ManBungalow wrote:This forum deserves a better class of trolls [/joker]
I mean, Gillipig? It's like he's not even trying any more.
To you "trolls" seems to equal people who question the moral opinions held by the majority. To that I am guilty. Do I like to have some fun along the way? Of course I do, humour is the only antidote against feeling distraught over how stupid most people are. I suppose none of this is within your realms of understanding since you couldn't joke if your life depended on it.
BBS, you validly point out the subjectiveness of the mods but you make no attempt at suggesting an alternative. The only way I can think of to remove the human factor from the ekvation is to set the forum free from bans altogether. Now wouldn't that be a sight hehe.
Actually, the alternative is already at play. The mods ban less frequently the more they're criticized. Also, we learn how to call each other out, and this to a degree affects our behavior accordingly. It's the role of informal rules.
Formal rules themselves are very limited in usefulness--as we continually see with their arbitrary enforcement.
thegreekdog wrote: Questions (1) through (3) are good questions and I did not mean to denigrate them. They are just not good practical questions (as Woodruff has essentially indicated). Practically, it does not appear that things will change. I don't think things will change because, in my opinion, there aren't enough people leaving the forums because of poor or inconsistent or aggressive or hypocritical moderation. There are occasional perceived unfairnesses (patent pending), such as you and Symmetry here, but it's not enough to warrant that things change. That's the practical side of things I suppose.
My approach above is indicative of a non-reactive person. As you may know (or perhaps not), I also react to people (other than ignoring, which is also a reaction I suppose). I've been in plenty of "fights" with people on this forum. I think the key is to maintain a level of decorum while lambasting the opponent at the same time. Quite honestly, up until last week, you did this extremely well. I think better than anyone except Saxitoxin.
In sum (ha ha ha), your questions and views are valid, but not practical. And the questions and views are colored by your slip up from a week ago, where many people who support you in other ways found the thread to be in bad taste.
And thanks for the Taj Mahal cake.
Wow, I had no idea anyone took themselves/others so seriously on these forums. I have a feeling that a lot of people were judging me when BBS made his "slip up" of a thread and I played the devil's advocate to some extent. I found the thread to be in bad taste as well, tbh, but there are tons of people in here who make posts/threads in bad taste so I viewed BBS's thread as a mirror to all of them, not an outright lack of class.
I found it to be an utter lack of class on BBS's part, but I also find that to be in character for him so... *shrug*
thegreekdog wrote: Questions (1) through (3) are good questions and I did not mean to denigrate them. They are just not good practical questions (as Woodruff has essentially indicated). Practically, it does not appear that things will change. I don't think things will change because, in my opinion, there aren't enough people leaving the forums because of poor or inconsistent or aggressive or hypocritical moderation. There are occasional perceived unfairnesses (patent pending), such as you and Symmetry here, but it's not enough to warrant that things change. That's the practical side of things I suppose.
My approach above is indicative of a non-reactive person. As you may know (or perhaps not), I also react to people (other than ignoring, which is also a reaction I suppose). I've been in plenty of "fights" with people on this forum. I think the key is to maintain a level of decorum while lambasting the opponent at the same time. Quite honestly, up until last week, you did this extremely well. I think better than anyone except Saxitoxin.
In sum (ha ha ha), your questions and views are valid, but not practical. And the questions and views are colored by your slip up from a week ago, where many people who support you in other ways found the thread to be in bad taste.
And thanks for the Taj Mahal cake.
How are they not practical? Their subject matter has been in practice, and with some fine-tuning (via Q&A) perhaps some solutions could be found.
#2 is least likely to work. #3 is already in play. We shape each others' behavior through the informal rules which we observe and enforce. The juries out on #1.
