General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0

Do you think he's going to stop just because you ask?Do you think that if you disrupt the thread enough, the admin attention is going to fall on him, not you?Nobody's saying that you don't get to have strong feelings; do you honestly think that you're expressing them in a way that's going to accomplish anything?If you answered "yes" to any of the above questions - what the fuck is wrong with you?

Duh. Bigotry is given a pass when its cloaked in religion. I wouldn't expect the community of admins to be any more immune to that than anybody else.

Which request, specifically? If there's somewhere in this thread where Rrhain was asked to "fucking let fucking it fucking drop", I don't see it.Plus - a request by moderators to cease discussion of moderator action in a thread that exists for the expressed purpose of discussing moderator action must be invalid, on its face. (Which is probably why none of you specifically said "Rrhain, fucking drop it.")You can hardly expect people to follow moderater requests that have not actually been made - unless, as is obviously going on here, moderators are circling the wagons to protect their own.I don't see why that's necessary. Each time you suspend someone for talking about this, you only look more corrupt. It's just an internet forum. Is being right worth all this?

If you complain to administration about something they're doing wrong - like, suspending the wrong people for all the wrong reasons - and they say "ok, you made your point" and then they proceed to do exactly the same thing as they were before, then no, Jar, you haven't made your point.Rrhain is dead-on about the behavior of admins here, and as a result, the ham-fisted Moose descended on precisely the wrong party. He's probably the worst admin I've ever seen at this board. The very few times he can bestir himself to actually take any action, he invariably takes the wrong one. I've never seen a single one of his actions result in the improvement of conversation - rather, he seems to view his sole purpose as to prevent too much talking from going on.It's ridiculous. And then the rest of the moderators uphold his folly, out of the mistaken belief that it's better for the moderators to do the same thing than the right thing. It's juvenile to point out when the wrong action is taken? It's juvenile to point out that one's actions are accomplishing the exact opposite as one's stated goals?Personally I think sycophantic, unquestioning support of whatever authority is nearest is pretty juvenile, but that's just me. And you won't see me begging for moderator action for your juvenile ad-hominems - because, of course, none would ever be forthcoming.

He did move on to other things. He made his point about NJ's ridiculous, offensive comments and he moved on - to poor moderator procedures.Which is, you know, the subject of this thread. And that's your idea of fair, dispassionate moderation? Moose is the worst moderator I've ever seen. Why do you guys cover for him? Mod - who gives a shit if you repeat yourself? Nobody gives a good goddamn how you guys are justifying your actions - because we can all see that you're all doing the wrong thing.Nobody wants to hear more bullshit justifications for it. That's not what we want at all. We want the moderators to start doing the right thing. And to the extent that moderators involved in this discussion are providing bullshit justifications instead of amending their behavior, that means we still haven't made our point - and thus, the discussion must continue. Must be allowed to continue. If moderators insist on doing the same wrong things, then no, our point hasn't been made. If we'd made our point, the moderators would behave differently. No shit, Mod. The question is - should you? Should you defend Moose's ham-fisted fits of pique just because he's a moderator?Is it more important for moderators to do the right thing, or the same thing? That's our point. I don't think it's a complicated or obscure point. When courtesy results in inaction, what is left? If the moderators only feel the need to bestir themselves when tensions rise, are we to be blamed for allowing tensions to rise when we want some action, around here?If you want the moderators to be treated with courtesy, you have to reward courtesy. It's abundantly obvious that you all ignore it, instead.I mean, maybe that's what you want - for people to make only moderator requests that you can safely ignore. If so then who the hell needs you? What possible use are you? Discontinue the topic approval system and you'll have completely obviated yourselves. If this is the level of moderation we can expect in the future from you and others like you, Mod, please do so at once.The community here deserves moderation that preserves and promotes fruitful discussion and defuses tensions. The moderation you're providing - you, Modulous, and you, Percy, and most especially you, Moose - disrupts legitimate discussion, heightens tension, and produces the appearance (and likely the reality) of favoritism and personal vendettas.How on Earth do you justify your behavior when it has those results? Think it through. Keeping the forum from degrading into a flamewar is a good goal. It's what we want you to do.Is that what your actions are doing? Think it through. Do you think that you, Percy, and Moose can ever be cruel enough, capricious enough, and suspend enough people unfairly that people will stop complaining openly about you being cruel, capricious, and unfair?In the history of despotism, has that ever worked? Think it through.

