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

Well, I see both sides.

Respect and politness is certainly ideal and is the best way to go in commenting on other people's work (or anything, really).

However, you cannot force politeness and respect. It just doesn't work that way, and no amount of rules or enforcement will make it happen.

 

However, you cannot force politeness and respect. It just doesn't work that way, and no amount of rules or enforcement will make it happen.

Oh, we're not trying to. It's more of a "What's the difference between constructive criticism and flaming?" type thing than a "You have to say things this way, because we say so!" thing. If that makes sense.


Dana

 

That is very nice of you Spike for not allowing any spoilers in Saga.

Why is it necessary to allow spoilers in CT by the way?

 

farraday...
"Gee if only the originator of that statement were here to tell us if they expected the mods to treat that as a justifiable reason for banning rather then as a generalized warning to be nice."

Any document used for enforcement over any length of time through changing enforcers faces the issue of conservative strict constructionism, or liberal divination of intent. Regardless of which approach currently holds favor in today's Modsquad, the expectations of a single moderator - the originator of the statement - are but a minority opinion to what that statement means today to the administration of this site.

"But I guess the intent of the TOS is less important then using it to justify whatever actions you feel necesary at any given moment."

The site's administration determines the intent of the TOS. And given that the administration changes over time, such intent may change with it.

 

Yes... the meanings change over any length of time to mean whatever you want them to whenever you want them to but not consistantly nor logically nor with any amount of judgement.

You're pretty words are pretty much an excuse, not a reason. The TOS was never intended to be the be end all of moderating. Perhaps since you're too much of newbie mod to realize that Genghis. Perhaps you're only capable of seeing it as justification for whatever action you take, instead of a simple general guideline for users and mods.

But hey it's not like I was there when it was written or anything. I'm sure you treating it like a sacred tome handed down from on high to provide everything anyone ever need to know is exactly what was intended when it was written.

It's so nice to see that the TOS has allowed the mods to focus entirely on how to ban and left them with no understanding of why or when. But I'm sure what this site really needs is thug enforcers kneecapping anyone who breaks the rules rather then guiders and teachers and dare I say it.. leaders.

But lets not quibble, I'ms ure it's in the best interests of the sight that we make mods to whip the thundering herd until it isn't obeying the rules, just trying to avoid the whips.

 

I really don't like the anti-mod attitude I've been seeing in various places around the boards. We're just trying to do our jobs.


Dana

 

That's absolutely not necessary, especially in Comms.

 

farraday...
"Yes... the meanings change over any length of time to mean whatever you want them to whenever you want them to but not consistantly nor logically nor with any amount of judgement."

Incorrect. The words used have a very clear meaning, regardless of how you would try to change or modify them.

"You're pretty words are pretty much an excuse, not a reason."

My pretty words are nothing more than a statement of the obvious. What past administrations may or may not have done are interesting to know and understand, but don't much matter a hill of beans to what this administration may or may not choose to do.

"The TOS was never intended to be the be end all of moderating."

You're showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what the TOS is there for. They are the deal made between all users - regardless of status - of this site and the site's administration. The end all of moderating is merely upholding that deal for the administration when users choose not to.

 

Incorrect. The words used have a very clear meaning, regardless of how you would try to change or modify them.

Yeah that's bull**** and everyone knows it. The words have very clear meanings as long as your a mod in which case they mean whatever you want them to mean. Users dont' have the luxury of deciding when or when not 'misleading' means they don't like what was said and getting rid of it.

My pretty words are nothing more than a statement of the obvious. What past administrations may or may not have done are interesting to know and understand, but don't much matter a hill of beans to what this administration may or may not choose to do.

Which is a shame really considering how superior this site has been then it is now. Obviously you have no itnerest in learning what they did right as logn as you get to do what you want when you want.

You're showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what the TOS is there for. They are the deal made between all users - regardless of status - of this site and the site's administration. The end all of moderating is merely upholding that deal for the administration when users choose not to.

No, it isn't a deal. No deal in history has ever said "Do this this and this and we may get rid of you, if you don't we can still get rid of you."

There is nothing inherently dealesque about the TOS. All it is under your reading is a method for justifying anything and everything you do. Your problem is that you're incapable of justifying your actions other then pointing at the TOS, which basically says "might=right".

Given your reading of the TOS it's a wonder you think any more is neccesary then the one sentence

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.

Everything else is window dressing. What's the point of saying you may be banned for any of these things if you go on to say we can ban you for any reason we chose at any time?

All you see when you look at the TOS is justification for anything you care to do. Which is quite a shame.

 

farraday...
"Yeah that's bull**** and everyone knows it."

