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

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

Discussion in 'Communications' started by red rose knight, Aug 18, 2004.

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

    DarthMatter Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Jul 12, 2004
    Thanks DarthAttorney :)

    Dark Lady Mara, don't want to wear out my welcome, but seems like there are two general problems with bannings (to someone who, to date, has neither banned nor been banned). First is when and for how long to ban users for what particular reasons. This should all be asked and answered in the new written/unwritten rules/guide discussions and public process. The second is this issue of forcing a banned user to get a sock and request to be unbanned - maybe it's me, but that sounds totally constipated.

    Why not decide what ban periods are to be effected: 24 hours, 1 week, or forever, for 3 good examples, and then just unban people when the applicable time expires (if the software will not do it automatically). Why continue to make bans worse for the banned users and the mods through a lack of policy? If a mod bans someone in a particularly irrational way as seen from a user's perspective, that user is not likely to come crawling back to that mod with sweetness and light, hence, flames in unban requests. Just make the unban automatic and that will solve the problem.

    And to prevent a mod banning someone, for example, for a week when 24 hours would be appropriate, simply codify, perhaps in the "unwritten" rules section, what offenses get what ban periods, and provide an appeals process via what I called the Prime Moderator or some kind of arbitrator. One thing that works well in the "wiki world" is that bans are listed right on the site, so there's an added incentive for users to not be seen as banned users. I'm not sure it would work here, so that's just a comparison.

    The idea is to take as much of the subjective guesswork out of the mod system, so that a user would be handled pretty much the same way, no matter which mod were handling them. In a word, it should be fair.
     
  2. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    First is when and for how long to ban users for what particular reasons. This should all be asked and answered in the new written/unwritten rules/guide discussions and public process. The second is this issue of forcing a banned user to get a sock and request to be unbanned - maybe it's me, but that sounds totally constipated.


    Not to turn all Genghis on you, but Vertical wrote a guide for banned members several years ago, and it's still relevant, even if somewhat outdated.

    Members certainly aren't forced to get a sock in order to request unbanning. Banned members just follow a link on the banned.asp page and make their unban request there.

    Overall, I see a lot of idealism in your posts, which certainly has merit and good ideas. However, it should be balanced against the reality of JC history, the current administration and the members here.

    Much (if not all) of what you've suggested has been discussed or attempted by the Mod Squad over the past several years. If it was as clear-cut and simple as you seem to believe it is, such "fair" moderating and policies would have been implemented and then carried out. Unfortunately, the human variables often seem to get in the way.

    Subjectivity is part of moderating, as I believe it should be. It should be balanced with objectivity and reason, and the best moderators have always been able to do that.

    And to prevent a mod banning someone, for example, for a week when 24 hours would be appropriate, simply codify, perhaps in the "unwritten" rules section, what offenses get what ban periods, and provide an appeals process via what I called the Prime Moderator or some kind of arbitrator

    Such excessive bans are unusual, and ideally should already be watched for by the Mod Squad at large, particularly the administrators. I always kept an eye out for bans being given, and didn't let what I felt to be an excessive ban pass by without a question.


    One thing that works well in the "wiki world" is that bans are listed right on the site, so there's an added incentive for users to not be seen as banned users. I'm not sure it would work here, so that's just a comparison.


    That's been suggested on several occasions, and has never been been favored by much of the JC or the MS. In general, the membership seems to feel that listing bans for the public to see is inappropriate.

    The idea is to take as much of the subjective guesswork out of the mod system, so that a user would be handled pretty much the same way, no matter which mod were handling them. In a word, it should be fair.

    If everyone here (particularly the administration) was very intelligent, knowledgable and reasonable, there would be no need to be subjective. Things would probably take care of themselves, and there wouldn't be much guesswork involved in moderating. Unfortunately, subjectivity is a way of life for moderators and for members, and I think the true ideal should be to balance subjectivity with fairness and objectivity.

    I've never been in favor of a concrete set of rules, because I believe it hamstrings both moderators and members, shifting the advantage to members who know how to play the system (without much reprecussion). Instead, general guidelines are a better way to go in my view. This allows flexibility and a broader reach in handling things that come up throughout the JC.
     
  3. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    The second is this issue of forcing a banned user to get a sock and request to be unbanned - maybe it's me, but that sounds totally constipated.