Woodruff's formal approach is impractical. It doesn't matter how well the rules are written if they don't reflect the preferences of most people in the fora. However, these preferences originate from one's knowledge, and this knowledge is sometimes unable to be codified. In other words, people 'know' what they want, but they sometimes have difficulty in articulated that knowledge cogently for others. Therefore, starting threads on writing the best formal rules (written) will constantly be dogged by the underlying problems.*
With informal rules (#3 at play), people learn and develop as they go through trial-and-error. The rules change and so do people's behavior, but it's generally a collective effort. Some people resist change because they're one-trick ponies (e.g. those who interrupt an argument by calling someone Stupid or saying "blah blah blah reading comprehension failure blah blah blah"), but that's too bad.
If the forum should shift more toward informal organization and away from explicit and unnecessary mod intervention, then it would be on a better path.
Let me the pose the issue of "practicality" a different way - What makes you think that the way the forum is moderated is going to change from one of formal moderation to one of informal community moderation?
thegreekdog wrote:Let me the pose the issue of "practicality" a different way - What makes you think that the way the forum is moderated is going to change from one of formal moderation to one of informal community moderation?
I can think of a way that it could but it would require cooperation from the community...but I'm sure bbs is way ahead of me, this is his baby after all.
ManBungalow wrote:This forum deserves a better class of trolls [/joker]
I mean, Gillipig? It's like he's not even trying any more.
To you "trolls" seems to equal people who question the moral opinions held by the majority. To that I am guilty. Do I like to have some fun along the way? Of course I do, humour is the only antidote against feeling distraught over how stupid most people are. I suppose none of this is within your realms of understanding since you couldn't joke if your life depended on it.
BBS, you validly point out the subjectiveness of the mods but you make no attempt at suggesting an alternative. The only way I can think of to remove the human factor from the ekvation is to set the forum free from bans altogether. Now wouldn't that be a sight hehe.
Actually, the alternative is already at play. The mods ban less frequently the more they're criticized. Also, we learn how to call each other out, and this to a degree affects our behavior accordingly. It's the role of informal rules.
Formal rules themselves are very limited in usefulness--as we continually see with their arbitrary enforcement.
May I remind you that the act of criticizing mods is also ruled by subjective opinions. It's not like there's always a concensus of when a mod has gone too far or done wrong. Just look at some of the bans that have been issued for owen and glg. In some cases you'll have 50% saying the ban was justified and 50% saying it was ridiculous. I take it you wish to balance one subjective process with another but isn't that like doing two wrongs to make a right? The other thing I wish to say about this is that we already have this process, it's nothing new! We already criticize the mods when we think they've done wrong. It's not like we're afraid of them or anything.
AoG for President of the World!! I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!
Gillipig wrote:May I remind you that the act of criticizing mods is also ruled by subjective opinions.
In fact, I was told directly by King Achilles that he considers almost all criticism of moderators to fall under the bounds of "trolling and baiting". I'm not kidding.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
fadedpsychosis wrote:I found it to be an utter lack of class on BBS's part, but I also find that to be in character for him so... *shrug*
So I'm not the only one, eh?
(And of course I recognize there are quite likely plenty of folks who view me the same way...)
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
thegreekdog wrote:Let me the pose the issue of "practicality" a different way - What makes you think that the way the forum is moderated is going to change from one of formal moderation to one of informal community moderation?
It's not an explicit flip from A to B. It's marginal.
And, it's already been changing. From what I recall, bans have been less frequent over the years. So have the mods and their occasional remarks to remind people to behave. Those have been less frequent as well.
Those counts as shifts away from formal enforcement. What's substituting for it? It seems that informal institutions are (i.e. we're making our own informal rules).
Tangent: I entertain the thought of having mods around who will never ban people, but people expect them to be banned by them.
thegreekdog wrote:Let me the pose the issue of "practicality" a different way - What makes you think that the way the forum is moderated is going to change from one of formal moderation to one of informal community moderation?
It's not an explicit flip from A to B. It's marginal.
And, it's already been changing. From what I recall, bans have been less frequent over the years. So have the mods and their occasional remarks to remind people to behave. Those have been less frequent as well.
Those counts as shifts away from formal enforcement. What's substituting for it? It seems that informal institutions are (i.e. we're making our own informal rules).
