[GEN] Moderators and the distinction between personal opinion and reality.

...says a JCC mod.

 

RG96 - This place is so much better when it's actually about Star Wars.

Completely agreed.

Assy - If someone was actually stupid enough to believe that the government planned it, then I would be pretty grateful that someone would do us a favor and ban them for being an idiot. Not because of that TOS "knowingly false" stuff, just because the person is extremely stupid. (i don't think anyone here believed it was planned so i'm not singling anyone out and flaming them)

Also, a lot of you people need some perspective.

Also, helo internet.

Also, STAR WARS MESSAGE BOARD.

Also completely agreed.

 

"I believe that the US government engineered the whole 9/11 thing" vs. "The US government engineered the whole 9/11 thing"

Just because the latter comment doesn't include the words "I believe..." or "I think..." doesn't automatically make it a statement of fact. But assuming it is a fact puts the mod in the position of assuming intent, which I was always led to believe was not the proper way of moderating. Moderate behavior, not intent. Right?

Common sense. It's all very simple, really.

Amazing.

 

From what I read of DLM's opening post, and her susequent ones, we're dealing with the power of the Moderators to enforce their own personal opions and beliefs and silence others through the use of, and perhaps the word is too strong, yet at the same time ironcially appropriate, terrorism. Specifically, the threat of banning and erasure of posts over a held belief or position contrary to the Moderator's own.

I don't know how many comic books fans there amongst the Mod Squad, or how many saw Spiderman or its just released sequel, however the most enduring phrase here is something to consider.

"With great power, comes great responsiblity."

You, the Moderators, Managers, and Admins, hold positions of power over the common user. It is very much like that of a superhero, or a Jedi, for we users have no 'check' against that power. What DLM appears to have suggested to dp, and to all Mods, is to know when to exercise that power, and to know when to take a step back. You may not like opinions someone holds. You might even disagree vehemently. However, if there is ambiguity, or if there are personal feelings in the matter, with the example DLM stated about dp, that restraint was called for. Hard to do in some cases, to be sure, however perhaps another viewpoint, such as that of another Mod, and their advice might have helped the situation.

Just this poster's .02. And apologies in advance for the spelling errors.

 

"With great power, comes great responsiblity."

A) Mods don't have power.
B) That's a crappy quote.
C) Nonetheless, I agree with the overall post.
_jOBO

 

Is this an indicator that the JCC should do away with the YJCC, Senate Floor, and anything outside of FanForce and the boards pertaining directly to Star Wars?

Edit: Hell, I just decided to make a thread instead. Don't want to derail this discussion.

 

To state something as a fact, what level of proof would you say is needed?

"I believe that the US government engineered the whole 9/11 thing" vs. "The US government engineered the whole 9/11 thing"

I disagree. An opinion is still an opinion whether or not it begins with "IMO". To butcher Brian's point even further, when I say "Darth Vader is totally the hottest fictional character ever," I think most of you will agree that's nothing more than my personal opinion, no matter how I do the wording.

Previously, I discussed the idea of the majority viewpoint and said I felt mods should determine the appropriate way to behave by looking to what the majority of users seem to think is sensible. Well, this concept of majority viewpoint doesn't apply to the distinction between fact and opinion. If 99% of people think something is true but they have no grounds for proving it, it's still an opinion, not a fact. For example, I believe about 90% of Americans are theists. That doesn't prove the existence of one or more gods.

I think the difference between a fact and an opinion is the presence of evidence or logical proof. Prove to me with at least 99.9% certainty that something is true, and it's a fact. If a person misrepresents such a fact on this board, then maybe what they're posting is libelous and in violation of the TOS. But if the thing a moderator believes the poster is misrepresenting can't be proven as a fact, and this poster can demonstrate that what they're saying could also make sense or be argued for, that's an opinion and I think it's perfectly fine.

So, that's why I don't get banned for "misrepresenting facts" or writing something libelous when I inform you "Sith lords in iron lungs are sexy and those pretty boys from the prequels are ugly!!!1!!"

This place is so much better when it's actually about Star Wars.

Look, that's a nice sentiment, as were the other posts that echoed it. In principle I agree. But - and I hope this doesn't come out snippy - posting a comment like that in Comms is practically spam, the way I see it, because it contributes nothing at all to the thread and really has nothing to do with the mission statement of the Communications forum. Comms is here so the administration and the members can work together to hammer out board policies and try to improve the JC. Is such a thing necessary for the functioning of a Star Wars bulletin board, which most people wouldn't imagine would need a formal structure of governance? No. I've been on plenty of boards that had no feedback forum equivalent to Comms. But frankly, those boards stink because there's no mechanism for feedback and rules tend to be completely arbitrary and annoying. Comms is here so we can improve the way the JC is run. If any of you, like the majority of JCers, want to talk about Star Wars without having to worry about such academic matters, that's perfectly fine, but I would recommend you not venture out of the movie and EU forums. In Comms we discuss things other than Star Wars. That's just how it is.