    Users are not required to get a sock in order to request unbanning. The Banned page has very clear instruction on what to do. Submit an unban request. Users may (if they choose to) use a sock to contact a moderator about their ban, but that is in no way required.

    Why not decide what ban periods are to be effected: 24 hours, 1 week, or forever, for 3 good examples, and then just unban people when the applicable time expires (if the software will not do it automatically). Why continue to make bans worse for the banned users and the mods through a lack of policy?

    As with almost any rule, there are degrees of breaking it. That's why (to use a legal system analogy that I hate) you see sentencing guidelines given to judges by law (10 years to life), but the final determination of length is left to the judge, within those guidelines. Flaming a user = 1 week (for example) can be perfectly reasonable, or it can be completely unreasonable, depending on the circumstances.

    That's part of the whole reason that we have moderators, rather than simply a bot that handles everything. Most things require a judgement call for the specific details.

    As a general rule, bans start at 24 hours and then increase each time you are banned (usually to about double the length of the last ban), although that can be affected by the frequency and behavior between bans.

    And to prevent a mod banning someone, for example, for a week when 24 hours would be appropriate, simply codify, perhaps in the "unwritten" rules section, what offenses get what ban periods, and provide an appeals process via what I called the Prime Moderator or some kind of arbitrator. One thing that works well in the "wiki world" is that bans are listed right on the site, so there's an added incentive for users to not be seen as banned users. I'm not sure it would work here, so that's just a comparison.

    This idea has been brought up many times before, and has been rejected every time. First, it is not possible to do it automatically with the current board system. Second, the policy is that bans are between the administration and the user banned, no one else.

    Overall, I do believe that the system currently used for banning works fairly well. Considering the large volume of bans that are given out, and the relatively few problems brought up, it's really fairly efficient and fair. We don't need to implement a "You flamed do you automatically get 24 hours. You posted spoilers, so you get 2 weeks. You posted profanity, you're gone for 3 days.) or something like that.

    Most of the problems come up when people try to push the system in different ways. For example if a user is told "stop correcting people's grammar in every post", that doesn't mean "You can correct people's grammar in every other post", but to stop the behavior. If you're told to stop spamming a forum with one-word replies, that means to stop, not switch to two-word replies.

    Most of the contentious unban requests that I have seen in my time as a mod have been claiming that a user never broke the rules, often trying to claim a technicality for why they shouldn't have been banned. The rules aren't there to get people off on technicalities. They are there to help build an environment in line with the desires of the ownership of these boards. Everything else is secondary to that concern.

    Kimball Kinnison
     
  4. DarthMatter

    DarthMatter Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Jul 12, 2004
    Sorry to be argumentative, but KnightWriter and Kimball, I think you're essentially making excuses for current conditions and maybe missing the larger import.

    What has been done in the past, and the assumptions and attempts which have gone into what has been done, are obviously not working very well. Moderation is highly inconsistent and many users are unhappy. The mods seem to respond by arguing amongst themselves and trying to suggest who is a better mod than whom.

    To me, this strongly suggests a new approach is necessary, and follow through on that approach is key. Just because some mods shot ideas down years ago doesn't invalidate their eternal wisdom. You know that saying about the definition of insanity? It's trying the same thing over and over but expecting different results each time. I'm suggesting a process, though: The specifics of the rules should be voted out via the community.
     
  5. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Moderation is highly inconsistent and many users are unhappy. The mods seem to respond by arguing amongst themselves and trying to suggest who is a better mod than whom.


    I'd say there have been claims of inconsistent moderating for almost as long as the JC has been around (or since active moderating started being required in large amounts, which was awhile ago).

    I don't think moderating will ever be truly consistent, and that's a result of having a large number of moderators, particularly the diverse group the JC has long had. Moderators have differing personalities, intelligences, likes and dislikes, and so on. Additionally, the JC forums often differ from each other, with forums having their own dynamics and history to consider and deal with.

    All this and more leads to inconsistency. Instead of attempting to remove all inconsistency, I'd rather see the administration work toward a more reasonable goal of making the right decision for each situation as it comes up. That's not going to be the same thing every time, and is likely to fall into more of a middle ground.

