Mod Squad Update for week of August 11-18, 2004

intimating that you had access to MS or OFH data is against the rules and can, in fact, deliver you a banning.

If that's the case, there are plenty of people in this who deserve a banning.

I never remember any rule saying that you couldn't discuss hacked mod squad material. The only rule I remember is that you couldn't quote it, or link to it. I mentioned that in my mod squad update of 2/11 where I said This may be a reminder to some, and new news to others, but links to hacked threads or pages concerning the Mod Squad are a bannable offense. But maybe including refering to them a rule that has been instated since I left. And if that's the case, y'all really should have mentioned soemthing.

Regardless, from Turin's posts, it seems pretty obvious that he's a former mod. Threatening to ban because he won't tell you which mod seems silly and immature.

 

if i remember correctly, mods aren't allowed to call out people behind socks. in fact, if you know someone is a sock, you're not allowed to say who that person's 'real' name is without their permission.

I have not done so. I have simply asked him to identify himself.

also, references to hacked threads could be made, so long as they weren't directly quoted, and they weren't linked to. the idea behind that was that people shouldn't be punished for reading published hacked threads, because you don't have control over what happens off-boards. so long as they're not quoted and/or linked, and they're not the one hacking, it's a non-issue. or is that something that changed also?

Last I checked, paraphrasing discussions from a private board without having access to that board was covered as well. You can allude to it, but Turin's comments do far more than allude to comments. People have been banned for coming out and saying that they have access to MS information, as well as quoting, linking, or paraphrasing. If Turin was a mod at that time, then he should simply admit it. He has nothing to lose that way.

However, borderline trolling and flaming (which is what Turin is doing) is against the rules. Similarly, using a sock to troll or flame is against the rules as well. If he claims to have been in the MS at the time of the discussion, then he should just come out and identify himself, and not hide behind a sock. Using a sock to "call out" someone is trolling, plain and simple.

I am confident that he is misrepresenting the discussions to which he refers, and you can ask any mod out there to confirm that.

Kimball Kinnison

 

You can ask until you're blue in the face, but I've NEVER heard it being mandatory to answer, at risk of being banned.

On the other hand, socks have been banned for being strongly suspected to be the socks of indefinitely banned members. It's rare that such members openly acknowledge that they're indefinitely banned and coming back with a sock, and most of those who know our system take a few simple precautions that make it difficult for us to determine who they are. The easiest way to clear up cases like that is to just say who you are. Otherwise, there is a chance that we?ll decide that the name in question is a sock of an indefinitely banned member.



Here?s a question. Say that someone has violated the spirit of the rules in some way that isn?t precisely covered by policy, or in which policy is unclear ? when people who have been moderators for over a year disagree about what policy is or was then it?s not clear. What should be done? Should policy be amended after the fact if deemed necessary (i.e. well, you?re fine this time, but don?t do it again), should policy be amended in anticipation of the fact if deemed necessary (i.e. it wasn?t a rule before, but it is now, so we?re banning you)? Or is there another option?

 

On the other hand, socks have been banned for being strongly suspected to be the socks of indefinitely banned members. It's rare that such members openly acknowledge that they're indefinitely banned and coming back with a sock, and most of those who know our system take a few simple precautions that make it difficult for us to determine who they are. The easiest way to clear up cases like that is to just say who you are. Otherwise, there is a chance that we?ll decide that the name in question is a sock of an indefinitely banned member.


While people have been banned on the suspicion that they're banned members or whatnot, usually those bannings happened when there was some amount of proof as to who they were, as used through the admin tools (which I won't go into details of, but the mods know what it is). There were a few times when I suspected someone, but there wasn't any sort of proof, so the admins told me just to keep an eye on them, because nothing could be done at the moment.


Should policy be amended after the fact if deemed necessary (i.e. well, you?re fine this time, but don?t do it again), should policy be amended in anticipation of the fact if deemed necessary (i.e. it wasn?t a rule before, but it is now, so we?re banning you)? Or is there another option?

I'd go with the first. If it's not against the rules, but you want to make it against the rules, everyone who did it beforehand should be given a grace period, and the punishments from that policy shouldn't come into effect until after the policy is instated. To me, that's just the logical thing to do.

