main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

YJCC policy question

Discussion in 'Communications' started by carmenite, Oct 23, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ObiWan506

    ObiWan506 Former Head Admin star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Skye, you must help me understand because I'm lost. What you want is already in place. We have rules against flaming and baiting and they are universal. They are already set. We also have rules on how to deal punishment and we follow a set procedure when deciding not only when to ban, but also for how long. Also, every moderator action is recorded so that every other moderator knows what happened. There is no mod favoritism unless you are under the impression the entire Mod Squad is on on a elaborate conspiracy to support "mod favorites". Of course though, since everyone would be in on it, it would be referred to as "mods favoritism"; which is simply not the case.
     
  2. Andalite-Bandit

    Andalite-Bandit Jedi Padawan star 6

    Registered:
    Apr 25, 2005

    Reply if your post is a joke:

    Ha ha ha.

    Reply if your post is serious:

    This. Is. The. INTERNET.
     
  3. rhonderoo

    rhonderoo Former Head Admin star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Aug 7, 2002
    Skye, I'm telling you right now, that nothing will ever be that black and white. This is a Star Wars messageboard and what you're proposing can't even be done in small (or even large) governments. There will always be some gray areas. Otherwise we wouldn't need the court system, right?

    Now, I'm really glad that you want to make the JC a better place, but this is it. This is what you get on here. There will be things that happen then don't have a rule in place or a rule that there could be extenuating circumstances in enforcing. As much as your opinion counts, you're in the minority (a rather large minority judging by comments I see) right now. A vocal minority to be sure, but the minority. People want to come here to post and have fun, you seem to want to make it more rigid, we don't agree as an administration and that's about it.
     
  4. SkyeLightrider

    SkyeLightrider Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 12, 2003
    No, the system is not in place:

    1. Grant stated that many issues require judgement calls. My system would not require that. it would clearly state "You do this, you will be banned of X amount of days". No moderative thought is required besides hitting the ban button and typing the number for length of time. This information would be public to all users.

    2. You state that every moderator action is recorded, so other mods know what happen. Users don't. An open system would make public what actions were taken. This is why courtrooms are forced to allow the press in, or at the very least the results of the courts are a matter of public record. This is to prove that if person A does one thing and gets banned, person B does the same thing and gets the exact same punishment. Currently we have no system of checks like this, so if person A is not a "mod favorite" their punishment might be less than person B who is a "mod favorite" and the general public would never know.

    3. As for a conspiracy, why not? With nothing boradcast, how are we supposed to know? As above:
    A mod finds person A did something wrong. He goes to the other mods. "Yeah that's wrong, ban person A" is the consensus. Now person B comes along and does the same thing. However, person B is a friend of Mod C and so when the issue is discussed, Mod C defends person B. Person B does not get banned (or a lesser ban) than person A.
    Without full disclosure, how is any user supposed to know besides your "assurances" that there is no favoritism being played?

     
  5. droideka27

    droideka27 Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 28, 2002
    Oh, and that's what Hilter said when the rest of the world protested. He was making the world a better place.
     
  6. rhonderoo

    rhonderoo Former Head Admin star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Aug 7, 2002
    Your number 1 is REAL easy to abuse, were a person in authority so inclined. We have a checks and balances system in place that includes this forum, MS, users and mods.

    As for your last point, offenses are almost always out in the open in the forums... not only is not hidden from other mods, but from users.

    Like I said above, we're not going to see eye to eye on what you're proposing, it appears and we're belaboring the argument.
     
  7. carmenite

    carmenite Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2002
    Don't shoot me here everyone who's not Skye, but I'm not completely opposed to this part.
     
  8. DarthIntegral

    DarthIntegral JCC Baseball Draft/SWC Draft Commish star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA VIP - Game Host

    Registered:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Skye ... I'd love to be in a place where we could be more black and white. honestly, I would. But I've rarely found anything that works that way. Mitigating factors, intent, and so many other factors have to go into decisions that having things black and white would simply be impossible to go to. I understand the desire for it, but I hope you also understand the impossibility of it. That's just not the world we live in. At all.
     
  9. rhonderoo

    rhonderoo Former Head Admin star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Aug 7, 2002
    Carmen, that's another one of those things that would be great in a perfect world, but I'm not sure users want everyone to know of their every offense, and I've never seen it done anywhere. At the end of the day moderators are elected to use their judgement and help run the place, and deserve some amount of trust. The owner could do this stuff were he so inclined, but he's not, he's willing to let a group of volunteers do it the best way they know how to the best of their ability. Will they get it wrong sometimes or make an error in judgment? You bet. But the good news is that it's not the end of the world and it can be corrected or let go, and we move on.

    Honestly, other forums I've belonged to and have seen from the outside have nowhere near the amount of user involvement in moderation and running of the place as we do here. It works for us and I'd not want it any other way, as I've been a user and wouldn't really like to see the days of banning people for being idiots to come back.
     