    What has been done in the past, and the assumptions and attempts which have gone into what has been done, are obviously not working very well

    But it has gone well at varying times in the past, usually depending on the moderators within the MS. The better the personnel, the better things have gone. If you're not familiar with Wisegate, you may want to understand what happened and how it affected the JC. What the JC needs is good, intelligent and reasonable people to moderate. Unfortunately, there are a decreasing number of such people (both actual moderators and potential ones). If you have people like that, carrying out the rules generally takes care of itself.

    To me, this strongly suggests a new approach is necessary, and follow through on that approach is key

    The approach is only as good as the people carrying it out, I think. You can have a brilliantly conceived plan that falters because people don't quite do what they're supposed to.

    Just because some mods shot ideas down years ago doesn't invalidate their eternal wisdom.

    I agree. But, the position of "prime moderator" is generally the same as the head administrator position, and it was done to near-perfection by darthcleo in 2000-01. Then she left, and things changed to a multiple-administrator group without true head authority by 2002. That led to the syndrome of having a bus without a real driver, although I think the problems were less apparent with it at the time due to having better overall personnel in the MS. The leadership was reorganized at the end of the year, with Vertical assuming the role of supreme chancellor/head administrator. He (and Kadue and later Sapient) carried out to one degree or another the arbiter/authority role you've described. Unfortunately, the position seems to have decayed in practical use and I think that's where some of the problems stem from. If Katya was in that position, I think many of the problems you see right now would be resolved in relatively short order.

    I'm suggesting a process, though: The specifics of the rules should be voted out via the community

    Democratic processes haven't worked too well in the past, and I don't think they ever will with a community of this size. Ideas differ across the board, which is fine if you're looking to achieve a middle ground, reasonable solution. Otherwise, it can be difficult to get the input of the community. Ideally, I think the Mod Squad can carry out that role by getting input from the community and then finalizing things on its own.
     
  6. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    What has been done in the past, and the assumptions and attempts which have gone into what has been done, are obviously not working very well. Moderation is highly inconsistent and many users are unhappy. The mods seem to respond by arguing amongst themselves and trying to suggest who is a better mod than whom.

    According to whom? For the vast majority of users on these boards, even the vast majority of active users, everything seems to be working just fine.

    Daily, we have about 3000 users log into the boards (Yesterday there were 3242). Of those, how many have been banned in the past month? 224 (just over 7 per day), and that includes game bans as well as serial trolls who are banned on sight. There are also some users who have been banned more than once in the past month (counted separately).

    Even at its extreme, (assuming all of those bans in one day), that's not even 1% of the daily users who have been banned. Of those, bans, most of them are either very clear cases (flaming, profanity, socks posting while banned, etc). There are relatively few "borderline" cases that cause a fuss.

    With that perspective, how big of a problem is it really? How poorly is it working right now? Perspective can be a useful thing at times.

    We already have a position like what you call "Prime Moderator": our Head Administrator, who happens to be one of the owners of these boards. I can't think of anyone better than the owners to decide what direction these boards should go in.

    Remember that these are still private message boards, owned and operated by a private organization. That means that this is not a democratic process here, regardless of how many users want it to be otherwise. There are several rules that have come directly from the owners, even though there were many users who opposed them (and even chose to leave the boards over them). You can complain about such things if you like, but these boards are not, nor will they ever be, a democracy.

    I'm not saying that there aren't problems. I'm well aware that there are some problems with the boards. However, I strongly doubt that they are anywhere near as bad as you make them out to be. They are really far more limited in scope than you are claiming.

    Kimball Kinnison
     
  7. DarthMatter

    DarthMatter Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Jul 12, 2004
    Are you two done trying to shoot down everything I said?, because I'm not drinkin' the koolaid here. Your responses are like newspeak - "there's no problems here, move along" - meanwhile your bus is still winding all over the field, to continue the analogy above. Maybe someone reading these pages can see sense - please tell me I've not wasted time and effort not to even get past the yard dogs... :rolleyes:
     
  8. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Are you two done trying to shoot down everything I said?, because I'm not drinkin' the koolaid here. Your responses are like newspeak - "there's no problems here, move along" - meanwhile your bus is still winding all over the field, to continue the analogy above. Maybe someone reading these pages can see sense - please tell me I've not wasted time and effort not to even get past the yard dogs...