 

THREAD SUCCESSFULLY DERAILED.

I thought members were banned for intentionally taking threads off-topic?

Who TT is doesn't matter; No one cares anymore what is said or isn't said in the MS; Even darthyy (Two "y"'s or two "h"'s?) has got bored "hacking" it.

In conclusion: Get back in topic and stop avoiding the issues.

UKS

 

I'd go with the first. If it's not against the rules, but you want to make it against the rules, everyone who did it beforehand should be given a grace period, and the punishments from that policy shouldn't come into effect until after the policy is instated. To me, that's just the logical thing to do.

At the same time, all that does is encourage people to look for loopholes in the rules. As I have said repeatedly, this isn't a legal system. It is a private message board. We moderate, more than anything, by the spirit of the rules and the principles behind them.

Kimball Kinnison

 

We moderate, more than anything, by the spirit of the rules and the principles behind them.

But what defines the 'spirit' of the rules is so subjective. To me, not being able to refer to hacked threads at all seems to break the spirit of the rule which states that what happens off-board can't be punished here. I totally understand and agree with not being able to link or quote hacked threads, but keeping people from refering to them at all is extreme, IMO. If you look in the thread that was happened when the first hacked thread came out, it's specifically stated that you can't punish people for looking at the threads.

If you read the thread that I linked to earlier, there were PLENTY of people that knew what was going on with the mass-demotions, and refered to hacked threads, and nothing happened. So if you've pointedly NOT banned for it in the past, and then all of a sudden you start without any sort of grace period, that's totally inconsistant.

 

The topic as I see it is how the Mod Squad sets, implements and uses policy. That's the underlying issue here. When long-term moderators are disagreeing about what policy is and was, whether it?s in regard to unban requests or users using socks, there?s a problem. So, the question is what should be done when policy is unclear, how to clarify things, and how to keep things clear in the future. The other issues here in this thread stem from that core issue.

 

references to hacked threads have been around since the first group of hackings, which happened around september/october 2001. i do not remember a single instance, as either a regular user or a moderator, where a person was banned for referencing hacked threads. linking, yes. quoting usually got an edit and a warning. but i can't think of a single time that someone got banned, or even threatened with a ban, for bringing up the content of them, so long as it was done in a constructive matter.

seriously, sometimes i wonder if we're here just to give you guys something to moderate.

 

Ok, this is a bit lt:dr - if you want the brief version, then skip to the second last paragraph, but I urge you to read the whole thing.

From Raven's post

Here?s a question. Say that someone has violated the spirit of the rules in some way that isn?t precisely covered by policy, or in which policy is unclear ? when people who have been moderators for over a year disagree about what policy is or was then it?s not clear. What should be done? Should policy be amended after the fact if deemed necessary (i.e. well, you?re fine this time, but don?t do it again), should policy be amended in anticipation of the fact if deemed necessary (i.e. it wasn?t a rule before, but it is now, so we?re banning you)? Or is there another option?

I'd like to think that if we found a hole in our rules then we'd expand a rule, or create a new rule to cover it. Furthermore, if one of our case-by-case situations arises I think its ok to create a new rule, or expand an existing one to cover it. Its simple evolution of the message boards.

What I'm not too hot on is creating a rule, or publishing a rule after we've punished someone. Nor do I think its cool for a single person to create new rules on the spot. That really can't lead to good user-mod relationships.

So, on to the situation that TT appears to be referring to. (as a side note, I don't think his true identity is important here - he makes a few points I'd like to expand on).

I took the time to read through the MS, and also the old-unban-requests system to find out what everyone's been talking about.

rewind to a few months ago............

As far as I can see a user was banned for comments in Comms - the general concensus in the MS was that this ban was fair. However, the banned user felt differently and sent in numerous (but not that many, IMO) unban requests questioning the decision. I think thats fair - the banned have a right to question the decision, either via the unban system (preferred), or via PM.

The moderator in question gave their reasoning and said they had the backing of the MS and politely said this decision was not up for debate. The banned user continued to question the banning (I must state that he was getting a response from each unban request), at which point the moderator threatened to extend the ban if the banned user sent in another request.

