MS Update Mod Squad Update: Week Ending 6/16/04

First things first. Dana, I don't mean to be rude at all so please don't feel offended, but you are a new moderator and KW is someone who had plenty of experience moderating before you came along (as am I). Ergo, you should give his opinion at least a bit of consideration before casting it aside and trying to agree with the ownership/TOS as much as you possibly can. Yes, it is true that part of the reason I'm defending KW is I'm madly in e-love with him, as you can see from the permanent place he has in my signature. But it's also true that part of my reason for agreeing with him is he's right. You'll learn in time that it is not your job as a moderator to agree with the powers that be 100% of the time. Your job is to be a reformer. Enforce the rules that work, but fight to change the ones that don't work. For example, if you share in my opinion that homophobia and bias against gays is lame, you don't have to fear saying either in Communications or in the MS that you'd like to see the ban on slash repealed.

Also, you don't have to be defensive in replying to the remarks users make. The Communications forum is here for interaction between the users and the moderators, and it's important not to shoot down all the suggestions users bring in. It's also important for PR that moderators be as polite and decent as they can, even though you're quite right that sadly, there are users out there who hate mods for no reason other than the fact that they're mods and are going to treat you badly. There isn't much that can be done about it, I'm afraid. Sacrificing your own pride is something that has to be done if you want to support the JC as a moderator.

No, it's not the end-all. I never said it was. Naturally, it's going to be open to some interpretation. Perhaps it needs to be revised, I don't know. That's up to people with a higher rank than mine. I'm just here to keep the peace to the best of my ability.

I don't think the issue is revision of the TOS. The point is, the TOS is only a loose guideline to moderating. The reason we have human moderators instead of an automatic censor is human judgement is needed to determine the appropriate reaction to a given situation. The user's intent is important, for example. Sometimes it will be clear a user is breaking the rules in spirit, even if they're exploiting a loophole such that they're still following the letter of the law, and I would say it's a mod's place to step in there. Also, it's sometimes acceptable to be lenient when it comes to enforcement of the TOS. I can tell you that aside from game bans, I banned maybe an average of two people a month during my time as a moderator because I learned that it's frequently possible to get users to change their behavior when you talk to them first, before pulling out the ban stick.

No, they certainly aren't the only ones with good ideas and valid points. I just don't see what good attacking the moderators is. What's the point of accusing the mods as a whole? That's overgeneralisation, and it's not fair to those of us who should not be held accountable for any past crimes former and/or current moderators may have commited.

It is definitely overgeneralization. This crazy farraday character is given to such devices now and then. He serves an important purpose in this community, though. As that sexy Kyp Durron would put it, farraday is the blister that reminds you your shoes don't fit.

I'm so complimentary. Sometimes I amaze myself.

I don't recall the owners writing the TOS.

*takes advantage of the nice set-up* That's because the earliest versions of the TOS were written by moderators such as Vertical, IronParrot, Darth Sebious, and myself, and has subsequently been maintained and updated only by moderators, not by the site owners!

Edit: Silly Bethy still doesn't remember to use snowball markups rather than HTML when typing up posts.

 

Exactly DLM.

The Oweners did approve of the TOS, and rightfulyl so since it does affect them, however since it was created by mods to put into words, as it were, the general guidelines the owners expected enforce, there is absolutely no reason why we can't change it.

In my experience, the owners only care about the boards as far as it pertains to us doing as they say. The actual tasks of moderating it is possible they might be able to care less about, although I find that unlikely.

As Such, appealing to the fact it's the owners pigpen or house or shmorgasboard or whatever is almost completely irrelevant.

 

Alright listen.

This is the way it should be.

The TOS should define the responsibilities of the users, the role of the mods, and the authority of the owners.

That's it. It should not for (your ad here)'s sake go into what the specific rules are. The rules are part subjective part tradition part circumstance and there's no way in hell you can put them in the TOS without making Shar Kida complain about length.

1. Owners The owners created this site and can set whatever rules or standards they wish.

2. The mods Generally define and enforce whatever standards, and on rare occasions the rules, the owners deem neccesary.

3. Users agree to abide by those rules.


As far a sI'm concerned that's about as much as needs to be covered. You can add fancy language and links and point out some of the non obvious stuff, but for TERMS OF SERVICE that's what you need in there.