    Again, I ask you: According to whom?

    For the most part, the vast majority of users for these boards, the boards just work. They just visit here and enjoy the boards. Everything runs smoothly to their perception.

    For example, I listed the number of bans in the last 30 days. There have only been 2567 message edits (some of them administrative, such as updating thread titles, others locking old threads, others for rule violations) in the last 30 days. In that time, there were about 238752 posts (a few days aren't properly registering in the stats, so there are actually more than that). Even counting all types of edits, that's still only 1% of all messages that get edited. (For Quality students, that's about a 4 sigma level.) There were also 635 user notes added in the last 30 days. That's only about 21 per day (out of about 3000 users per day).

    What this says is that the system currently in place works for the most part. There are problems, but they can be fixed through refinement. Reengineering is not required, nor would it provide any real benefits.

    If you are going to make claims like "Moderation is highly inconsistent and many users are unhappy," then you need to be prepared to back it up. The number of users who are affected by moderation (inconsistent or otherwise) isn't all that great, and those expressing displeasure are in the vast minority. Volume does not equal large support.

    If you doubt any of these numbers, any VIP can access the daily stats (users online, posts made, etc), and any mod can access the admin action log (recording all administrative acts for the last 30 days).

    What is needed here is incremental improvement, not reengineering.

    Kimball Kinnison
     
  9. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Moderation is highly inconsistent and many users are unhappy

    Really?

    Where?

    Or could it be you're unhappy and you just want to make it look like you got the numbers...

    [image=http://www.jim-morrison.com/morrison.jpg]

    "Dey got da guns but, we got da numbers..."

    Seriously, I think it's fair that in order to not only substantiate your claim but also to counter Kimball's post, you should provide statistics to reflect how many of the approx. 3000/day users are "unhappy" with the "inconsistent moderation".

    E_S
     
  10. royalguard96

    royalguard96 Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 13, 2001
    So that "Josh Griffin is head admin and will have a greater presence on the boards" thing isn't going too well?

    I interpret Knight Writer's post to at least imply that. I know I sure don't see more of him around the boards, except when he's plugging some ROTS spoilers on the main page.

    Is the situation different within the confines of the ModSquad?
     
  11. HawkNC

    HawkNC Former RSA: Oceania star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 23, 2001
    I don't think Kimball can reasonably say that the 3000-odd users that log in here each day are happy, either, since exceedingly few of them have given an opinion one way or another. However, I think the opinions of past and present administrators should hold a bit of weight when it comes to how much they know about moderating here. DarthMatter, I'm sure your opinions are welcome but I think KW and Kimball reserve the right to disagree with you. What works on one board may not work here, simply because of the different culture we have. For all the problems that seem to crop up here in relation to the mods, most of them do a decent job of keeping this place clean and enjoyable.
     
  12. DarthMatter

    DarthMatter Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Jul 12, 2004
    "I don't think Kimball can reasonably say that the 3000-odd users that log in here each day are happy, either, since exceedingly few of them have given an opinion one way or another."

    I think logic supports this point very well. Logic also will direct you to the fact that I didn't claim any numbers one way or the other, so numbers do not bind my points. I said "many users" are unhappy, which is an indeterminate amount, as I recall from grade school mathematics.

    Given that there are only several hundred actual human users, cancelling out all the sock puppet accounts you already acknowledge; given that a reasonable number of bans have been mentioned in this very thread which were unfair, many others mentioned in other threads around the boards; given that I myself have seen inconsistent and irrational moderation in the Senate indicating it was par for the course; given that I see all kinds of small comments about policies in posts all over these forums; given that the mods are right here in this very thread discussing problems with their own system; given that the quality of discussions seems to have greatly diminished, according to some old-timers and mods; then I think I'm pretty well supported in using the word "many" to denote that there are users who are, in fact, unhappy.

    Secondly, I didn't say anything about total re-engineering, so that is a straw argument. I've made a number of technical suggestions in Comms, but they shouldn't be lumped together. I basically said, and I mean this constructively, why don't you quit being a bunch of boneheads about things and utilize the very community you seem to think is here to help you amend/tweak/rewrite a new and better TOS and posting guide. I've said this here and implied it in the unwritten thread. I also implied that individual mods who can't listen to others shouldn't have undue sway in the process. I also suggested you drop the "we're the mods and you aren't" shtick. If all that adds up to re-engineering, then it's only of your attitude toward your own community.

