Mod Squad Update for the week of April 2-8

I didn't take that into account. I just looked at what was posted in the thread here.


I think that's exactly the way it should be done.

 

1)I think Mods should be held to a higher standard because they directly represent TFN.

Jumping in with a comment on this...

During the past two weeks or so when I have (perhaps incorrectly, I realize that) felt like I was being unfairly watched for some reason and was trying to figure out what I had done to piss off so many mods, I did take the time to go back and re-read the City Rep Code of Conduct to see if there was anything in it that would warrant more scrutiny of my posts...and guess what...there is. Because I represent my chapter in the FanForce, I am held to a higher standard, at least to a certain extent.

I can only speak for city reps here, but I would certainly think the case would be the same for moderators, managers, and administrators, since they do represent the JC as a whole.

On the issue at hand...

It quite frankly makes me very nervous to think that my AIM chats or my posts on other message boards could be used against me at any time here, because, like Breezy (my West Coast half ) said, I often go other places to rant if something here has pissed me off. And my AIM chats are between me and my friends and I would rather that no one else have access to them without my knowledge and consent.

Anyway...Kadue, if you're out there and not studying...I'm about to go re-read your last post on this. I definitely think that what needs to happen is that a definite guideline needs to be set here and it needs to be consistently followed by all the mods.

 

"I often go other places to rant if something here has pissed me off. And my AIM chats are between me and my friends and I would rather that no one else have access to them without my knowledge and consent."

The way I see it, off-board rantings shouldn't be taken into account. The only time that things should be taken into account is when they carry over to the JC. Even then, the focus should be placed on the events that happen at the JC, and not on what happened off-site.

Edit: Spelling

 

"The way I see it, off-board rantings shouldn't be taken into account. The only time that things should be taken into account is when they carry over to the JC. Even then, the focus should be placed on the events that happen at the JC, and not on what happend off-site."

While I see your logic, YJ, something like that could potentially lead to an admin banning the user who made said rant, in a pre-emptive act to stop the post from being made. If off site content is to be used to justify a ban, it should only be used after the activity which warrants a ban. Even then, IMO, using off board material to justify a ban is too risky. Words and intentions could be easily twisted around to mean something other than what the author intended. The situation could be made all the worse if the admin does have some kind of grudge against the user and then makes it into an admin's word versus the user's word issue.

 

"While I see your logic, YJ, something like that could potentially lead to an admin banning the user who made said rant, in a pre-emptive act to stop the post from being made."

I don't think off-site information should be used pre-emptively. If anything, a note could be made about it in the MS, saying that "rumor has it that UserX will commit whatever act sometime later tonight, so keep an eye on him".

"If off site content is to be used to justify a ban, it should only be used after the activity which warrants a ban."

Agreed.

"Even then, IMO, using off board material to justify a ban is too risky."

That's why the primary focus should be on what happened here, and not what happened off-site. The off-site material shouldn't justify the ban, what happened here should do that. I'm not entirely opposed to extending a ban if we find out that it was premeditated, but it depends on the situation.

 

I think preemptive bannings are a bad idea. 'Cause the next thing you know, Tom Cruise would be running around the JC with his eyeballs in a plastic bag, and that would be a bad thing.

 

boooo! *throws popcorn at sparky*

 

"That's why the primary focus should be on what happened here, and not what happened off-site. The off-site material shouldn't justify the ban, what happened here should do that. I'm not entirely opposed to extending a ban if we find out that it was premeditated, but it depends on the situation."

Yes, I am well aware of what you speak of YJ, but my point was that such a rule could potentially lead to abuses such as pre-emptive bans. IMO, the temptation may be too great for some to handle and they could hand out a pre-emptive ban based on something they saw off site, which is why, when justifing a ban; off site material should be off limits period.

 

I agree that preemptive bannings are a horrible idea, but Jeff brings up a valid point. Should evidence be allowed when it's clear that planning was involved?

Well, to me, it would seem the ban should only be enforced for whatever the wrongdoing was on the JC. Why would it matter if someone planned it or not? The effect of the post on the JC would still be the same, would it not? I don't see why it would matter if something was planned. Because, after all, isn't every post you make "planned?" You don't have to hit that post button until you're completely satisfied with what you've written. And if you mean a "coordinated planning," that would get even tricker considering that peoples intentions can me mistrued when you don't have all the evidence.

Even if there is some kind of evidence, to use it just opens up such an ugly world of possibilities that I think wouldn't be worth the trouble of going through to extend a punishment.

 

That's a good point.

 

boooo! *throws popcorn at sparky*

What? WHAT?

 

If off site content is to be used to justify a ban, it should only be used after the activity which warrants a ban.