The rules of conduct part of it should be completely removed and made into a thread that can explain the damn things without turning it into completely worthless phrases that rely entirely on perspective.

So yeah, I'm willing to work on it, but lets get the focus back on what the rules are instead of how an instance can be gerrymandered back into a violation of some word in the TOS.

 

instead of how an instance can be gerrymandered back into a violation of some word in the TOS.

I have observed many times that the TOS is "reshaped" to suit a particular disagreement the administration has from time to time with regular users and more commonly ex-administration.

 

"As Such, appealing to the fact it's the owners pigpen or house or shmorgasboard or whatever is almost completely irrelevant."

"almost", in that unless you get them to agree, this whole debate is irrelevant.

"I have observed many times that the TOS is "reshaped" to suit a particular disagreement the administration has from time to time with regular users and more commonly ex-administration."

Welcome to life, kid. No law can cover every infraction. This is why the Constitution allows for amendments. Again, someone will have to convince Josh that the TOS needs amending. For all the talk about how the owners don't care about these boards, it would appear that, from that point of view, such change would be impossible. Otherwise, that "viewpoint" would be wrong....wouldn't it?

 

MeBe Josh didn't write the TOS and as long as a new version was intended to insure roughly the same standard of 'family friendly' applied, I don't think he'd give a rats arse if we included a line saying 'all posters agree Han and Leia are, like, the coolest couple evar!'

That may be an over exaggeration, but from everything I've seen, not by bloody much.

I genuinely doubt he's looking to the TOS for legal protection in case some user trips in 3SA and gets third degree burns from a flame war.

 

If the Constitution was perfect and without interpretation, we wouldn't have court cases and need several different judes on the court to decide a case. The TOS is a guideline and, as with the laws of any country, we interpret it to the best of our ability to keep the boards functioning. Never have I deliberately taken something from the TOS to fit an incident as was the accusation above.

But as long as there's unique cases making the mods have to analyze things on a case-by-case basis, there will inevitably be inconsistencies and interpretation. Our goal is to maximize consistency and minimize interpretation. New mods, new users, new cases add to the perpetual dynamics that will continue to keep things in a state of reestablishing interpretation, norms, and decisions.

 

Our goal is to maximize consistency and minimize interpretation

What do you have in place to help this improve going forward?

 

Nothing formal and we never have. The best we can do as mods is to bring up as much as we can as a group so that all sorts of backgrounds, ideas, and minds are looking at it and to make a decision.

But there's no sort of plan that says if Thread A/4 in the JCC forum is started and X-87/T precedent has been established last year, then do action B only on Thursdays if Course B hasn't been taken.

The best we can do is talk it out a lot and try to help new mods along as much as we can.

 

What do you have in place to help this improve going forward?

A forum called "Communications" where users post highlighting minor inconsistencies and even the smallest misinterpretations.

 

Perhaps that is true Sape, but the constitution also does pretty much nothing except establish the form of government.

The average person has really need to worry about violating the main part of the constitution because they'll never have a chance. Only when we start getting into the bill of rights does the constitution start addressing average people.

We don't have a bill of rights here though. What you guys have been doing is trying to encode all of federal law into the constitution. But since you can't do that, you've settled on suing vague phrases that kinda tell people what to do, as long as they know exactly what those words mean to each mod.

As I said the correct way to do it is to have "users must follow the rules" or somesuch in the TOS, and then in the rules in a conviently linked thread, you go into the detail neccesary to understand them, rather then expecting users to understand "as a general guidline users should respect each others opinion" "if you piss people off we'll ban you".

What is so wrong with that? Is it because it would require not only hard work, but lots of cooperation inside the entire MS? That you don't want to correct the other mods? That you'd have to have a wide ranging policy discussion with the users and each other rather then arguing about who has acess now and that jerk farraday in Comm who keeps yelling at you to do your jobs?

 

Now you know I always thought you were cool, farraday. I miss the blue and white.

Part of the problem is and will always be that not every mod is active in Comms and sometimes not active in the Mod Squad. But they're excellent mods in their respective forums. It's a Catch-22.