    Thirdly, I am not unhappy myself with the forums. I enjoy posting here, at least for the time being. I had the impression, mistaken as it seems now, that I could help you make what are actually decent forums even better. I have something to contribute, and you can utilize it or not. It is disappointing to get nothing but reptilian resistance from moderators, but I've seen it before - kings of anthills, and all that ;)

    So, what I'm talking about is this: Witness what has been happening in the unwritten thread. Several mods and helpers are getting feedback from whomever wants to post in there. Among the things this does is to let regular Joes know this might be a community which is open to suggestions from its users. This endears users to a community, even if few of their specific suggestions take hold in the end. It's not about power, but about participation in the process.

    Then look at this thread. I make a couple of reasonable, and somewhat obvious, suggestions about a policy process, then several of you go out of your way to make what had already become an ugly thread even uglier by merely attacking me fallaciously. The problems you were already discussing suddenly aren't problems anymore, and the newcomer who questions the status quo needs to be put down. Such great examples some of you set as mods! I would wager I could have suggested the exact opposite of what I suggested and you would have shot it down just the same?

    So, my first point seems to have been spot on, and the question returns: Who are the leaders here?
     
  13. royalguard96

    royalguard96 Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 13, 2001
    : Who are the leaders here?

    See my last post ;)
     
  14. zacparis

    zacparis VIP star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Sep 1, 2003
    You can complain about such things if you like, but these boards are not, nor will they ever be, a democracy.

    They are from a certain point of view. Democracy simply means power to the people. If users don't like this place or the way it's run, they can simply vote with their mice and leave.

    It's in the administrations best interest to not chase too many users away, but at the same time users shouldn't expect the admin to bend to their every will.

    That's just my input, take it for what it's worth. :p
     
  15. PrincessKenobi

    PrincessKenobi Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Aug 12, 2000
    Yay for updates after vacation!!!!

    ~PK~
     
  16. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Given that there are only several hundred actual human users, cancelling out all the sock puppet accounts you already acknowledge; given that a reasonable number of bans have been mentioned in this very thread which were unfair, many others mentioned in other threads around the boards; given that I myself have seen inconsistent and irrational moderation in the Senate indicating it was par for the course; given that I see all kinds of small comments about policies in posts all over these forums; given that the mods are right here in this very thread discussing problems with their own system; given that the quality of discussions seems to have greatly diminished, according to some old-timers and mods; then I think I'm pretty well supported in using the word "many" to denote that there are users who are, in fact, unhappy.

    Actually, there are not hundreds, but thousands of users here each day. The number I gave you was the number of unique accounts that had logged in for one day. Unless you are claiming that each user has, on average, at least 3 socks and logs in with all 3 every day, you are overly minimizing the number of people who visit here each day (and that's not even considering the people who visit less frequently).

    Having and using multiple socks is not all that common, believe it or not. You will sometimes find people who have a couple socks, and occasionally a great number, but most socks are used only for certain occasions (such as holidays). It's rare for me to check an account for socks and find more than one or two, and those socks usually haven't logged in for a long time.

    Quite frankly, most users have little or no problem with the way that the boards are operating right now. It is a basic principle of any group that those who complain are almost always louder than those who do not. Volume does not mean that you have support. It means that you have a vocal group, nothing more. For comparison, in the history of the Communications Forum there have been 2374 topics. Add in FF Comms and you have another 571, for a total of 2945 topics in both communications forums. Now, remember that those topics are in the entire history of the boards. There are also many people who do not watch Comms (for example, you see relatively few people from the Senate posting in Comms regularly, even if they post often in the Senate).

    Comms is a place where people come because they wish to discuss an issue that they have. As such, you can't claim that it represents an accurate cross section of user opinion for the boards. Even your claim of comments here come from a small number of individuals, not even 0.1% of those who visit here on a daily basis.

    In short, I'm not seeing evidence that this is a widespread problem. When looking at the big picture, most of the policies that are under dispute don't cause problems for most users. It's only a very extreme minority that have a problem with it. For most of the rest, it just works.