The banned user was understandably unhappy at this threat and said so in a further unban request. At this point the moderator did not have the backing of the MS, and continued to increase the ban length with each unban request submitted.

After this happened a thread was started in the MS about the affair. While some (one I think) felt it was ok to increase ban length for what occured in the unban request system, the vast majority did not. This led to a quashing of the extended banning back to its original length. (the is a side story about posting with socks that I won't bother you with).

The drama appeared to be forgotton about, and things calmed down.

jump forward to last week..........

Another user is banned, and says a few choice things in an unban request. The moderator in question this time also increase the ban length. Again the ban was considered fair by the majority of the MS, however the decision to increase the ban was up for debate.

Like I've said before there was a split in the MS - some felt there was a rule that covered the unban system, while others (myself included, but I'm still a noob Mod) had never heard of it. So, we created an official rule to cover the unban system, and published it in the MS update.

So, the drama is:- was there a rule to cover the unban system that had been used previously ? Well, in my opinion, no there wasn't, because the decision with the previous user was quashed.

However, I am a noob Mod, and I could easily be missing something from the MS. I'm happy to retract anything if I'm wrong, or if I have misrepresented, or misunderstood.

 

Warning - flaming another user

 

i think what kyp is trying to say is that he's a 15-year old indian boy without the IP check tool, and he has a pretty good idea as to who turin is

 

What he is trying to say and actually typed are worlds apart.

 

Heres my take on the issue.

If the person did something in innocense which wasnt covernd by a rule: Warn him

If someone did something to annoy that wasnt coverd by a rule: Ban him

 

So, the drama is:- was there a rule to cover the unban system that had been used previously ? Well, in my opinion, no there wasn't, because the decision with the previous user was quashed.

However, you need to look back to the basis for that decision being quashed. It was not because it was against policy to extend the ban for the content of an unban request, but because most members of the MS did not agree that the situation constituted harrassment to the extent that increasing the ban length was appropriate.

If you read farther back in the MS (links are available in the recent thread on this topic), there are several cases where bans were clearly extended due to flaming in unban requests. The most recent case also involves flaming in unban requests, not harassment.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Update - I've read even further back into the depths of the MS and found at least 4 times where bans have been extended due to the content of banned users unban requests.

However, I think the most recent case was a far cry from previous occasions, which is why I'm happy that we've openly published the importance of being TOS-friendly in our unban requests.

So, to conclude, we have previously extended bans due to the content of unban requests, and in all of those cases there was very clear reasons that no-one can argue.

 

Edit: Nevermind.

 

Ugh, just when I thought I was out, etc...

A. You mods should know who Turin is. More than a few members without access to IP checks have figured it out.

B. There was a time when the administration would actually discuss private information when confronted with it rather than threatening to ban users for merely referencing it. Of course, there have been all sorts of references to private information already in this thread by myself, other former mods, and even current mods. You could argue that the MS Updates themselves are references to private information and thus a bannable offense, if that's the route you're taking.

C. Trying to dismiss the arguments he's making (when you should know full well who it is, it would be different if, as Raven suggested, it was a permbanned troll or something) with the sock argument is bad form. Kind of like trying to dismiss people's points by pointing out e-friendships. Why not argue the points he's making? And if you can't, why not admit that he's right? Isn't that what we want in Comms? Discussion and debate rather than ad hominem (yes, I can use that phrase too!) attacks? Or just from the regular members?

D. When did criticizing the administration become "borderline trolling and baiting" and a bannable offense?

Amazing.

 

Turin...
"That the notion of unban requests being subject to the TOS was discussed, and the notion of mods growing a thicker skin was certainly put forward. If you're choosing to ignore that discussion in favour of simply dismissing it as a personal issue, then that hardly amounts to you being honest to the members."

Well, "Misinformation Meter" nearly broke with that one. Not that it matters, but I think I have a good idea of who you are. And if so, then you ought to know that in the last year and ten months, at least, every single time where the idea of "growing a thicker skin" was put forward (and it's been raised quite a bit), it has never held up as being the final policy. Never.