Tangent: I entertain the thought of having mods around who will never ban people, but people expect them to be banned by them.
i tried my hardest not to ban people. It didn't work.
thegreekdog wrote:Let me the pose the issue of "practicality" a different way - What makes you think that the way the forum is moderated is going to change from one of formal moderation to one of informal community moderation?
It's not an explicit flip from A to B. It's marginal.
And, it's already been changing. From what I recall, bans have been less frequent over the years. So have the mods and their occasional remarks to remind people to behave. Those have been less frequent as well.
Those counts as shifts away from formal enforcement. What's substituting for it? It seems that informal institutions are (i.e. we're making our own informal rules).
Tangent: I entertain the thought of having mods around who will never ban people, but people expect them to be banned by them.
i tried my hardest not to ban people. It didn't work.
To recap: From what I observed, bans and locks and explicit warnings (made in public) have been decreasing over the years. So, there's that to consider.
Would you mind going in a bit more detail about your post? Your means for avoiding banning failed.... what are the means? and what exactly failed?
(if it's pimpdave, I don't think anything that you've done to avoid banning him would've mattered. He was an intense and frequent troll of the highest degree. Maximum trolling.)
Obviously, all of the following are my own views and are not necessarily held or approved by the rest of the moderating community. Additionally, be prepared for more wishy-washy lawyer-type language.
I thought there were three types of offenses (for lack of a better term) that I dealt with. There were the obvious offenses, the conflict offenses, and the judgment-call offenses. The obvious offenses were things like posting a nude picture or overt racism. These were easily dealt with and generally resulted in bannings. These bannings do not fall in my definition of me trying not to ban people.
The judgment call offenses were hard to deal with. Essentially, these are offenses of not-as-overt racism, bigotry, etc. For example, are threads critizing Muslims bigoted? What if there are threads also criticizing Christians in a similar way? The best way to deal with these alleged offenses, in my opinion, was for the moderating team to discuss them. We have and had some very intelligent and even-handed moderators (MeDeFe and rds the most active here). A discussion usually resulted in a consensus and precedent. This was an area where I did not want to ban anyone. If otherwise reasonable people make an arguably racist or bigoted argument, without malice, I don't find it appropriate to ban those people in all circumstances. Being against gay marriage, for example, may make one a bigot in some peoples' views and not a bigot in others' views. Similarly, being against people against gay marriage may make one a bigot in some peoples' views and not a bigot in others' views. If we agree that gay marriage should be something that is discussed and should be discussed in this forum, then we want to allow people to have those discussions without worrying whether they are going to get banned for saying the wrong thing.
The conflict offenses were often the hardest to deal with, but sometimes not as hard as the judgment call offenses. These were incidents where one or more users were at odds with one or more users. These are the trifecta trolling/baiting/flaming things. My first step was to private message all relevant parties and try to get them to cool down and/or ignore the other party. Sometimes this worked. Often this resulted in accusations flying back and forth. If the first step worked, great. If it did not, I would monitor the two individuals. If things escalated or even if they stayed the same, I would try to get some consensus from other moderators on how to deal with those individuals, especially if it got to the point where the conflict was ruining the off topics forum. For the most part, these conflicts were the result of opposing viewpoints on a particular issue and how one or more people dealt with another person's viewpoint. I'll use the pimpdave example since you brought it up. He created a number of anti-Tea Party threads and was accused publicly and privately of trolling. Obviously, I did not like his threads. So, as a forum goer I had three choices. Read the threads and post in them. Read the threads and don't post in them. Ignore the threads. If I was a non-moderator at the time, I would have ignored them or posted in them in a jokey fashion. That was my advice to people who complained. If the complainers couldn't control their impulses, why should I ban someone for three months or six months? If, as the argument went, the alleged offender was ruining the forum for others, then I would expect the "others" to also speak up publicly to the offender and let him or her know that he or she was ruining the forum. Self-regulation, which is what I thought you were going for here, was preferable to outright banning (at least to me).