 

Moderate behavior, not intent. Right?

Considering that...
a) Flaming is considered a "subjective" issue within the MS these days, and
b) I was told at some point in the past that I shouldn't punish people in JCC because I didn't understand the "group dynamics" within that Forum and who was friends with who...

... then no, we moderate intent to as far as I am aware.

Unless we're going to be punishing all infractions (no matter how minor, nor the intent therein) exactly the same, which I've not seen done...

 

dp4m, everyone is allowed their own opinions; threatening to ban them for an opinion that comes nowhere near breaking the TOS is not pliable, especially in your position. It is considered an empty threat. Especially when no one was close to breaking the TOS. I can see why a mod would say the next person to utter something more about it will be banned in an extremely heated thread where there was criticizing and borderline flaming going on. If that was the case, then I can see why the mod would threaten to ban.
settles into Jedi Master mode:
This is what I would consider a mod letting their personal feelings about the issue get in the way of their better judgment. Especially since you claim you didn't ban - but how was the regular user to know that? IMHO people can judge you for an act that you never committed and that can very well have them change how they view you, and change their opinions about you.

It's like a murderer pointing at an innocent person and saying they did it. And people can get very judgmental towards the innocent who is taking the fall for someone else's doing

Its like pointing and say this person is a troll for an act they haven't committed yet. If the person truly is a troll then the thread would be derailed and in flames. But an opinion that doesn't incite negative comments and is just an honest opinion is completely different and doesn't deserved to be threatened with a ban.

 

...we moderate intent to as far as I am aware.

So far, so good, but would you please tell me what you think was the intent of starting this thread?? The way I see it, someone just brought up a stupid conspiracy theory, nothing more. I can't see that this thread was in any way meant to hurt anyone. I can understand that you don't like it if such things are brought up, but that's your personal opinion. So what would happen if every mod here starts threatening people to ban them if he/she sees a topic he personally does not like??
Just imagine it: for example, mod XY is very religious and gets angry when the topic of evolution is brought up because it is the exact opposite of what he/she believes. Should he/she threaten those who discuss it with a ban at once??
And please don't tell me now you didn't mean it that way when you said people would be banned for it. If it had been me in that thread, I would not have doubted for a moment that you were serious about it.
I said it before at another place: Wouldn't it have been better to handle the situation like: "People, be careful about this topic, many here feel strongly about it, watch it that you don't hurt anyone's feelings"? I think they would have gotten the message this way, too.
What you did was rather this style: "Stop this at once and never dare to mention this again, or I'll ban you because I personally don't like the topic". See the difference?

You know, incidents like this don't exactly help to give the regular JCer the feeling that they can discuss (almost) whatever they want, as long as it is done respectfully and does not hurt anyone. It rather gives them the feeling: "May I post this or that topic now, or could it be that one of the mods will ban me for it out of a personal feeling?" It starts making people afraid, IMO. You see, it is perfectly okay if you ban people who deliberately post stuff that is disrespectful or hurtful - no doubt about that. But please, try to do it only if the TOS are really broken, and not if you personally don't want to see something being discussed here.

What would be great is that you (and I mean every mod now) could try to officially be more impartial in general sometimes. I mean, I know you're not robots, and you have feelings like everyone else around here, but you're doing an official job here, and it helps tremendously if also those who believe things that are not "mainstream" here (be it conspiracy theories or a certain religion) feel accepted - as long as they stay respectful, of course. I know that in this case, most people did not believe what they read in that article, but what will you do if something like that happens again, perhaps with another topic that includes strong feelings on the modding side? Please try not to silence discussion with threats as long as there is no need for it, okay? Part of a good community is, IMO, that its members can freely speak their mind as long as they do it respectfully. Are you really willing to take that away from us?

 

...we moderate intent to as far as I am aware.

I do. Now, if it is ambigious and I feel uncertain on the matter, I don't. I'll give people the benefit of the doubt. But all too often I run into people who try to find ways to obey the letter of the law while breaking the spirit of the law. You'd be surprised how obvious it is, and when it is, it is treated as a violation of the rules.

 

"My finger never even got close to a ban button. So, lest there be any concern that there was any abuse of power: there wasn't."

There was indeed. You were abusing your moderator abilities by threatening people with being banned for sharing a different opinion to you. People like you should know that this behaviour should not be tolerated. If you can't keep your temper over something as trivial as this then you shouldn't be a moderator. I believe Christians are following a false path of lies, but that doesn't mean I would stop them posting at some forum if I was a moderator about what they believe.