There's a reason why people go to school to learn. It starts with letters. Then words. And meanings of words. Granted, we don't have any literacy tests for membership at this site, but if you're ever unclear on what anything means on this site, simply PM a moderator. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to help you.

"The words have very clear meanings as long as your a mod in which case they mean whatever you want them to mean. Users dont' have the luxury of deciding when or when not 'misleading' means they don't like what was said and getting rid of it."

You are correct that users don't have the luxury. But that lack of such luxury has no bearing on the issue of the ontological or lexical semantics of internet message board guidelines. While, yes, it is known that linguistic meaning may change (and has) over time, history and precedence has shown this to be a long - very long - process. Longer than this site's been in existence. This site and its administration is not rewriting the English language. Neither is the English language as fluid and open to bastardization as you suggest. When you agree not to post hateful things. It's a pretty simple issue - just don't post hateful things.

"Which is a shame really considering how superior this site has been then it is now. Obviously you have no itnerest in learning what they did right as logn as you get to do what you want when you want."

Everyone's got their own golden age here. I'm glad you were able to find yours. Really.

"No, it isn't a deal. No deal in history has ever said "Do this this and this and we may get rid of you, if you don't we can still get rid of you.""

Yes, it is a deal. One which you've agreed to abide by through your posting. You're incorrect that no deal in history has ever said that. Here's an example of one which has. If you choose to no longer agree to the deal, you have a very simple option to exercise your termination of your end of the deal. Don't post.

"There is nothing inherently dealesque about the TOS."

Sure there is. All users who agree to it are getting something in return - use of this site's full resources available to users who abide by the deal. You do not have to agree to the TOS. You do not need an account here to enjoy some benefits of this site. You can view its pages and lurk without ever having to agree to anything. To do more, however, requires a bit of responsibility on your part. Your responsibility is in adhering to the things in the TOS you've agreed to do or not do.

"Your problem is that you're incapable of justifying your actions other then pointing at the TOS, which basically says 'might=right.'"

You suggest that "might=right" is an inherently bad philosophy. For people who uphold their end of the bargain, then no moderating action is needed. At all. It is only required for those who have chosen to disregard this site and its users. And for such people who have chosen to abuse this site and its patrons, "might=right" is a perfectly valid and appropriate philosophy to take.

"Given your reading of the TOS it's a wonder you think any more is neccesary then the one sentence
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."

Actually, I'd prefer to streamline it a bit more: "This is a Star Wars fan message board, so use common sense and don't screw around or you're out of here."

"Everything else is window dressing. What's the point of saying you may be banned for any of these things if you go on to say we can ban you for any reason we chose at any time?"

To clarify the lines of authority regarding ownership of this site's privileges. There are those who harbor the mistaken belief that this

 

There's a reason why people go to school to learn. It starts with letters. Then words. And meanings of words. Granted, we don't have any literacy tests for membership at this site, but if you're ever unclear on what anything means on this site, simply PM a moderator. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to help you.

Genghis, you're leaving aside the reality that different people have different interpretations of various parts of the Terms of Service (along with just about everything else in life), along with how the TOS relates to each situation that comes up. Sometimes, most people agree on how something should be interpreted, and other times there's great disagreement.

Implying that there's a single definition or interpretation for everything in the TOS is silly. If that were the case, there'd be no need for discussion in the Mod Squad, and if you extend it further, no point in discussing the films or books, since there would be only one correct interpretation for any given thing.

 

No, it isn't a deal. No deal in history has ever said "Do this this and this and we may get rid of you, if you don't we can still get rid of you."

If anything, the TOS is coser to a license than a contract.

Whether you like it or not, this is a private message board. You have no right whatsoever to post here. Those rights are reserved exclusively to the owners.

However, they have agreed to let you (and anyone else) post here as long as they follow certain guidelines (contained in the TOS). You're right, it isn't exactly a deal. It's a simple statement that you are allowed to post here as long as you stay within those guidelines.

You are still free to post whatever you want, but if you choose to post outside of those guidelines, your "license to post" can be revoked, either temporarily or permanently.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Genghis, we're all glad you have a commanding grasp of the English language, but the most eloquent speakers know when simplicity is best. Consider the average age here and stop using so many big words plz.

Also, KW is 100% correct as usual. Any deal or contract is open to some degree of interpretation. The words in the TOS have a clear meaning, but cannot possibly cover every single event that happens in this boards, and are open to interpretation in that respect. The TOS must be applied to a given situation, with its original intent in mind, to reach a resolution. It is nothing more than a broad outline of how a user must behave on these boards.

 

KW...
"Genghis, you're leaving aside the reality that different people have different interpretations of various parts of the Terms of Service..."