In any event, one of the most frustrating parts of the job for me were dealing with people who thought a banning was a way to win a conflict. And I tried hard not to give in to those people (with some success).
Gillipig wrote:May I remind you that the act of criticizing mods is also ruled by subjective opinions.
In fact, I was told directly by King Achilles that he considers almost all criticism of moderators to fall under the bounds of "trolling and baiting". I'm not kidding.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Regarding conflict offenses, if one party gets banned, do you think this emboldens the 'victimized' party to behave more poorly?
I would answer that with a qualified yes.
To some extent it depends on the nature of the banned party and what he/she stands to lose. Did it embolden BBS? TBH, I am not getting that impression. Did BBS post a thread considered even more offensive? This could be attributed to remorse but I doubt it. Only BBS can say. He did post a thread that was carefully skirting any actual rule breaking but it was just that, careful. Quantity of "poor" behavior may have increased but the volume/severity seems to have decreased. Please correct me if I am wrong.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Regarding conflict offenses, if one party gets banned, do you think this emboldens the 'victimized' party to behave more poorly?
I would answer that with a qualified yes.
To some extent it depends on the nature of the banned party and what he/she stands to lose. Did it embolden BBS? TBH, I am not getting that impression. Did BBS post a thread considered even more offensive? This could be attributed to remorse but I doubt it. Only BBS can say. He did post a thread that was carefully skirting any actual rule breaking but it was just that, careful. Quantity of "poor" behavior may have increased but the volume/severity seems to have decreased. Please correct me if I am wrong.
He was talking about Symmetry as the victimized party. His question is whether Symmetry now thinks he can get people banned now that he's gotten BBS banned.
My response is that it depends on the facts and circumstances. I think it was clear BBS violated the forum guidelines, so I don't think it was a stretch for Symmetry to report him so I don't think Symmetry will be emboldened.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Regarding conflict offenses, if one party gets banned, do you think this emboldens the 'victimized' party to behave more poorly?
I would answer that with a qualified yes.
To some extent it depends on the nature of the banned party and what he/she stands to lose. Did it embolden BBS? TBH, I am not getting that impression. Did BBS post a thread considered even more offensive? This could be attributed to remorse but I doubt it. Only BBS can say. He did post a thread that was carefully skirting any actual rule breaking but it was just that, careful. Quantity of "poor" behavior may have increased but the volume/severity seems to have decreased. Please correct me if I am wrong.
He was talking about Symmetry as the victimized party. His question is whether Symmetry now thinks he can get people banned now that he's gotten BBS banned.
My response is that it depends on the facts and circumstances. I think it was clear BBS violated the forum guidelines, so I don't think it was a stretch for Symmetry to report him so I don't think Symmetry will be emboldened.
Ok, I see my mistake. I forgot that I am the only one that ever viewed BBS in any way as the victimized party lolz. Sometimes in trying to keep up with the convo I skim ahead a little to be up-to-date. This one is moving rather quickly. I'm thinking that the amount of emboldening depends on the vindictive nature of the victim? If they merely had a certain threshold for resorting to getting someone banned then the number of times they attempted to do so would remain the same, regardless of how many people they had gotten banned previously.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Regarding conflict offenses, if one party gets banned, do you think this emboldens the 'victimized' party to behave more poorly?
I would answer that with a qualified yes.
To some extent it depends on the nature of the banned party and what he/she stands to lose. Did it embolden BBS? TBH, I am not getting that impression. Did BBS post a thread considered even more offensive? This could be attributed to remorse but I doubt it. Only BBS can say. He did post a thread that was carefully skirting any actual rule breaking but it was just that, careful. Quantity of "poor" behavior may have increased but the volume/severity seems to have decreased. Please correct me if I am wrong.
He was talking about Symmetry as the victimized party. His question is whether Symmetry now thinks he can get people banned now that he's gotten BBS banned.
My response is that it depends on the facts and circumstances. I think it was clear BBS violated the forum guidelines, so I don't think it was a stretch for Symmetry to report him so I don't think Symmetry will be emboldened.