Get over it.

 

A threat of action (threatening to ban) from someone who holds the power to perform such action is an act of moderation - it is a deliberate attempt to use your power to influence a situation, something a regular user could never do. You were moderating the situation, through the use of a threat of action (which is a power only moderators have)... and you were moderating based on an emotional reaction.

Not since the days of PreacherBoy have I seen such blatant e-power lording.

// is tired of pussyfooting around the issue

Please don't ever do that again, because you're better than that. I hope.



Vertical

 

Intent of the poster has everything to do with a moderator's decision. Or so I've been told.

QGM

 

If you feel your emotions rise up because of a certain topic then please let another mod know so they can moderate the situation. Its better in your judgement to and it makes you look responsible in front of your peers.

Please don't do that again

 

but would you please tell me what you think was the intent of starting this thread??

Trolling. As I would expect for any user who posts a thread with the TITLE of finding a "true facts of 9/11" website and parroting the ridiculousness therein.

There was indeed.

No, there wasn't. I was following the TOS. While I am expected to respect one another's beliefs, I found the thread personally hurtful (also against the TOS).

Perfectly within my rights there to warn people.

You were moderating the situation, through the use of a threat of action (which is a power only moderators have)... and you were moderating based on an emotional reaction.

Try smelling burning metal for a few weeks, knowing that thousands of people are mixed in with that smell and come talk to me.

We moderate intent.
We moderate based upon "gut feeling" and "emotional responses" as well.

If this happens to be my one glitched area, so be it.

 

dp4m, I'm not suggesting I don't understand where you were coming from, I do. I sympathize with your emotional reaction, and I completely concur in your belief that the link was to a preposterous site. Please don't imply that you were more influenced by 9/11 than I was, what an intensely inappropriate pissing match that would be, and entirely tasteless. You haven't the slightest clue how that day impacted me, please don't be so arrogantly presumptuous as to assume that you somehow get a 'free pass' on abusing your powers because of your beliefs.

And please, please, please stop imitating PreacherBoy logic. You're scaring me.

If you concur that this was indeed a 'glitch', and you fully intend to continue this trend of moderating based on personal feelings, I sincerely hope the rest of the team does not follow your example.

I thought the days of rogue mods interpreting rules to suit their own power-plays and agendas passed out of existence with the removal of PreacherBoy.

Vertical

 

Trolling. As I would expect for any user who posts a thread with the TITLE of finding a "true facts of 9/11" website and parroting the ridiculousness therein.

Trolling?

Please observe this excerpt from the initial post of that thread:

Now I don't believe one word of this, even though they claim to have, and present some numerous amounts of proof, most of which I feel is blasphemy

Does that sound like the mark of a person attempting to troll?

No, there wasn't. I was following the TOS. While I am expected to respect one another's beliefs, I found the thread personally hurtful (also against the TOS).

Perfectly within my rights there to warn people.

Within your rights to warn people based on what? Because you found it personally hurtful?

We moderate intent.
We moderate based upon "gut feeling" and "emotional responses" as well.

That doesn't make it a good idea to do so. Moderating intent can work, but it's a complex thing that takes knowledge and experience. Moderating based on intuition is one thing, but moderating based on the emotional response you have to a situation is questionable at best and downright foolish at worst.

 

Wait, wait. OK, so reasons that thread violated the TOS, according to you, were the following:

- Posting something that is knowingly false (your original reason)
- Trolling
- Personally hurtful

Do I have that right?

Vertical

 

Vert, yes.

 

Well, it's been discussed over and over, but what this person posted wasn't "knowingly false". The original post merely points people to another website. This is not something which can be quantified as "true" or "false". The website exists, the author wanted to know what other people thought of that website. Thus, I fail to see how this falls under the "knowingly false" clause of the TOS (which, by the way, was originally included to stop libel, not to stop people from posting "2+2=5"... I know this because I wrote the TOS originally). You are incorrect in your application of "knowingly false" to this thread which is unquantifiable in terms of 'truth' or 'falsehood'. If anything, the original poster is 'guilty' of the following:

Posting a link to a site which presents a controversial viewpoint.

You may as well start threatening bans to anyone who links to any Michael Moore websites, or Ann Coulter websites.

The post was not "knowingly false". It wasn't presented as a "truth". And it most certainly was not libellous.

Trolling? In what way? The author specifically states, "Now I don't believe one word of this". He/she isn't presenting the site as anything other than a point of curiosity, stating "I thought it would be interesting to see other people's reactions to this site". Essentially asking "what are your thoughts"? Is that trolling? Once again, are you going to ban people who ask people their thoughts on Farenheit 9/11? Ann Coulter's book? Howard Stern?