 

"Perhaps that is true Sape, but the constitution also does pretty much nothing except establish the form of government."

Yes, but this is just a Star Wars website. While I do understand your concerns, and am not trying to make light of your intent, it seems like mountains out of molehills in this context.

Besides, I've yet to see an explanation of how a TOS that states the 3 lines you would put in it would in any way prevent the mod abuses you've also brought up. It would appear that the onus is still on the posters.

 

I realize some mods don't see the need or don't want to go through the hassle, and yes in some cases these are good mods, but as they are mostly just enforcing the rules I don't see how making the rules easier to understand for both mods and members could possibly hurt them.

Yes, but this is just a Star Wars website. While I do understand your concerns, and am not trying to make light of your intent, it seems like mountains out of molehills in this context.

I worked at a kiosk in the mall and alphabatized the entire back log of clanders we sold because it would make things easier, even if only for a month until the kiosk closed.
If you're looking for someone to sympathise with the line of thought "it isn't really important, so there's no point in doing it right" you'll have to try elsewhere.

Besides, I've yet to see an explanation of how a TOS that states the 3 lines you would put in it would in any way prevent the mod abuses you've also brought up. It would appear that the onus is still on the posters.

What you're missing is that the problems with the current TOS don't stem from having mods and users, they stem from trying to simplify the rules into trite phrases that have lost almost all meaning.

 

Sapes,

Your first response..

"Nothing formal and we never have. The best we can do as mods is to bring up as much as we can as a group"

then a few posts later...
"not every mod is active in Comms and sometimes not active in the Mod Squad."

Could this be where the inconsistent enforcement most likely comes from?

 

That is precisely where the inconsistencies come from, or at least over 90% of it. The rest is from turnover and new mod additions. The more time we're all together, the better the odds we become more predictable and the decisions are more consistent.

 

Yes but you can't issue stop loss orders.

Can someone explain to me what the problems are with the system I'm suggesting and how they're too bad to even contemplate against the well known problems of the current system?

 

You're talking about the post at the top of the page, right? That's essentially what we do. But can it really be that general? I ask because think of all we have to answer now when we do have some sort of rules. If we were left to complete interpretation, would we be adding to the notion that we can do whatever we want? It would almost leave too much up to interpretation instead of a little bit here and there the way it is now.

 

No sape, because you won't be enforcing the TOs except in some vague way. The TOs will in effect say that users have to follow the rules, without specifying any rules or standards of posting. Those will come in a thread that the TOS links to. Since the actual rules will be encoded and expanded upon in that thread, that is what will be refered to when taking mod action. the parts of the TOS that are used to justify things are the parts that should be removed, expanded upon, and then put into the thread.

 

I think I see what you're saying, but enforcing that sounds difficult in practice.

 

Could you explain why?

Basically I'm suggesting we remove the "rules" from the TOS and put them in a thread where they can be added to and editted with much less hubaloo then trying to get so much as one word editted out of the TOS.

(How long did it take to convince you guys to take out the "without reason" out of the TOS?)

The actual basic responsibilities and rights(none ) and jobs of the mods members and owners simply do not change. Lets encode that in the TOS and put all the stuff that changes, the perceptions and malliable rulings, into a thread where we can constantly work on them rather then enshrining them under a big "Do not touch" sign.

 

"If you're looking for someone to sympathise with the line of thought "it isn't really important, so there's no point in doing it right" you'll have to try elsewhere."

I hardly need anyone to agree with me to validate my own opinion. You, yourself, claim to be the only one bringing up this very issue, and yet you've not left either. Seeing as how we now appear to be equal in that regard, I guess I'll follow your example and stick around as well.

"What you're missing is that the problems with the current TOS don't stem from having mods and users, they stem from trying to simplify the rules into trite phrases that have lost almost all meaning."

Soooo, rather than making mods jump through linguistic hoops to ban someone, you propose introducing these rules to make it "easier" to ban someone? I'm sorry, I thought we were tyring to tighten the mod reins, not loosen them.

"Can someone explain to me what the problems are with the system I'm suggesting and how they're too bad to even contemplate against the well known problems of the current system?"