Neither of you knows whether Symmetry did or did not report BBS. His doing so is merely one of three possibilities. The second possibility is that another user reported BBS. The third possibility is that the mod team took action without it having been reported at all.
Something to keep in mind.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Regarding conflict offenses, if one party gets banned, do you think this emboldens the 'victimized' party to behave more poorly?
I would answer that with a qualified yes.
To some extent it depends on the nature of the banned party and what he/she stands to lose. Did it embolden BBS? TBH, I am not getting that impression. Did BBS post a thread considered even more offensive? This could be attributed to remorse but I doubt it. Only BBS can say. He did post a thread that was carefully skirting any actual rule breaking but it was just that, careful. Quantity of "poor" behavior may have increased but the volume/severity seems to have decreased. Please correct me if I am wrong.
He was talking about Symmetry as the victimized party. His question is whether Symmetry now thinks he can get people banned now that he's gotten BBS banned.
My response is that it depends on the facts and circumstances. I think it was clear BBS violated the forum guidelines, so I don't think it was a stretch for Symmetry to report him so I don't think Symmetry will be emboldened.
He still tries to play the same old game, and we can see that it's in a predictable format. Symmetry is emboldened to act like an ass because I'm on a tight rope. Symmetry has more of an incentive to try to provoke me to get him worked up, so he can perform his theatrics and get me banned again. His chances of profiting from this endeavor are more in his favor, thus he is emboldened to behave poorly.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Regarding conflict offenses, if one party gets banned, do you think this emboldens the 'victimized' party to behave more poorly?
I would answer that with a qualified yes.
To some extent it depends on the nature of the banned party and what he/she stands to lose. Did it embolden BBS? TBH, I am not getting that impression. Did BBS post a thread considered even more offensive? This could be attributed to remorse but I doubt it. Only BBS can say. He did post a thread that was carefully skirting any actual rule breaking but it was just that, careful. Quantity of "poor" behavior may have increased but the volume/severity seems to have decreased. Please correct me if I am wrong.
He was talking about Symmetry as the victimized party. His question is whether Symmetry now thinks he can get people banned now that he's gotten BBS banned.
My response is that it depends on the facts and circumstances. I think it was clear BBS violated the forum guidelines, so I don't think it was a stretch for Symmetry to report him so I don't think Symmetry will be emboldened.
He still tries to play the same old game, and we can see that it's in a predictable format. Symmetry is emboldened to act like an ass because I'm on a tight rope. Symmetry has more of an incentive to try to provoke me to get him worked up, so he can perform his theatrics and get me banned again. His chances of profiting from this endeavor are more in his favor, thus he is emboldened to behave poorly.
not the best examples in my opinion, as in the latter 2 of the three you could possibly be seen as baiting, and in #2 you doctored the quote to look like a post from ME was from him (not cool by the way). quite frankly I don't see him as being any more emboldened than I see you as subdued... both your snipes at each other have been on a fairly consistent level, though you've been more careful in your phrasing to not offend the rest of us as much
John Adams wrote:I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress! And by God I have had this Congress!
BigBallinStalin wrote:He still tries to play the same old game, and we can see that it's in a predictable format. Symmetry is emboldened to act like an ass because I'm on a tight rope. Symmetry has more of an incentive to try to provoke me to get him worked up, so he can perform his theatrics and get me banned again. His chances of profiting from this endeavor are more in his favor, thus he is emboldened to behave poorly.
not the best examples in my opinion, as in the latter 2 of the three you could possibly be seen as baiting, and in #2 you doctored the quote to look like a post from ME was from him (not cool by the way). quite frankly I don't see him as being any more emboldened than I see you as subdued... both your snipes at each other have been on a fairly consistent level, though you've been more careful in your phrasing to not offend the rest of us as much
BigBallinStalin's just playing his typical game. He's become much more offensive toward me in the quotes I've seen of his since I foed him, and he's become much more offensive toward Symmetry once Symmetry started calling him out on his bullshit too. It's just his way.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