    Secondly, I didn't say anything about total re-engineering, so that is a straw argument. I've made a number of technical suggestions in Comms, but they shouldn't be lumped together. I basically said, and I mean this constructively, why don't you quit being a bunch of boneheads about things and utilize the very community you seem to think is here to help you amend/tweak/rewrite a new and better TOS and posting guide. I've said this here and implied it in the unwritten thread. I also implied that individual mods who can't listen to others shouldn't have undue sway in the process. I also suggested you drop the "we're the mods and you aren't" shtick. If all that adds up to re-engineering, then it's only of your attitude toward your own community.

    You were telling us how we should restructure the entire administrative organization of the boards, including appointing a "prime moderator" and allowing the community to vote on rules and policies. You have tried to tell us how we should completely overhaul our processes (ban lengths, for example). That is reengineerin
     
  17. DarthMatter

    DarthMatter Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Jul 12, 2004
    It doesn't matter how many users there are or how many people are wrongly banned, edited, or otherwise treated. All which matters is that users have been, in fact, wrongly banned, edited or otherwise treated, and this is something even you cannot deny, unless you want to delete this whole thread, as well as the ZT thread in the Senate, among others. Just because people complain, it doesn't mean they are wrong and the mods are right, does it? Shouldn't part of your goal be to eliminate such misunderstandings?

    In fact, it surprises me that someone claiming to be an expert, at 24, in "Quality" should reject out of hand any and all text in very well-reasoned proposals, which, even if partially tried, could very well improve the quality around here. You claim to want to improve the boards, to listen to feedback, except you are not listening to me - at all. You've just read enough to gainsay everything I offer and quibble over your own choice of words. In all honesty, I think you are displaying exceptionally bad leadership - nothing personal, though. It's about quality.

    "Quite frankly, most users have little or no problem with the way that the boards are operating right now"

    Prove it. Why not conduct an honest poll on every major board to find out what these thousands of theoretical users really think about their mods/policy? My claim was only that many users are unhappy, not that any particular percentage were. Your claim seems to be that a vast majority are perfectly happy and wouldn't have any problem with the moderation/policy in any way. So, do a quality control check and find out.
     
  18. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    In fact, it surprises me that someone claiming to be an expert, at 24, in "Quality" should reject out of hand any and all text in very well-reasoned proposals, which, even if partially tried, could very well improve the quality around here. You claim to want to improve the boards, to listen to feedback, except you are not listening to me - at all. You've just read enough to gainsay everything I offer and quibble over your own choice of words. In all honesty, I think you are displaying exceptionally bad leadership - nothing personal, though. It's about quality.

    You say that I'm not listening to you.

    I have been. You haven't said anything all that new, though. You've made suggestions that have either 1) been rejected before for technical reasons (automatic unbans), 2) rejected before for policy reasons (list of banned users), or 3) already in place (a "prime moderator" position, also known as head admin). You have also, in the process, been far less than courteous about it (calling the administration "boneheads" for example).

    Just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean that I am not listening to you.

    You have given your opinion, and I do appreciate it. However, it is not your place to demand changes in policy. Policy is set by the administration at the direction of the ownership. Where there is a disagreement between users and administration on what policy should be, it is the administration that makes the final call, not you.

    Kimball Kinnison
     
  19. DarthMatter

    DarthMatter Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Jul 12, 2004
    Alright then, you've finally let down your guard a bit ;) I'm not demanding anything but respect, in general. You can choose to ignore my suggestions and it won't bother me; I just want to be allowed voice to make them, and I guess you've done that, at least. Perhaps your disagreement has been too strenuous for it to seem like you've been listening, but on the other hand, I'm sorry if I've gone too far or been too pointed.

    I stand by the wisdom of my proposals, though, and it's actually an asset that others have said the same things. Democracy ain't a bad thing, Kimball :)
     
  20. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    I stand by the wisdom of my proposals, though, and it's actually an asset that others have said the same things. Democracy ain't a bad thing, Kimball

    But Democracy is not how these boards work, and it is not how the owners of these boards have decided to let them work. This isn't Usenet (or similar setups), with no central owner or authority. This is a privately owned message board designed to further the goals of the ownership. If anything, this is closer to a dictatorship than a democracy, but there's nothing wrong with that.

    Kimball Kinnison
     
  21. DarthMatter

    DarthMatter Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Jul 12, 2004
    "This is a privately owned message board designed to further the goals of the ownership."