Because I was discussing meanings, which is a wholly different animal than discussing interpretations of such meanings. The assertion that the meanings of language can be shifted at the whim of a moderator is incorrect. And I gave reasons why. These reasons, of course, may or may not be applicable if we move into the realm of the study of interpretations of meanings, which is something else entirely.

"Implying that there's a single definition or interpretation for everything in the TOS is silly."

I never made such an implication. My statement was that the meanings of the words used in the guidelines are clear. Clarity, however, is definitely not synonomous with with singularity of definition or interpretation.

 

What?

Edit: Thank you for the kind words, Hawk . I'm glad I was able to understand something here.

 

KW...
"What?"

Well, you tell me. You took issue with something I said in relation to interpretation of meanings. Yet, none of my posts remotely dealt with that subject. So, you evidently took issue with something I wasn't even talking about, and suggested an implication which doesn't exist.

 

You know, i never really thought of the TOS as a contract either, Kinnison. To be honest, i never even read the thing untill i was banned a month after i registered here. Frankly, i think it simply says that you, the administration, can do whatever you want. If it's directly said that we have to express that we agree, we either do that or get a e-gun to our head. Now i'm a reasonable person, i don't think thats too much to ask.

Now go to any message board on the internet and there will always be a TOS there. Now sometimes thats closely handled as the God-Given word of law, such as here, other times its just a thing already in the board system when it is originally made and its never really given any thought. There will always be people that break that and people that bend that. But its just like real life...you're given freedom. If you want to abide by the rules and live in peace, you can do so. If you want to pull out your guns at the gate and hope you survive, you can do that, too.

There's really neither a liscense or contract here. Nobody agrees to anything. They just click the agree button and you're in after 5 minutes.

 

See, this is why I told you to stop using so many big words. You're confusing people.

 

There's a reason why people go to school to learn. It starts with letters. Then words. And meanings of words. Granted, we don't have any literacy tests for membership at this site, but if you're ever unclear on what anything means on this site, simply PM a moderator. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to help you. You are correct that users don't have the luxury. ... But that lack of such luxury has no bearing on the issue of the ontological or lexical semantics of internet message board guidelines. While, yes, it is known that linguistic meaning may change (and has) over time, history and precedence has shown this to be a long - very long - process. Longer than this site's been in existence. This site and its administration is not rewriting the English language. Neither is the English language as fluid and open to bastardization as you suggest. When you agree not to post hateful things. It's a pretty simple issue - just don't post hateful things.

See you're trying to quibble but everyone can see you're just being obtuse. Words have meanings, no ****, however the problem isn't the fact it has a meaning it's what it means directly in relation to these boards. That is painfully unclear, which you profit off of with this little diatribes about how obvious it is that hateful means hateful and misleading means misleading. By the way I do hope a real mod explains why your antics about words having meanings isn't blatantly misleading. Maybe it's just that I'm used to Senate where if any one on either side tried to pull what you just did they'd be laughed out of the board by both sides.

Everyone's got their own golden age here. I'm glad you were able to find yours. Really.

It has nothing to do with 'golden age' that's just your excuse for not trying. It has everything to do with a provinicialism amoung mods that has them caring less for the boards then their own little corner of their own little board.

Yes, it is a deal. One which you've agreed to abide by through your posting. You're incorrect that no deal in history has ever said that. Here's an example of one which has. If you choose to no longer agree to the deal, you have a very simple option to exercise your termination of your end of the deal. Don't post.

So I get to post here and in exchange you agree to allow yourselves to ban me whenever you want for any reason, or no reason at all. Gee Mr Mod that's swell.

Really Genghis, might makes right? Why are you even a mod? You obviously don't care about the users. You obviously don't care about the boards. What possible reason do you have for moderating other then that they said you could. In fact I'd extend that question to all the mods. What qualifies you to mod and why should you be a one?

Sure there is. All users who agree to it are getting something in return - use of this site's full resources available to users who abide by the deal.

Abide how? How do you abide by a deal which only says "we can ban you whenever we want"? By being banned?

You suggest that "might=right" is an inherently bad philosophy. For people who uphold their end of the bargain, then no moderating action is needed.

It's obvious you only bother reading part of the TOS. There is no such thing as the user's end. There is nothing for them to uphold.

It is only required for those who have chosen to disregard this site and its users. And for such people who have chosen to abuse this site and its patrons, "might=right" is a perfectly valid and appropriate philosophy to take.

No it isn't, and you saying so shows a distinct lack of understanding of both philosophy, and indeed moderating.

Actually, I'd prefer to streamline it a bit more: "This is a Star Wars fan message board, so use common sense and don't screw around or you're out of here."

Yeah, it's a shame you're not in charge, then we could finally get this place nice and ********** up so PW would have more of an excuse to get rid of it.

