Mod Squad Update for the week of April 2-8

I said I wasn't going to do that. I figured someone else would, so I'm trying to set a precedent that such a statement would be silly.

 

As stated before I felt the only thing wrong with the thread was that in fact it was posted in Comms. I stand by that.

I just feel the banning of some of those involved was a bit harsh. Some of those posting in that thread could have had the benefit of the doubt given them and warned rather than banned. Droideka is one of 2 that I feel this way about.

 

OK but see... if I were to say "I am not going to take the low road and say General Kenobi is an idiot." That would be making that statement and a Mod would ban me for flaming. No?

 

Some of those posting in that thread could have had the benefit of the doubt given them and warned rather than banned. Droideka is one of 2 that I feel this way about.

Well, I can understand that, and I might have handled it differently if it were up to me. But, this was a collective decision by many, and not just one moderator's decision.

 

First, mine wasn't nearly a flame. Second, if people would just stop scratching the surface, and stop thinking we're just trying to flame people, someone might realize that there are sarcastic comments made, that aren't "serious".

 

But the point is Comms is not the place for such sarcasm. There is a time and a place for it. And I was not trying to point out that you were flaming by making that "I'm not gonna take the low road..." statement. I was trying to prove that you basically MADE your low road statement yet made it seem like you were being all high road when you really weren't.

 

However you wish to think of it.

The thread probably wasn't appropriate for Comms. But were bannings appropriate (and in the denominations they were handed out) in this situation for everybody? Definetly not.

 

Well, I can understand that, and I might have handled it differently if it were up to me. But, this was a collective decision by many, and not just one moderator's decision.


With that being said, it is beyond me that even with a concensus made by mods that the decision to ban first instead of warning the 2 individuals I bring up prevailed. I would have thought perhaps to error on the side of caution would have been a better judgement call. A warning would have done the job concerning these 2 individuals.

 

Like Xie said, the thread probably didn't belong in Comms, but it certainly didn't warrant bannings, especially in the amount they were handed out to everyone.

 

I'm staying out of this, but I wanted to say congrats to Sapient and good luck!

Jae Angel

 

congrats to sapient on baby #2.

regarding the 'infamous' thread: i think that considering the new comms guidelines, taking action was justified, however it was a bit harsh in some cases. and speaking as a former DB member, i know for a fact that certain mods have it in for base members. guilt by association is not cool. trace didn't deserve to be banned and de-VIPed.

yes, the thread violated the new comms guidelines. yes, taking action for that reason alone was justified. yes, DB members are sometimes treated more harshly. and yes, some of the action taken was a bit extreme. also, i think talking about things that go on in aim chats, regardless of what it was (i wasn't there, so i don't know), should have no place in moderator actions. even if you "know what goes on", you should ignore it, because the only thing that matters is what happens here at the jc.



...just my 2 cents. *shrug*

 

The only person who was de-VIP'd was foxbat, and that was only because one has to be demoted in order to be banned. Once he was unbanned, his VIP status was reinstated.

 

I would like to share a story with the rest of the class.

A long time ago, in a JC forum not too far away, there was a thread. In this thread, many members of a so-called "Drama Club" posted material that was deemed to be "coordinated trolling" by the administration, and everyone assosciated with this "Drama Club" who had posted in the thread was banned - even the people who had meant nothing bad by their posts.

I share this story for two reasons: 1) There is a person in this thread who should remember that incident before s/he rushes to condem the people who posted in the Comms thread in question; and 2) I enjoy reminiscing.

 

being de-VIPed was a technicality. My issue was with the banning itself.

 

Best way to avoid having issues with your punishment:

Dont do anything that will result in you getting punished.

Once you start breaking rules, you (and your friends/character references) have no right to start telling people what punishment you deserve.

 

First off, I'd like to thanks everyone who showed support for me.

Ok. I was banned for 48 hours. You know what, I was pretty upset about it and I felt it was mostly undeserved, but I decided it wasn't worth it to make a huge deal about it. I was actually mostly just concerned about my standings in my FF and in the Lightside, but fortunately, the people I am involved with in those two groups was understanding and nothing bad resulted because of my ban. Because of that, I decided just to wait out my ban, and resume as normal when it was over.

People were in a chatroom making plans to get out there and bait and flame other members. They then took it into Communications, and made a thread with said baits and flames.

I posted in that thread, in a silly joking manner. I don't even think my coments were really flames, even but I see how they could be seen as such.

I understand that you decided to ban everyone involved and couldn't (or wouldn't) make a special exception for me, even though I have never ever been warned.

I do think that we were treated in a biased manner. The fact is that yes, there are a number of posters in the DB that are problem makers. But there are also a lot of good posters, and it's unfair to treat the good posters the same way posters have been banned multiple times. I honestly feel that if the thread had been started by a non-DB memebr and posted in my non-DB members, hardly anything would have happened. This is because some mods assume that simply because we are DBers that every post we write is written with cruel intent and some hidden flame. Which, frankly, isn't true.