The general conclusion from the highest levels has always been that no user - regular, mod, or otherwise - should be required to have to grow a thicker skin, and that violations (flaming, profanity, etc.) are violations (or rather, a "flame is a flame").

There's been numerous mods who do think that people ought to grow thicker skins (I happen to be one of them), but that has been nothing more than our personal opinion, and certainly has not ever been official policy except perhaps maybe in the frontier days of 98 to 01 or so.

 

So when someone says something in an unban request that a "thin skinned" mod gets upset about but a "thick skinned" mod doesn't because they're harder to offend, where is the consistency that this backwards rule is meant to invoke?

I find it disappointing as a member here that more or less the entire Communications forum is telling you guys that this is a bad policy and you plough ahead anyway. Has there been a single user who has suggested that this is a balanced, well-thought out and insightful policy designed to improve something about the unban system?

If this forum is meant as a simple one-way announcement forum where user opinions are no longer taken into consideration by the administration, I say delete it then start posting locked updates and policy announcements in the Announcements forum. That way nobody will see them and fewer will discuss them, lots more people will break the rules, they'll be pissed off and send in now mandatory first Unban Request to acknowledge their banning and probably flame you (quite rightly at times) then you guys can ramp up their bans until they're indefinate.

I mean come on, if you're going screw around with things without properly considering any dissenting opinions or undue consequences, you might as well go the whole hog here!

Edit: Without naming specific people, can we get a final figure from MS as to how many mods supported this policy and how many were against it please?

 

I find it disappointing as a member here that more or less the entire Communications forum is telling you guys that this is a bad policy and you plough ahead anyway. Has there been a single user who has suggested that this is a balanced, well-thought out and insightful policy designed to improve something about the unban system?

That's funny, from what I can see, most people in this thread (far from "the entire Communications forum") have said that it's a good policy that should have been implimented a long time ago. Most of the dispute over it has come from the past status of this policy, not the wisdom in applying it. For example, AmazingB (one of the most vocal critics of the policy) said this:

Of course they should. That's not the argument. Why is it that every mod who has posted in this thread is completely missing the entire point? Yes, by all means, extend bans when users break the rules in their unban requests. But don't announce it as policy only in an effort to justify a prior ban.

Or, there's the post from DLM:

If this MS wants to make this a new rule, I think that's wonderful. It's high time for it, and mods don't deserve to be flamed and harassed in unban requests just because they're doing their jobs. But would those involved with the banning in question please just admit they may have been mistaken? If there's anything I learned from Watergate and Monicagate and all the other -gates, it's that if one is open and gives an honest account of their view of the situation, problems are resolved far more quickly and peacefully than they are with an attempted cover-up.

Or YodaJeff:

I don't think that everyone is necessarily against it as a rule, but it'd be nice if everyone was informed when a new rule was created - before it was enforced. Multiple ex-moderators have stated that unban requests were never treated the same as posts, and you can add me to that list. If unban requests had been subject to the same rules as posting in the past, there'd be fewer people posting in this thread with a red username and red border. The complaints mostly aren't about treating unban requests the same as posts, they're about not being notified of the change.

Those are some of the most vocal people in this thread, all of whom questioned whether it was policy in the past but all of whom supported the idea going forward.

Other than Turin, you seem to be about the only person saying that the policy itself is a bad idea. That's hardly "the entire Communications forum."

Edit: Without naming specific people, can we get a final figure from MS as to how many mods supported this policy and how many were against it please?

As far as JC mods, the support was nearly unanimous. I count 15 JC mods and 1 FF GSA who participated in the discussion thread. Of them, the GSA objected to the idea that it had been policy in the past, and remained silent on the issue from there. Of the 15 JC mods, 10 agreed to the policy (as far as from now on), with 3 of the 10 disagreeing on whether it was past policy or not. The remaining 5 expressed no clear opinion on way or the other (or had comments unrelated to the unban policy).