This post was hardly trolling. I moderated these forums for years, dp4m. I have a fairly good idea what trolling is. You're reaching here.

Finally, the most preposterous justification a moderator could ever give for taking action: Personally hurtful. It is your concession here that this statement was personally hurtful to you that should have immediately disqualified you from taking any action. If I had a nickel for everytime a member said something 'personally hurtful' to me, I'd be loaded. Having someone post something 'personally hurtful' to me is not a blank check to do with them as I please. In fact, if anything, it is the time to ask another moderator to step in. That's the responsible thing to do.

You admit that this incident sparked an emotional reaction, that you were personally hurt by this person's linking to the site (even though they are not the author of the site!), and yet you still think you made the rational decision any mod would have made?

Here's my take on the situation, dp4m:

You were offended by the link in the post, and you took it out on the poster in question, referencing a rule that is never enforced, and you interpreted it liberally to suit your purpose: to use your power to shut the poster(s) up, because you personally did not agree with the theories being discussed.

This is the very text-book definition of abuse of power. You yourself conced that it is a 'glitch'. That's one huge glitch, there, dp4m. If your one 'flaw' is the inability to remain rational level-headed in certain situations, and to twist and shape rules to suit a particular situation because you're offended so that you can threaten to ban people just because you don't like what they're saying, wouldn't you say that's more than just a 'glitch', dp4m? Didn't you agree to moderate these forums fairly, without personal bias? Or are you suggesting personal bias is a good way to moderate these forums?

Vertical

 

This is the very text-book definition of abuse of power. You yourself conced that it is a 'glitch'. That's one huge glitch, there, dp4m. If your one 'flaw' is the inability to remain rational level-headed in certain situations, and to twist and shape rules to suit a particular situation because you're offended so that you can threaten to ban people just because you don't like what they're saying, wouldn't you say that's more than just a 'glitch', dp4m? Didn't you agree to moderate these forums fairly, without personal bias? Or are you suggesting personal bias is a good way to moderate these forums?

First of all, there's not a single one of us who agreed to moderate without personal bias. It's not a part of the rules. At BEST, what I violated was a lack of etiquette (which, since you wrote the rules, you know of what I speak).

Second, there's a vast difference between personal bias and moderating fairly. I'd moderate ANY user who posted the 9/11 stuff; that's "fairly." I freely admit the bias against persons posting falsehoods of September 11th. However, the bias issues only occur if one treats users differently, as several mods who target SPECIFIC users are accused of, rather than targetting all users equally under a definition of the TOS that others might disagree with.

Letting friends slide and banning users who harrass them after BEING harrassed by them is a bias being used to treat people unfairly. I've seen that; this wasn't it.

Targetting specific users to ban for the slightest infraction and houding them until they're gone forever is a bias being used to treat people unfairly. I've seen that too; this still isn't that.

I conceded that it's a *glitch* -- not an abuse of power. There's nothing to say that all Moderators have to define the Terms of Service the exact same way -- they just have to stick with their definitions for all users. If I define the TOS in one way for one user, by definition I MUST define it the same way for all other users.

 

What about the fact that the first post actually said that he didn't believe it? How can you say that it still falls under the knowingly false clause?

 

Ah, so as long as you act biased towards every user who would bring up such a topic, that's okay??

Strange logic, sorry.

Why allowing to make biased decisions at all if you know they are biased??

 

What about the fact that the first post actually said that he didn't believe it? How can you say that it still falls under the knowingly false clause?

Because the title of the post said "true site." Also, everyone seems to be getting away from the fact that I wasn't limiting belief; merely statement of false facts.

Why allowing to make biased decisions at all if you know they are biased??

Because every decision a human makes is biased in some way. How to explain... lessee. So I'm pretty sure everyone here knows that wild_karrde and I have gotten on each other from time to time for my Canadian jokes. This is a difference of opinion between him (a user) and me (a user), not between him (a user) and me (a mod). Were I to then take our sometimes contentious relationship and lord over him, looking for the smallest mistake and nailing him for it -- that'd be an abuse of power. However, in the case above, it's a difference of opinion between users and a Moderator. If users disagree with a ruling, they have two options: post to Comms (done) or appeal to the Head Admin. Since we're in Comms, we've had the Tech Admin stick his head in here and partly agree with me. Another Admin (who shall remain nameless until unmasking themselves, if desired) tends to agree with those tasking me (though not as an actual abuse of power, but a possibly perceived abuse of power). The two other Admins and Head Admin choose to stay silent, which either indicates lack of interest or silent support. And again, some of the users are taking the side that some things are just too offensive (regardless of belief) and some (mostly ex-staff) are taking the other position.

That's about where we are in the thread.