 

Coordinated trolling

Some may call that cute little April Fool's Joke the mods played on all of us the same thing.

 

droideka really echoes my sentiments exactly.

 

There are a lot of moderators like myself who don't even know who's a Base member, or ever take that into account.

I'm one of these. I have no idea who is a DB member. I just found out the DB even existed about two months ago. I have no idea who any of the members are, and I don't care to know.

 

I don't believe that DB members are treated any differently than other users here that may cause problems. The rules about how Comms would be moderated were implemented weeks ago. Everyone knew the forum would be regulated more strictly from then on.

The fact is that whether or not a poster intends his/her post to be a flame, it's up to the administrators to make that call. If someone happens to post in the middle of a flame or pseudo-flame fest among others who have histories of bans, then that person runs the risk of being banned as well - with or without a warning.

I believe warnings are preferable before a ban, especially for users that don't have a "problem" history. However, in Comms specifically, because of the desire to make it a more productive disussion area, the rules about bannings will be taken more seriously - and they should.

Sapient - congrats on the new baby!

 

I'm one of those mods that wouldn't know what groups different members belonged to unless told. Basically, I have no idea who is a DB'er and who isn't.

Kithera

 

If I may interject and play Devil's advocate for a moment...

It's all fine and dandy for people like Kit, dehrian, KW and the like to say they don't hold grudges against the DB - or even know who belongs to the DB. That's great; I really think it's wonderful that the few mods who have posted in this thread do not play the Bias game (and I mean no sarcasm when I say this).

However, it only takes one mod to ban someone. Therefor, it only takes one mod with a grudge to cause a situation like this. Now, I don't know if this was a group descision, or if it was one person's call; all I'm saying is that even if the majority of moderators are totally unbiased, when all is said and done, it only takes one.

And that rhymes, so it must be true.

 

I'm another like that. I know a few names, but just a few. Other than that, I'm clueless to who belongs to what group and where that group is. Nor do I really care as it is offboard and not the JC. More than once I've found out someone posted at the DB only because they TOLD me and complained the punishment they received had to do with being a member of that board. Never has that been the case as I wasn't even aware of the fact until they brought it up.

 

Hmmm. Usually I stay out of this kind of stuff because well, there is enough drama in everyday life. I post what I post and if I cross a boundry, whatever.

That said, the mass bannings for one of the more creative posts that has been on the JC for a while is appalling. Perhaps Comms wasn't the best forum for such post, but besides that, what was the harm. Veiled criticism in the form of sarcasm does not equate to veiled flaming. Much harsher assessments of people's posting patterns are made in the JC with little to no repercussions. Also, if a poster can't take a little criticism of their posting style, then that person needs a thicker skin. Banning flaming of a person themself is understandable, but outlawing playful mocking of the way one writes on a message board is dubious. Yes, some have argued that the "Seinfeldization" of society has allowed sarcasm to dilute human relations, but come on, a little dry wit every so often lightens up this place.

I also have a problem with the accusations of coordinate trolling. For one, it seems problematic that what is done outside the JC can have repurcussions within the JC. Second, your implication that partaking in a thread started or populated by your so called "problem users" is prima facie evidence of coordinated trolling sets a dangerous precedent. I know this is a private forum and thus freedom of speech is not absolute, but policies like that can chill the interesting and witty posts that make a message board a place worth visiting.

I only joined the DB a few months ago, but in that time I have noticed that a few (not all, but enough) mods certainly do seem to have a quicker trigger finger when it comes to DB members. Lighten up, at the end of the day this is a Star Wars messageboard.

ps: Sapient, congrats on the baby!

 

Griff, there were about 12 mods involved in the discussion. Once the discussion took place, a list of punishments was made, and 9 mods agreed to it...none disagreed.

Only after that, were the punishments handed out.

It was anything other than one rogue mod with a grudge to bear.

droideka:
But there are also a lot of good posters, and it's unfair to treat the good posters the same way posters have been banned multiple times

Well, you werent treated the same way. You were given different ban lengths. This statement doesnt really hold up. Unless you think that you should be able to partake in trolling, and get off with no real punishment?

I honestly feel that if the thread had been started by a non-DB memebr and posted in my non-DB members, hardly anything would have happened. This is because some mods assume that simply because we are DBers that every post we write is written with cruel intent and some hidden flame. Which, frankly, isn't true.

Yadda yadda yadda. This isnt the world against the DB. Its premeditated, coordinated trolling. You took part in it. You got punished. Deal with it.

Dont break the rules, and you wont have a problem, DB or no DB.

Ric:
I only joined the DB a few months ago, but in that time I have noticed that a few (not all, but enough) mods certainly do seem to have a quicker trigger finger when it comes to DB members.

Have you made a proper comparison on this matter? Do you know about what these mods are like with dealing with non-DBers?

Seems to me that you hear complaints about mod-bias, and if you hear enough, you'll believe it.

But to show a mod-bias, you'll have to show that given the same circumstances, these mods would do something differently for non-DBers.

Until then, its just a load of paranoid claptrap.