Kimball Kinnison

 

I'm not sure which thread you're reading but after skimming through it again, most say that they agree the rules need standarising and that the administration has handled this in a totally half-arsed (< my own term) way....which for me is the sign of a user base who don't understand your rule or are afraid to say say so because they'll be banned for baiting, flaming, trolling, moderating a thread, harrassment, cattle rustling and jaywalking, then have the individual ban duration for each infraction tallied then doubled for posting something a banning mod took the wrong way in an Unban Request, then have that tallied duration divided by the number of good things they've done for the forums (or the banning mod in question) then a day added for every Unban Request they send after a moderator has cut them off from further discussion.

Now please don't ignore my question K_K.

"So when someone says something in an unban request that a "thin skinned" mod gets upset about but a "thick skinned" mod doesn't because they're harder to offend, where is the consistency that this backwards rule is meant to invoke?"

And since you're in the mood to spit hairs, my comment was:

"Has there been a single user who has suggested that this is a balanced, well-thought out and insightful policy designed to improve something about the unban system?"

And just to keep the quotes alive and finish on a personal high, I'd like to repost this delicisiou quote from you where you admit that the admin who banned me in April misbehaved but suffered no consequences for breaking the MS code of conduct:

"That decision was not reversed because the extensions themselves were considered inappropriate, but because of personal misbehavior on both sides."



Edit: Also, I'm looking at your figures there and it seems that something doesn't add up. You say that 16 people participated in the discussion but I just counted 44 active JC mods over here in the Informational Threads link. Plus one GSA. Which means that 16 out of 45 people who have a right to discuss it actually participated. Right?

 

Wow, this is getting ugly

Sounds like there are no leaders around here. Who's in charge?? It's like no one is driving the bus, and you're all blaming each other as the bus careens all over an open field that some of you insist is a clear roadway, despite clear evidence to the contrary.

Why don't you work out some very detailed and, by all means, reasonable rules we can all discuss here in Comms, somewhat like the "unwritten" thread. Then elect someone to be a Prime Moderator/Administrator who can prevent/mediate some of these disputes based on the new clear rules. Post them verbatim so everyone can see them. It's not that hard. But the catch is, you have to stop bickering and be leaders, give users the same benefit of the doubt you would want, open up the process to balance your biases, and honestly, check some of your own attitude problems at the login prompt.

This may be a "private" message system, but it is open to anyone in the world with a browser. Bans/unbans should be treated mechanically to prevent these obvious abuses, unless there is clear reason not to, like spambots or something. Some of the stress I'm reading over and over is that these disputes happen via PM, which leads to one emotionally involved person's word against another's, with no appeals process, so that should be more open. Some of you even sound as though you think you're the thought police or something. Geesh, get over yourselves.

Hash out a decently clear policy via public process. Implement it with strong leadership. Sit back and watch how easy it can be...

 

^ Someone promote that guy/girl

 

Hi again. Sorry for not having been around to post for the last few days due to my having been out trying to swing some swing states. It would have been doubly nerdy if I'd taken time out from my somewhat-nerdy political trip to post on my definitely-nerdy bulletin board. Anyway, to comment briefly:

Sounds like there are no leaders around here. Who's in charge?? It's like no one is driving the bus, and you're all blaming each other as the bus careens all over an open field that some of you insist is a clear roadway, despite clear evidence to the contrary.

It's a good analogy because it's true. How about we're all too busy fighting over relatively petty things in the back of the bus to notice the lack of a driver.

Here's a suggestion for moving forward. I admit I haven't been so nice in this thread, and a lot of us haven't, so how about we all admit we've been idiots in the past and then choose to move forward by codifying this thing properly?

KK quotes me up there, and yes, I do think it makes sense to give users a reason not to flame in unban requests. At least part of the reason I feel this way is I, like most people, don't enjoy being attacked for no reason, and it wasn't much fun when I looked at the unban requests addressed to me and saw people flaming me just because I did my job. I fully admit that's a selfish reason for mods to make a rule, but it is logically consistent to apply the TOS to unban requests, and I do think mods deserve a few rules to help preserve their sanity.

However. The making of sense alone is not enough to turn something into a rule. Get codifying on that rule, and also get codifying on rules about the professional standards moderators need to uphold when answering unban requests. I'm sure many of us will be happy to help the mods figure out what such a rule should cover, if our help is requested.