    What are their goals??

    There's nothing wrong with what is usually called "benevolent dictatorship" on most discussion sites and other types of sites. All websites are owned and controlled by someone, even Usenet is controlled via distributed news servers at each ISP, which can kick you off just as surely as you can ban me here. The point is they all operate on some notion of consensus, designed to keep as many users happy as possible, while also keeping the owners happy. TF.N seems to be working under this general heading as well. So, it's not a question of tin horn dictatorship versus random mob...
     
  22. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Wait a minute, I might be misunderstanding you, but are you actually holding Usenet groups up as a model of organized efficiency, as compared to the "tin horn dictators" of TF.N?

    Talk about the blind men and the elephant..

    Perhaps an issue that can be realized on your part is to have some patience.

    Actually become part of the community, and see how it operates before you start issuing judgements about it.

    As KW pointed out, you seem to have good intentions, but are lacking in the procedural knowledge to apply them here, on this site.

    If you knew beforehand that one didn't need to log in with a sock to fill out an unban request, that might have eliminated some criticism you had.

    If you were familiar with the fact that there actually was a head administrator, maybe your "Prime Mod" suggestion wouldn't have been needed.

    I certainly wouldn't start a new job, and on the first or second day, be complaining how the management wasn't immediately implimenting my suggestions.

    A good portion of your concerns can be answered simply by becoming part of the community, and finding your comfort zone.

    Every one of your suggestions are listened to, except the fact is that a good portion of them have already been tried.

    Honestly, the goal here is to provide a fun environment to foster discussions.

    Worrying about every single exception to the rules, or achieving maximum efficiency comes later...



     
  23. DarthMatter

    DarthMatter Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Jul 12, 2004
    "Wait a minute, I might be misunderstanding you, but are you actually holding Usenet groups up as a model of organized efficiency, as compared to the "tin horn dictators" of TF.N?"

    You are misunderstanding me. I made neither of those points.

    "Actually become part of the community, and see how it operates before you start issuing judgements about it....A good portion of your concerns can be answered simply by becoming part of the community, and finding your comfort zone."

    My criticism regarding the unbans had to do with the unbans, not socks. My criticism regarding leaders had to do with your leadership, not whether you had a titular mod/admin or not. The fact that you have one makes my point for me, doesn't it?

    I would have made these points sooner, but I decided to do just what you suggested, posting some in Saga, Lit/Review, Senate (as you know) and then here. I'm not concerned with being promoted first, if that's what you mean. You guys surely wouldn't promote me anyway, after all this criticism. I've been posting here for a month and a half or so. I've read widely and played along in many opinion threads, voted in a huge bunch of polls. It's not a long time, but then how long is enough? For me, I was plenty comfortable to make the suggestions I made and accept any consequences.

    "Worrying about every single exception to the rules, or achieving maximum efficiency comes later."

    How long have these boards been around? 6 years? It's probably time to worry about efficiency...

    "the goal here is to provide a fun environment to foster discussions"

    Now, that's rich, coming from you, Mr44 ;)
     
  24. Genghis12

    Genghis12 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 18, 1999
    DarthMatter...
    "All which matters is that users have been, in fact, wrongly banned..."

    Technically, no users can, in fact, be "wrongly banned." Every user's status here at this site is at will. The terms of service for use of this site by any user are such that useage 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.

    If the site owner doesn't like the kind of car you drive in real life, he would be entirely within his rights to ban you, and that ban would be perfectly legitimate, most especially on a moral and ethical standard of measurement of fairness or equity.

    DarthMatter...
    "I'm not demanding anything but respect, in general."

    You mean, respect, as in this comment: "Now, that's rich, coming from you, Mr44"
     
  25. DarthMatter

    DarthMatter Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Jul 12, 2004
    "...that ban would be perfectly legitimate, most especially on a moral and ethical standard of measurement of fairness or equity..."

    I'm sure you don't mean that. It might be within some legalistic definition of allowable action, I'll give you that, because that's all you can justify, but it is by no means an "especially" moral or ethical move to ban a user because of the car they drive. It's not moral or ethical in the least to even try to justify that kind of action.

    (the bit about Mr44 was an inside joke)

    *looks around room*
    Next?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.