I "singled you out" because you had been warned for flaming and trolling before. You had a history of "colorful interactions" with those with whom you disagreed, and after having been warned away from posting in the Sanctuary as a result, you posted in a manner designed to mock and deride folks who were less thrilled with the films than you were at a time when another conflict was already underway and in the process of being resolved.

That's hardly unfair - if you are really so concerned with the posts you linked to, it was also within your power to alert Steve or me to their existence so we could do something about it. Further, there are schools of thought on moderation - some folks choose to leave the text in so people know what caused the banishment to avoid making the same kind of post. I do, on occasion, delete an entire post, but it takes an extreme case - usually extended banishment results concurrently. If I were simply to write "Banned" without context, it would open up even more criticism. That's the Catch-22 of moderation.

I'm not going to get into a debate in Comms about this - you obviously felt maligned by your banishment, but there were reasons for it. Attempting to vilify me in Comms is certainly your perogative, but it disappoints me. How many times did you try to resolve this with me personally? How many times have you made the effort to report flaming and trolling when they occur, rather than linking back months later in a vendetta against me? Which of these paths is easier and more constructive?

You feel that I am a biased moderator, which is also your perogative, but taking out your anger and frustration against me by attempting to lock and move the Sanctuary only hurts the TPM forum posters. I'm not going to do that simply to appease you. "Compromise" is hardly the term here, since the only people satisfied will be a handful of folks here. There are a lot more people who will be put off and hurt by the "compromise" than will be benefitted.

Edit: spelng

 

...had a history of "colorful interactions" with those with whom you disagreed...posted in a manner designed to mock and deride folks who were less thrilled with the films than you were.

IMHO, this really is the heart of the matter. Idiots can say almost anything they want in the TPM and AOTC forums and all we are allowed to do is stand there and smile. The idiots are protected. This is not the result of moderator behavior, but rather the result of policies and standards set by the higher ups.

Yeah, yeah, I know what you are going to say, "Just put up with it, don't flame and make your points about why you feel differently about the movie." The problem is the endless stream of idiots. It simply isn't fun so I choose to spend my time elsewhere. You can't force me to put up with an endless stream of morons.

That's why I left those forums. I am only in 3SA now because of the spoiler goodies and the fact that bashers have a very difficult time doing their business before the facts are known. That will change when we get closer to May 2005.

 

IMHO, this really is the heart of the matter. Idiots can say almost anything they want in the TPM and AOTC forums and all we are allowed to do is stand there and smile. The idiots are protected.

If you mean the bashers. Well who said they had to like the movies. Also if some one is flaming, trolling, and or spamming you tell a mod they will take care of them bashers are not being protected. But if you don't let a mod know then what do you think they will do? They have lives of the forums and are not here 24/7. But if you PM them when they do log on they will take care of it.

 

Strype, brick alleged that a conversation needs to be had regarding how the Sanc is moderated. Sapient said that is a conversation for "members and moderators of that forum."

Oh -- right, yes, sorry, I know what you're talking about now.


But, since the suggested discussion would pertain to the Sanc, that again suggests that this whole claim that the Sanc and DF both were polarizing the forum was a just ploy to get the Sanc. closed.

I know.


"And to top it off, these people, for the most part, weren't even violating the TOS."

I know you were referring to people outside of the Sanctuaries, but that's not what I want to address here. It's the attitude. It's the, "well they weren't breaking the rules *that* bad" mentality. It's not just you that has it.

I didn't say they weren't breaking rules that badly, I said they weren't breaking the rules at all, they were being confrontation. The "for the most part" of my above quote meant a couple probably were breaking the TOS, and in my assessment they should be dealt with, but most people weren't breaking the TOS.

 

D_Z, you might want to reconsider that post, since it seems to be constituted entirely of flame-baiting other posters.

 

As I consider myself more of an "outsider" looking "in", I think I can offer a unique perspective. Take it or leave it.

In principle, I do not believe in "exclusive sanctuaries" in a social forum. If a thread exists, all members should be allowed to post in it - no matter what the viewpoint of the poster.

If a poster derails the discussion, unfairly offends others, or disrupts the order and well-being of an internet site, simply ban the offender. That's what the function is for: removing members from internet sites who present chaos instead of order.

It should not matter how many times an offender may have been banned either. If the mods felt it prudent in the first place to allow them back into the fold, then they should be allowed to post wherever or whenever they feel like doing so.

It's not rocket science.

If "exclusive sanctuary" participants are so adamant that their views are not appreciated or these participants happen to be too insecure to present their opinions in a true, open format, then perhaps they ought to reevaluate their line of thinking. The same goes in life; we are all accountable for what we say and do, and we are always evaluated and judged accordingly. Why should the Jedi Council be any different?

GoMer is absolutely right on this issue. Some of the best debates and discussions would occur within these supposed "sanctuaries" - if only the other viewpoint were allowed to participate. Instead, when someone tries to begin a debate topic outside these "exclusive sanctuaries", hoping to entice others with opposite opinions to a debate, it is nearly impossible to expect there to be full participation with the same vigor found in the sanctuaries - even if the thread presents the exact same topic presently being discussed in the "exclusive sanctuaries".

Amen.

 

Can't you see your own bias Quix? I never said my perogative was to spite you by closing the Sanctuary. You're psychoanalyzing me and putting words in my mouth. Oh wait, isn't that the same thing you've banned Go Mer for in the past? Post about the films Quix, not the people. You can't even abide by your own rules.

"How many times did you try to resolve this with me personally?"

I sent you a pm alerting you with the lack of fairness in your moderation. You never responded...until I posted in the Basher's Sanctuary that is. You saw fit to respond to me with a ban. You know and I know that is the real reason you banned me, and that is unacceptable. Cover and fluff it up as you will, but that is the real reason.

Mocking? My post was no more mocking than any of the other posts in the Sanctuary.

You banned me, because I criticised you. Both you and I know it. You let your human opinion get in the way of fair moderation. If you had any decency as a moderator who cared about the forums, you'd apologize and attempt to provide a more fair moderation style.

 

Oh...and yes....approaching with a fair and balanced perspective:

I have been caught unexpectedly to find that Quix certainly uses a slanted perspective to impose what should be neutral and fair message board moderation. Not having participated often in internet boards, I was unaware that such behavior was deemed appropriate in a publicly advertised social internet forum.

I am posting in all honesty.

 

So now this discussion has turned from questioning the validity of the TPMDF and the Sanctuary in the TPM forum to now questioning Quixotic Sith's abilities to be a fair moderator?