I believe it had something to do with changing the owner's minds. Any ideas on how you might convince them to do things your way? What has worked in the past?

 

But that wouldn't necessarily make Comms pointless and it wouldn't always give us what we need to cite in order to satisfy the person posing the question. I'm open to any ideas, including this one. I just need to challenge and understand it, that's all.

What this reminds me of is when Anakin says we just need to get a bunch of people together, make a decision, and just do it. Then Padmé says that's when we're trying but not everyone always agrees.

 

The actual basic responsibilities and rights(none tongue ) and jobs of the mods members and owners simply do not change. Lets encode that in the TOS and put all the stuff that changes, the perceptions and malliable rulings, into a thread where we can constantly work on them rather then enshrining them under a big "Do not touch" sign.

But, the job of moderators does not belong in the Terms of Service.

The TOS is a statement outlining under what terms the user is allowed to have access to the services provided by this message board. That is it. All of that is summed up in the actual Terms of Service by saying

User acknowledges and agrees that the use of the Jedi Council Forums is a privilege, not a right, and that the administration of the Jedi Council has the right, at its sole discretion, to revoke this privilege at any time without notice should the administration deem it necessary. User agrees that this Agreement in its entirety applies to both public and private messages.

The Rules of Conduct are guidelines to outline what is expected of users, but it does so only in general ways (baiting, harrassing, etc).

The TOS does not place any limits on the authority of moderators or the owners. It's not there to outline their responsibilities, because it is there for the users. It's not there to be informative (i.e. outlineing responsibilities). That's why the ROC refers people to the Informational Threads and Welcome forums.

In other words, it already does most of what you want it to do. It just doesn't use the language you want.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Soooo, rather than making mods jump through linguistic hoops to ban someone, you propose introducing these rules to make it "easier" to ban someone? I'm sorry, I thought we were tyring to tighten the mod reins, not loosen them.

As Genghis has demonstrated mods have no problems jumping through linguistic hoops. The point isn't to make it easy or hard or requiring the horn of chyren which you can only get from the safty deposit box of Grezlik'tor, it putting everyone on the same playign field as far as understanding the rules. Right now it's based almost entirely on a mods subjective view of what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

I believe it had something to do with changing the owner's minds. Any ideas on how you might convince them to do things your way? What has worked in the past?

It has nothing to do with the owners since they couldn't care less how the rules are enforced as long as this is kept 'family friendly' and we say 'how high' on the occasion they stop by and say 'jump'.


But that wouldn't necessarily make Comms pointless and it wouldn't always give us what we need to cite in order to satisfy the person posing the question. I'm open to any ideas, including this one. I just need to challenge and understand it, that's all.

I would never suggest trying to make comes pointless... I need a soap box!

Furthermore, it would depend on how the rules were written. we can't provide explicit examples for every case but we can provide an archive of, as it were, case law and written guidlines that would help explain what is acceptable and point to what the result should be in new situations.

Even better, making it public allows members who want to to see where the administration is coming from, argue more accurately and see what is and isn't allowed and gives every new mod and every current mod the same stable and understandable base from which to start their moderating.


But, the job of moderators does not belong in the Terms of Service.

The TOS is a statement outlining under what terms the user is allowed to have access to the services provided by this message board. That is it. All of that is summed up in the actual Terms of Service by saying

That might be true if the owners did the enforcing and fleshing out of their policies, but only rarely do they make specific rulings(no homosexual fanfic for example).


The TOS does not place any limits on the authority of moderators or the owners. It's not there to outline their responsibilities, because it is there for the users. It's not there to be informative (i.e. outlineing responsibilities). That's why the ROC refers people to the Informational Threads and Welcome forums.

What you're missing is that the TOS should more explictly outline it because the mods are users, not owners. The TOS therefore not only applies to them, but also to their relationship with the owners. Frankly my dear you've forgotten that IT is a dead forum, also if the TOS isn't meant to be informative why the hell are people "in violation" of it and why do the mods moderate by it?

In other words, it already does most of what you want it to do. It just doesn't use the language you want.

No it doens't because it also attempts to define the rules in broad amorphous generalities that many mods and members are using instead of bothering to udnerstand the actual rules.