  10. carmenite

    carmenite Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2002
    I saw it done somewhere (I forget where though, it might have been an HP forum) where there was basically a thread that mods updated whenever they banned someone, saying basically "banned soandso for suchandsuch, xx amount of time." While some people didn't like their bans being posted, the general consensus was "well, if you don't want it posted, don't get banned in the first place." As a judicial officer at a university, I can understand that sentiment.

    I see the bigger problem being (at first at least) people constantly questioning the reasons for the bans, however so long as rules are in place about how that works, and as long as the mods continue to be fair and consistent, I think that even that would go down, as people see that they're not the only one being banned for suchandsuch.

    However, I realize that it's not in the current culture of the boards, so people are reluctant to try it out.
     
  11. SkyeLightrider

    SkyeLightrider Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 12, 2003
    This is exactly my point.

    Edit: Either that or open the MS boards for public viewing. It should be easy to setup the board so one can view it but not post. That way anyone can see how the Mods are handling issues, making sure that issues that are the same are dealt with the same.

    Then again, that would expose the favortism inbred in the system. Case in point: the Mods appoint their own replacements. What is the criteria for being a mod anyway? Being best buddies with an existing mod so they can nominate you and get you in the "club"?
     
  12. dp4m

    dp4m Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Earth, Hitler 1938!

    Oh, wait, sorry.. that was "I need breathing room!"

    But your point of rules to the point of robotic, Nazi-like efficiency has no place here. And considering that's coming from ME -- the most literal, robotic, rules-monkeyish member of the MS -- that should be saying something.

    There's a difference between a COMMUNITY and a SOCIETY; we are the former, we are not the latter. We rely on people to enforce a basic set of rules and guidelines that, sometimes, are not 100% black and white, but which are generally communally-supported. Sure, you can't spam (ZOMG, maybe a rule!), but there's nothing IN THE RULES that states that if you sign up solely to spam you will never be coming back ever ("Never?" "Never, ever...") but if you are an existing user who gets "caught for speeding" that you'll be back in 24-hours in most cases.

    The easiest solution I have for you, if this is not your cup of tea, is in violation of an unwritten Literature forum policy but since we're not in Lit...

    "If you don't like it here, you don't have to post here."

    It's a free site, a free intraweb and a free country. Go hang out with the ORS (they're recruiting), go hang out with other like-minded people, go start your own Star Wars site (but don't spam PMs here recruiting, please?), let your wife have her Star Wars place and you have your own and then both Star Wars groups can meet up and have wacky joint fun, go start the Ninja Day website and start the movement in the US, etc. There's any number of things you can do if this place isn't for you, but what you ask for simply isn't supported -- at nearly any level -- by any basic subset of owners, staff or community members.
     
  13. malkieD2

    malkieD2 Ex-Manager and RSA star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 7, 2002
    Worst. Idea. Ever. Read the countless threads on this subject in Comms.

    One attack on the MS per thread please. Start a new thread rather than derail this one. Besides, there are again countless threads on this subject in Comms. If "best buddies" with someone in the MS was the sure route to modship then myself, and E_S (for example) would never have been made mods (and plenty of the forum "Ususal Suspects" would have been promoted). Those promoted are people who stand out in a forum for the right reasons.

    Utter nonsense - I didn't say your beliefs were wrong, so don't put words into my mouth. I pointed out that your interpretation of the rules was wrong, and you can disagree all you like, but you are still wrong. You won't gain anything here, nor make any changes because everyone (apart from you it seems) agrees with the way the rules are.
     
  14. Cinnamon_Windu

    Cinnamon_Windu Jedi Youngling star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 10, 2005
    I have often been accused of baiting, but I have never baited. I have never posted anything which I knew would anger another user. The way that rule is written, you have to know how someone else would react to your post in order to break the rule. Yet I have been accused of baiting because of unforeseen reactions to my posts.

    I accused another user of baiting because her post angered me, and she claimed that that was not her intent. Should I have believed her? That could very well not have been her intent, or she could have been lying. How was I supposed to know?
     
  15. carmenite

    carmenite Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2002
    See, this is why it's good to focus on one thing at a time. Because when you focus on a bunch, people ignore some in favor of the ones that they can argue better. Which, I mean, makes sense. I do it too. But the solution is to deal with one thing at a time.
     
  16. G-FETT

    G-FETT Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Aug 10, 2001
    We're a global forum, where people of differant backgrounds, races and views all come together and bring their various prejudices, insecurities and diverse opinions with them. That means that very often what one person finds offensive, another person doesn't. We can't moderate for something that every single user finds offensive and no amount of policy will leave every user 100% happy. The JC has always and will always have lots of grey areas.

    As far as MS goes, people are chosen on their merits. We do not simply appoint friends and users that pal up to the us. We appoint those we feel would be the best mods to represent the forum they are being chosen for. I always think a few people feel MS is far more clandestine than it actually is.
     
  17. FailStorm

    FailStorm Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Nov 4, 2007
    I wish seperaten specific threads were allowed to be made for this reason. My questions get passed over in favor of the debate-fest.

