quote:Do you follow the NFL at all? If so, you might know that the NFL rules are formulated so that referees never have to make judgment calls. A player either violated a rule or he didn't, but his intent is never an issue. Hence, a "roughing the quarterback" call does not depend upon whether it was intentional or not, only on whether it happened or not. Similarly, a face mask violation is strictly a function of whether the face mask was touched (minor penalty, 5 yards and a 1st down) or grasped (major penalty, 15 yards and a 1st down). Intention to rough the quarterback or grab the face mask is never a factor in making the call.
As the Forum Guidelines have evolved over the years we've tried to keep this in mind. As much as possible we want to avoid making forum guideline enforcement a judgment call.
The intent of participants is not supposed to be a factor in their moderation, although I suppose we can expect a certain degree of allowance for mistakes.
And, remember - the erosion of confidence in Dan's motives is nowhere near as damaging to the board as an erosion in confidence in the moderators' motives. Dan Carroll's motives simply don't matter, Mod; only yours do.
You managed to do it within acceptable limits.
I'm well aware. After all, I had learned from Dan's mistake, and so I didn't give you an excuse.
The criticism I was talking about was 'moderators should exercise extreme reticence to take action when they're the target of a rules infraction.'
I think that was implicit in the criticisms I was making. If that didn't come through then I apologize. But there was a singular reticence for moderators to discuss application of moderator philosophy, which limited my ability to put forth general precepts of moderator philosophy. Anyway, who am I to decide - Percy makes the rules, not me.
But you would have interpreted other moderators acting here as circling the wagons - by your own admission...so I fail to see how it could have increased your confidence in the moderators.
Oh, I doubt it would have increased my confidence in the moderators. You wouldn't have increased my confidence in the moderators if you had done everything I had said.
When someone fucks up, there's no way for that to resolve in such a way that your confidence in them can really increase. If the moderator team had made more of an effort to correct their ample mistakes, that would have eroded confidence less, but once they'd fucked up in the first place, increasing confidence wasn't possible in that situation.
But preventing further erosion is important, too. Remember, it's about participants' confidence in the moderation. More is better.
I did my job with regards to NJ. I read a crap load of his posts and didn't see an infraction.
Sure, but you were wrong. I mean I don't know what else you would need at this point - even NJ showed up here to tell you he was gay-baiting, just like Moose and Percy suspected he was. You're objectively in error that there was no infraction - gay-baiting is a "needling", "goading" tactic that is "disrespectful" and therefore against the forum guidelines.
The cop who looks around and strangely never seems to see any crimes isn't "doing his job."
But you interpreted Dan's words as being more than 'advice on banana eating'.
Sure, by indirect inference. That happens all the time and only rarely rises to a level that demands censure. Indeed, a certain amount of it is necessary to keep the debate going!
It wasn't that you were calling EltonianJames "an arrogant, baboon-faced, smelly, sycophantic, drooling mouth-breather"...just that he fit the shoes of one.
Well, look, I wrote the post, Mod, and let me tell you - yes, that's exactly what I was calling him. That was the point! I was trying to skirt the forum guidelines by indirectly calling EJ arrogant, baboon-faced, and the rest. (Yes, some humorous hyperbole was intended.)
That's the whole point of the indirect insult - to make someone feel like they've been insulted, while at the same time leave yourself an "out" where you can claim you've simply been misinterpreted.
I keep saying I wasn't insulted.
Sigh... again, nobody thought you were.
This will go a little quicker if you can keep up, I guess.
I think "Yes -your judgement that I was breaking the forum rules is accurate" should suffice to settle the case as to whether or not a forum rule was broken.
But he didn't, not if you seriously thought he was actually telling you how to eat a banana. That's not against the forum guidelines. Saying "yes, I'm breaking the forum guidelines" isn't against the guidelines either.
Interpreting banana instructions as "disrespect" is oversensitivity, Mod. It's just being prickly. Moderators need to not be prickly. They need to not be oversensitive. They especially need to not be oversensitive while they're accusing others of being oversensitive.
There's no contradiction here. Not actually being insulted makes responding as though Dan insulted you less defensible, not more.
It was my opinion that he wanted to be suspended, yes.
But that's just stupid. Why would anybody want to be suspended? If they want it, how would it be an effective punishment? If Dan wanted it, why did he complain about it?
Of course Dan didn't want to be suspended. Nobody does. If they wanted to stop posting they just wouldn't post anymore. If people wanted to be suspended you could just make a "suspend yourself" button and save yourself a lot of work.
Of course Dan didn't want you to suspend him. He wanted you to suspend NJ. That was the entire point, how could you have missed that?
If they post that, a moderator might be afraid to suspend someone where they might otherwise have done so without hesitation.
Well, that would be a tragedy, now wouldn't it? If moderators were restrained and conservative in the exercise of their power? If they were hesitant and self-reflective before they acted?
Yeah, I can see what a nightmare that would be.
At the time, I didn't realize your posts were stemming from the fact that you were of the position that you would simply believe the worst possible interpretation was true.
How can I know it's not? And when it's that important, why shouldn't I exercise extreme suspicion of moderator actions?
Because it hurts their feelings? Too fuckin' bad. More is at stake than that.
We could let the discussion of moderator procedures thread become the 'flame the moderators thread'.