To clarify the lines of authority regarding owners

 

There's really neither a liscense or contract here. Nobody agrees to anything. They just click the agree button and you're in after 5 minutes.

Strictly speaking, nothing requires you to agree to a license. A license is simply a granting of rights or privileges.

However, in some cases, such as posting on an internet message board, there is no other way to gain those rights or privileges except by agreeing to the license. No one forces you to, but your other option is to not post or have your ability to post revoked.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Yes, but honestly its no real agreement. It's just a stop at the gate, not an oath.

 

farraday...
"See you're trying to quibble but everyone can see you're just being obtuse. Words have meanings, no ****, however the problem isn't the fact it has a meaning it's what it means directly in relation to these boards."

It's meaning directly in relation to these boards are the direct result of the language chosen to reflect that meaning. And that language is, in reality, the same language used in "the real world." That place outside of this message board. And that language used is relatively simplistic. Yes, the language is clear, at least for those generally fulfilling the registration requirements of being 13 or older.

Yeah, I agree that there's definitely some serious problem if some mod's reading the line: "The goal of the Forums is to foster communication and the interchange of ideas within the online Star Wars community." and it registers to him: "ban everyone with a white screename on a grey background."

"It has nothing to do with 'golden age' that's just your excuse for not trying."

Sure it does. Every parameter this place has shifts over time. The user base. The tastes of the user base. The moderators. The tastes of the moderators. Heck, even the TOS has had modifications to it over time. So, it's no surprise, really, that you prefer one given point in time over another one.

"So I get to post here and in exchange you agree to allow yourselves to ban me whenever you want for any reason, or no reason at all. Gee Mr Mod that's swell."

Out of curiosity, how often do you feel that users are banned for no reason at all?

"Really Genghis, might makes right?"

Yes, really.

"Why are you even a mod?"

Simple - because I obviously care about the users and the boards, silly.

"Abide how? How do you abide by a deal which only says 'we can ban you whenever we want?' By being banned?"

You tell me, since this is your example. The TOS for this site doesn't only say "we can ban you whenever we want," so obviously it's different from your question.

"It's obvious you only bother reading part of the TOS. There is no such thing as the user's end. There is nothing for them to uphold."

The Rules of Conduct section of the TOS (tos.asp) are entirely the "user's end."

"Gee Genghy, when you put it that way it sounds so much better, it's hard to see why they don't put you in charge of PR. Honestly though Genghis I'm continually surprised none of the mods or admins body check you when you start trying to explain things in your painfully 'efficent' way."

Thankfully, body checks are one item not in the TOS.

 

Yes, the language is clear, at least for those generally fulfilling the registration requirements of being 13 or older.

farraday is an ex-mod if your not aware. I'm pretty sure he fits the requirements. Nice comeback, though.

 

User agrees not to post any information that is... blah blah blah blah.


Interestingly enough nowehre in the ROC does it specify any results for breaking the ROC.

Only when you move into the TOS does it specify what might be done. Specifically messages editted and posting privledges revoked.
Also in the TOS segement it specifically lists three types of posts which may be removed, those that are "offensive, harassing, [or] baiting". Everything else is under the category of otherwise inappropriate. Obviously then the TOS and ROC while they refer to each other obliquely, are read seperately.

Finally the TOS and ROC only mention banning once.

...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.

This is of course on it's own with no reference to any violations of the rules. Only that the administration 'deem it neccesary'.

So yes, according to the TOS any one can be banned at any time if it is deemed neccesary. Everything else is just window dressing since the only result of not complying totally is having a post editted. a bannign is completely seperate based on whatever the mod in question deems neccesary instead of the rules.

<thumbs up> Well atleast we know that posts have to atleast be deemed inappropriate before their editted or removed, that's a real stide forward for mod member relations. You can be banned at the drop of a pin, but your post, well that needs to violate a rule before they edit that.

I'm so glad a minute examination of the words of the TOS rather then it's spirit can help us post better.

 

Yes, but honestly its no real agreement. It's just a stop at the gate, not an oath.

The best way I can think of to describe the TOS and ROC and how you are not bound to accept them is to quote from another license, this one designed for software. The GNU General Public License (GPL) includes this little bit in section 5:

You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

We could easily reword part of it to fit the TOS instead.

You are not required to accept these Terms of Service, since you have not signed them. However, nothing else grants you permission to post at these boards. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept these Terms of Service. Therefore, by posting on these boards, you indicate your acceptance of these Terms of Service to do so, and all its terms and conditions.

You have just as much legal claim to posting here as I do to moderate here: none at all. If you don't want to accept the blanket terms that the site owners have set forth to allow you to post here, then you have two choices:

1) Negotiate with them for better terms, or
2) Don't post.

It really is that simple.

Kimball Kinnison