    Guess I'm doing it now, sorry. Carry on :)
     
  18. G-FETT

    G-FETT Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Aug 10, 2001
    What would you like to know? :)
     
  19. Jada

    Jada Jedi Master star 6

    Registered:
    Apr 20, 2006
    I have, many years ago, seen a mod (think it was PoT) go through a thread and as he banned people he put a comment such as:

    You know better, see you in 24

    Consider yourself warned, next time it will be a ban

    You've done this before, see you when you get back from your ban


    (Don't know if that was exactly what was posted but that is the general "gist" of it

    I was surprised but at the same time glad to know that somebody had the fortitude to give out some very public warnings and bannings.

    edit:

    Also, on starwars.com they have some very public banning threads in their Comms forum:

    here

    That is just one. There are others. It seems that basically if a user is banned they can only go to the Comms forum there to post.
     
  20. carmenite

    carmenite Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2002
    That used to be perfectly within the policy, but it has since changed. Josh or Matt would be able to give us when (possibly down to date/time, knowing then) but it was a few years ago, at least. I'm in favor of moving back to that old policy.
     
  21. Dingo

    Dingo Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 23, 2001
    No matter what you do, you can never remove the human component to moderating a message board (just like you can't do the same to the legal system). You could sit down and come up with a list of hundreds of rules to cover what should be nearly every single situation; you can assign appropriate punishments to each; you can devise a complex algorithm that would take into account every single factor that is needed to be considered when multiple fractions are committed, or for repeat offenders. But no matter how hard you try with that, something will come along that will not fit into any category you create. Thus a human judgment will need to be made. No matter how good the algorithm you design, it cannot weigh mitigating factors without some human judgment as to what import they have, and how much. Try as you might, there is no way in which the human factor can be taken out of making moderator decisions.

    And if that is the case, why then go with a large, complex, micro-managing set of rules? As has been stated, these boards are a Community, not a Society. Societies require rules to outline what is and isn't acceptable for the sustainment and stability of that society with clear rights and obligations on the parts f all members of the society. Communities do also to some degree, but to nowhere near as much detail. Communities are the result of the common wants, needs, interests and wishes of those that make it up, which is why communities are fluid and change over time. They do not require the rigidity that a society as a whole requires because there is no detrimental outcome to a community collapsing and members going their separate ways. On the other hand, over-regulation and a lack of freedom are detrimental to a community because they breed discontent over the wants to explore avenues of discussion. What it boils down to is having just enough rules and regulations so as to allow everyone to know the general way in which things should go, but allow the community as a whole to shift focus and even paradigm when required.

    Should there be greater transparency in some ways in which the administration operates? Yes, I do think there should. There are ways in which bans can be discussed here in Comms that would allow greater understanding and accountability than the modes that have been used over the last couple of years. There are ways in which the administration can and should give more information as to what is happening behind "closed doors" than just 'subject X is being discussed'.

    But, there are limits. The analogy you use of the court system is flawed. If we're going to use real world systems to compare, the administration isn't just the judges of the judicial system, they are also the members/representatives of the legislating arm and thus what they do is covered by that. Given that this is a privately owned website, the better analogy is to any decent sized company. The administration is the management arm, and what they do should be transparent when it does not breech
     
  22. Dingo

    Dingo Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 23, 2001
    Every person that I banned (for something that they posted) got something like that. The policy itself didn't so much as change, as it just fell out of fashion. You'll find that Raven still does it most of the time (when he bothers to open up the admin panel). We used to remind people inside the MS to make it clear when you were banning for something so that people knew what was and wasn't acceptable. Over time the fashion did slide out of favour until around late 2003/early 2004 when there was an overall shift in the view of how publicly things should be dealt with.
     
  23. dp4m

    dp4m Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001
    That used to be perfectly within the policy, but it has since changed. Josh or Matt would be able to give us when (possibly down to date/time, knowing then) but it was a few years ago, at least. I'm in favor of moving back to that old policy.[/quote]

    Uh, no *real* policy against it per se. I still occasionally put stuff like that in my bans, depending on the context of the thread.

    Or, uh, what the Kiwi said? :(
     
  24. carmenite

    carmenite Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2002
    My understanding was that it was against the policy, because bans are now private, so saying that someone is banned makes it public? Though apparently that's not the case anymore, as mods have made posts saying users which users are permbanned.
     
  25. dp4m

    dp4m Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Well, yes and no. I mean, when I post in red I'm generally indicating a banning (regardless of what my edit may say) but sometimes -- especially in severely heated threads -- I post the banning in the edit as a "dissuader" to try and see if I can avoid banning anyone else. I may be mistaken, but I believe that was a similar tactic used by Gandaven, Dingue and KW as well (I don't mean to speak for you, I'm going off of shaky recall after my massage right now).

    Bans, in theory, shouldn't be discussed with anyone except the bannee and the administration (I think that part's in the rules) but I'd say that merely stating someone is permabanned (especially in threads like "Hey, WTH happened to barry?") solves more problems than it causes and the occasional edit->ban note achieves the same goal.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.