Seth Ananda needing to be banned

[scotty2000]

Also, if there isn't a "no insult" policy, then the moderation becomes even more unclear. That policy could potentially make moderation super clear and fair...if the moderators enforced it consistently.

[Sloppy Zhang]

Thank you, Sloppy Zhang!

 

I just ask: when is insulting someone personally on this forum ever necessary?

 

I guess we will have opinions that differ on that, and that's fine...as long as people are at least being considerate and just. You have...so thanks again for that.

 

_/\_

 

I don't think it's ever necessary, really.

 

However, it does happen. And how are we going to deal with it?

 

I suggest a hands off manner of dealing with it.

 

In the hyok moderation logs, you and apech talked about the "under the radar" insults- people with weaselly words that can insult without every really calling someone a name. Apech mentioned that while he understands people can do that, he doesn't want to get involved in every argument....

 

Well.... look what's happening.

 

When someone thinks someone else is acting like a jackass, they are going to call that person out. I think it's ridiculous for the person who pointed it out to get warned/suspended/banned, and allow the jackass to continue jackass-ish behavior because "well they never really personally insulted any one person.........."

 

Trying to place ourselves delicately on one point on the spectrum is obviously not working out- because the spectrum of "insult" is very fluid, we can't have a solid rule on it.

 

So I say we remove the "no insult" policy, because that happens in any heated discussion, and replace it with a "no disruptive behavior" policy.

 

Which means that something that, say, hyok said wouldn't get him in hot water. What WOULD get him hot water is if he left dozens of back to back posts leaving disparaging comments about the person. Or if he started multiple threads about the person. Or something of that sort.

 

If a dispute between a handful of people gets out of control, move it to the pit and let them duke it out. If something becomes dangerous to the point of serious sounding threats, legally actionable material, illegal material, or other forms of harassment, well then we get back into moderation action to control disruptive behavior.

 

But not insults. It ain't working out for us.

[Sloppy Zhang]

Also, if there isn't a "no insult" policy, then the moderation becomes even more unclear. That policy could potentially make moderation super clear and fair...if the moderators enforced it consistently.

 

I'm saying moderation shouldn't step into personal debates/squabbles at all unless it is disruptive to the functioning of the forum as a whole.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[Stigweard]

I'm saying moderation shouldn't step into personal debates/squabbles at all unless it is disruptive to the functioning of the forum as a whole.

LOL and I am saying that moderators should be stepping in AT ALL and it should be members themselves sorting it out just like we did here: [Moderation] -- tulku

 

[Sunya]

LOL and I am saying that moderators should be stepping in AT ALL and it should be members themselves sorting it out just like we did here: [Moderation] -- tulku

 

 

Are you going to start a thread for every little squabble you see so we can all discuss it? We are all grownups. We can all deal with our own issues here. If there is an argument, the people involved can handle it. It's not difficult to simply stop replying to somebody or even put them on ignore if need be.

[Apech]

LOL and I am saying that moderators should be stepping in AT ALL and it should be members themselves sorting it out just like we did here: [Moderation] -- tulku

 

 

Just to clarify (as I did on that thread) Tulku was contacted by the Mod team before your thread was started and given a warning. He then self-edited.

[Stigweard]

Are you going to start a thread for every little squabble you see so we can all discuss it? We are all grownups. We can all deal with our own issues here. If there is an argument, the people involved can handle it. It's not difficult to simply stop replying to somebody or even put them on ignore if need be.

It would be nice wouldn't? That we were all adults who just handled things respectfully and worked things out.

 

 

Sorry ... I didn't notice you "simply stop replying to Scotty or even put him on ignore."

 

[Mal]

and is our moderation response going to receive another

 

 

WTF!!!

[Stigweard]

and is our moderation response going to receive another

Well every time you mess up like you did with the decision to suspend Scotty for merely being a provocateur, then "YES" I gunna shove that arse-faced Klingon in yours.

 

[doc benway]

Well every time you mess up like you did with the decision to suspend Scotty for merely being a provocateur, then "YES" I gunna shove that arse-faced Klingon in yours.

 

Oh no!!

Not the Klingon!!

Please! Not the Klingon!!!

 

 

 

[gendao]

Perhaps transparent modding could be implemented to address any concerns or suspicions of bias, unfairness or misinterpretation of rules?

 

Is there some reason why any moderator discussions need to be closed-door in internal, private PMs?

 

If not, why not just limit all moderation debates to the public mod logs for everyone to view and participate in? Mods would still maintain final authority, but at least their collective thought processes and factors being weighed could be openly seen and understood by all? Protests could then still be aired and logged for the record, if nothing else, lol. Much like a court-of-law?

 

Also, the initial reports or complaints wouldn't have to be included - just any moderator debate about it would. However, there could be a "reported" counter button on each post that displays the number of times it HAS been reported.

 

(And if the mods themselves desired some privacy to protect themselves from any blowback, they could adopt separate Mod IDs. The more important thing here would be for the actual judicial interpretation and decision-making to be fully-exposed and open for public debate and democratic "townhall" input.)

 

So, this would become more like a traditional top-down hierarchy...with a slight Wiki twist.

 

And no, this still wouldn't guarantee 100% fairness, but nothing can - as that can be fairly subjective in many cases..

 

 

Well, just my .02! Take it or leave it!

Edited September 9, 2011 by vortex

[Stigweard]

Perhaps transparent modding could be implemented to address any concerns or suspicions of bias, unfairness or misinterpretation of rules?

 

Is there some reason why any moderator discussions need to be closed-door in internal, private PMs?

 

If not, why not just limit all moderation debates to the public mod logs for everyone to view and participate in? Mods would still maintain final authority, but at least their collective thought processes and factors being weighed could be openly seen and understood by all? Protests could then still be aired and logged for the record, if nothing else, lol. Much like a court-of-law?

 

Also, the initial reports or complaints wouldn't have to be included - just any moderator debate about it would. However, there could be a "reported" counter button on each post that displays the number of times it HAS been reported.

 

(And if the mods themselves desired some privacy to protect themselves from any blowback, they could adopt separate Mod IDs. The more important thing here would be for the actual judicial interpretation and decision-making to be fully-exposed and open for public debate and democratic "townhall" input.)

 

So, this would become more like a traditional top-down hierarchy...with a slight Wiki twist.

 

And no, this still wouldn't guarantee 100% fairness, but nothing can - as that can be fairly subjective in many cases..

 

 

Well, just my .02! Take it or leave it!

 

This would be an excellent move in the right direction.

 

[scotty2000]

Good idea, Vortex.