I may have missed a few posts, but did anyone ever suggest differently? From Kadue's post earlier, I don't think anyone could construe it to approve the use of pre-emptive bans based on heresay or off-board evidence. The only time the off-site material should even be considered as a factor is in the length of the ban if at all.

 

My point is that I feel the temptation could be too great for some and that off site content may be used to justify a pre-emptive ban on someone before they've done anything which would warrant a ban.

 

There are a lot of possible temptations as a moderator. There's the temptation to randomly ban an innocent user, among others. However, I would hope that everyone who is picked to be a moderator is able to avoid the temptations. I know that I personally would be against any sort of "pre-emptive" banning based on off-site information. I know that a lot of things said or joked about off-site never happen, so I don't think we should ban someone for something that hasn't happened yet.

 

Damn it that's it, with all apologies to the AOTC forum we're stealing your mod.

Thank you YJ for willing to post here and respond intelligently and without rancor.

So you have a twin brother? Maybe 10 or 12 of them? Sisters wouldn't be a problem either... have you thought of cloning?

I would hope YJ that your expressed opinions are the ones the MS will moderate according to for even the ones I would tend to disagree with seem well thought out.

In conclusion, may I have your babies?

 

In conclusion, may I have your babies?

Gaahh, even more drama and scandal, I shudder to think of the outcome.

 

Isn't that just like farraday -- always kissing up to the administration.

As far as being tempted to ban "innocent" users, I can certainly understand. I'd ban Darth_OlsenTwins right now were I a mod. Oh, wait I can do that elsewhere. brb.

 

Bah, you go away for the weekend and Jeff starts getting delusions of granduer.

Jeff's managed to channel a lot of what I was going to say.

Pre-emptiveness: There is a single instance in which I can see, and would even allow this to even be considered, and that is during "board-invasion" periods.

Some people might remember the time that stupidity reigned supreme for a short while with some users here and at the IGN boards a long time ago, and there was a mass spamming attack between both forums. Only after something like that has started, and people are telling us the names they are using to spam will it be considered to try and stop it (along with bannings on the same side of the fence for such users).

Pre-emptive bannings are basically never going to happen (barring the situation above). If it is attempted, it would definitely end up on my desk and the entire situation would be looked at.

Snowballing: PiaS, this could possibly ease that fear. Of the 5 that I said I recall, 3 happened within the first 5 months of me being a mod, the next came mid last year, and then now. I've been a mod on just shy of 2 years, so if anything it's becoming rarer.

Also, on the point you made in response to my post, on those instances where this is an issue, it is a small part of the decision, so none of that should ever happen.


strilo, farraday, neither of you are mods, so you don't get the right to tell someone that they can't post anywhere. This is a warning to the both of you, and everyone else that you stick to the thread at hand, and add constructively, or you don't at all.


Griff, on the dedicated mod, there are some logistical (not the best word, but if I think of something more fitting, I'll let you know) issues that come with that.

Also, this time around we were doubly caught out with Sape being off for his reasons, and this being one of the very few times a year when I will be caught up enough to have to put the JC behind other concerns. Something like this could have happened even with a dedicated moderator.

 

Okay, thanks Kadue. Although now I'm really curious about what these "logistical issues" could be.

 

Yes, but adding another mod or two could reduce the probability of that happening. Or maybe just give a current mod who already posts alot in Communications that job.


EDIT: My grammar sucks.

 

I assumed that he meant that there wasn't enough seat time on the TFN private jet to bring on another mod, what with the AC beng allowed to fly standby now.

 

Indeed. Having a dedicated mod wouldn't mean Kadue and Sape can't answer questions in here - it just means they (and the other mods, too) wouldn't have to actually moderate in here as much.

 

Yes, but adding another mod or two could reduce the probability of that happening. Or maybe just give a current mod who already posts alot in Communications that job.

Hmm, not a bad idea, but aren't there already tons of Moderators in this forum to do so?

 

The more moderators you have in one forum, the higher the likelihood is of inconsistances in the moderation process. One moderator, by definition, cannot be inconsistant. (Unless they have multiple personalities.....)

Also, you can say that all the mods are responsible for Communications, but the problem with that is: a) some mods choose not to venture into Communications; and b) Communications is not their primary focus.

 

Alright everyone, I'm back. In all my time on the boards, I've left for two weeks. One was for vacation last year to Myrtle Beach and the second was last week for the birth of my daughter. I'm back to work and here full time again.

Here's how I look at Comms. Every mod has a minimum responsibility to check in daily to this forum and to reply and help as necessary any issue pertaining to their focus forum. I don't expect every mod to respond, however, in a general type of thread about such things as timeout errors.

I feel that overall, Kadue and I maintain this forum and have a responsibility to help in all threads in here. This doesn't mean any mod can't lock a thread in here once it has been answered. The only two mods always dedicated to this forum are me and Kadue. We have other focus forums we help to moderate, but this is also one of them.