Or, alternatively, you could stop seeing constructive criticism as "flames." You could stop constructing the problem as "how many people do we have to suspend before people stop complaining about the suspensions?" Even after all this time I can't believe you still think it was the participants who were the problem. Sure, one of them was - NJ! That was the whole point.
You thought one thing was 'the right thing'. The moderators disagreed.
And thus we were at an impasse. The participant team, though, was willing to discuss and weigh alternatives, compromises.
What compromise did the moderator team ever offer? When Percy said that Dan and Berberry weren't "willing to consider alternatives", what specific alternative was he referring to? None of us ever said that "only one outcome was acceptable." All we ever said was that there was one outcome that was not acceptable, but for some reason, that's the exact outcome moderators insisted was the correct and only option.
Why was that?
I was addressing the reasonable criticism you did make - so I'd appreciate it if you responded in kind. You argued that another moderator should have stepped in. I suggested that if they had, and had they agreed with me and suspended Dan - it would not have changed your views on moderator impartiality at all.
No, they would have changed. They would have been eroded less.
Pretty much sums it up. You know what. Whoopee, zippity doo dah. There ain't a damn thing you can do about it.
Yes, you're absolutely right. I don't decide who can and can't be a moderator. I never claimed otherwise and I don't expect any action at all to be taken just because I feel like Modulous can't be a moderator.
I do not think you are a whiny bitch, but that is how you look.
No, I don't, but I think you and AZPAul need to have a good, long look at why the two of you are so compelled to insult me right to my face while I'm obliging Modulous's wish to discuss these events.
Even if it is true, that isn't how it looks.
How could it look like that? Rrhain brought it up. Modulous opened the thread.
I was never suspended. If I was seething with hatred about this issue, why didn't I ever bring it up? Why didn't I open thread after thread railing against Modulous and demanding he step down?
The only two times I've ever talked about this are the thread where it originally occurred, and this thread about those events. How is that a "grudge"? Indeed, I'd forgotten about the issue completely until Rrhain brought it up.
You are causing people to have a negative perception of you.
I've long known I can't control what perception people have of me. Some people, like you, see the orange Road-Frog and just take all leave of their senses. For instance, how else to explain this exchange:
It's not within my power, H, to punish you for your sins. I have no interest in doing so. I'm merely asking now what I asked you more than a year ago - to go forth and sin no more. The opportunity for you to do just that is as wide open as it's ever been.
Your posts really can not be distinguished from those written by a complete and utter asshole.
Once you're determined to interpret my tone in the worst possible light, nothing I say will ever change your mind, because you'll continue to interpret it with that tone in mind. But it's clear to any objective reader that the only two people in this thread with an emotional grudge are you and AZPaul, against me.
Rrhain quoting my words from back then gave me occasion to re-read the thread, and I continue to be struck by how thoughtful, well-reasoned, well-supported, and polite the critics of the administration were, and how petulant, unfair, and capricious the moderator response was
And the truth is, the answer was no - you couldn't be unfair enough, capricious enough, and cruel enough to get people to see your actions as anything but cruel, capricious, and unfair. Funny how that works.
Did being capricious and cruel get people to stop complaining about the cruelty? Did covering for the intemperate and wrong actions of other moderators convince them to stop being intemperate and wrong?
And this just in your first message on this thread.
Right out of the box your participation here has been cutting hyperbole, pointed sarcasm and dripping with personal animosity. I hit you back in the same way, but, no, the frog can't take that.
Then you went on for more than 70+ messages at this point with, not all, but most of them in the same vane. Hyperbole, sarcasm and personal animosity. Pissing, Frog. Pissing on Mod, the board, the community, everything.
You keep saying you hold no grudge. Just your opinion. Nothing personal against Mod.
You're not discussing anything here, Frog. You're crucifying!
It is no longer a matter of being a petulant little child on a three-year old temper tantrum. You have become obsessed with being "right" and Mod and all the rest of the support team being wrong.
Right, I mean, wouldn't want to make it look like you guys were circling the wagons, right?
Re: Without precedent - or well documented history of capriciousness?
And this just in your first message on this thread.
That's correct. Here's yours:
quote:Have you come back to sling shit at Percy for some perceived injury to your ego? Is this some cathartic exercise for your wounded psyche? Have you changed from “Crash Frog” to “Troll Frog” or maybe “Trash Frog”? Does this whole thing still hurt your sensitive ego?
Suck it up, grow a pair, and get on with life, man. You're not 16 anymore.
If you want to come back and play with the rest of us in Percy's Sandbox then welcome back, Crash Frog. But if you're here to be Trash Frog, throw sand and crap at everyone then just pick up your bucket of bullshit and leave.
So the real question is this: Stay and play or trash and troll?
So, yes. I'm the one engaged in a discussion between adults, and you're the one wallowing in your own wounded pique at the thought that people might have the temerity to open a thread to talk about something you're not interested in.
You have become obsessed with being "right" and Mod and all the rest of the support team being wrong.
It's a funny obsession that requires someone else's permission before it can be expressed. Tell me, AZPaul, if I've been so "obsessed" for lo these past years, why is it only now that I've brought it up?
I was never suspended, as you'll recall. I had every opportunity to bring this up at my leisure over the past three years. Heck, I'd even returned to the site in Feburary; why wait till June to exercise this obsession I was apparently nursing? Why did Mod have to open the thread?
I don't predict you'll have any answer, of course; it's obvious that you're here in this thread just to sling garbage at me.