I'm clearly not getting my point across. Allow me to try again. Did it occur to you that Berberry maybe didn't want you to say something you hadn't been saying; he wanted you to do something you hadn't been doing?Does that make sense? The problem here isn't that you haven't hit on the right combination of words that are going to mollify us. The problem here is that you're not taking the actions that you should be taking. Instead you're doing the wrong things.As a suggestion - concentrate less on what you could be saying differently and more on what you could be doing differently. I agree, especially with the part I've bolded. It's been a cause of great puzzlement to me as I've been watching this go on that you, Mod, and Moose so stubbornly refuse to do just that - take a constructive approach. It's like the three of you are taking turns falling all over yourselves to do the precisely wrong thing - and be defended by the other two, in turn.Here's the essential problem with what appears to be your strategy. It's not going to be possible for the three of you to suspend enough people unfairly to convince people to stop complaining about unfair suspensions unless you suspend the entire membership of the forum.A better strategy would be to cease unfair suspensions of people who complain about unfair suspensions - announce that you're doing so. Make the change in policy clear. That will stop those complaints, because there won't be anything to complain about. You'll have brought the vicious circle to an end.I'd say something like "I fully expect to be suspended for this", but like you did with Dan Carrol, I suspect I'd be misinterpreted. People don't say that to indicate that they're about to violate the guidelines. People say that because they know the moderator attention their about to receive is so predictably biased against them that they can forsee the unfair action they're about to take.But let me say this. If any of you are toying with the notion of suspending me for continuing this subject - and remember that this is the suspension of Rrhain we're talking about right now, not Berb's suspension - consider that, if you suspend me someone else will pop up to complain about how unfair that is. It happened when you suspended Berb, it happened when you suspended Dan for complaining about suspending Berb, it happened when you suspended Rrhain for complaining about suspending Dan.I presume the concept of the "vicious circle" doesn't need to be explained.

And are, like you seem to be, blind to the fact that their own actions are exacerbating the problem they're trying to solve.Let me ask you, Taz. Do you think it's possible to unfairly suspend enough people that people will stop complaining about unfair suspensions?When in the whole history of whenever has that ever worked? Short of suspending the entire membership except for themselves, how can their actions lead to their stated goals?

And he's wrong. His actions can't accomplish his stated goals.Since his goals are important for the forum, admin and the other mods need to understand that their actions are working against them.If you care about the forum then the discussion needs to continue. You're worried about the wrong thing. The effects of bad moderation are a thousand times more detrimental to the forum than discussion of bad moderation ever could be.Taz, your actions aren't working towards your stated goals. If you care about the forum then your obligation is to add your voice to the objections - not speak out against them.

No, it doesn't, because from both perspectives, the problem is the same - nobody can get anything done while there's all this complaining.The actions of the moderators are causing the complaining. That's not a matter of perspective. The actions they're taking can't solve the problem that everybody recognizes. I think that the bullshit rationalizations people come up with to justify the actions of local authority are instructive.Taz - you won't be able to kiss enough moderator ass to accomplish whatever it is you're trying to do, here. And agreeing with me that recent actions have been unfair is not going to convince anybody that they need to stop trying to convince the moderators not to be unfair.Surely everyone can see that unfair moderator action is far more destructive to the purpose of the forum than complaining about moderator actions in a single thread. I mean, this is as far as the complaining goes; this one thread.Unfair moderator actions extend to every thread if they're not checked. Sure. And if they'd suspended Nj for directly insulting Berb, instead of letting him continue insulting him in three different threads, that could have been prevented.By the time Berb was supended, he deserved it. But NJ deserved it all along. Oddly enough, asking to be suspended isn't against the rules.But he wasn't asking for it. He was predicting it. He predicted, accurately, that questioning the obviously unfair actions of the moderators would make them act unfairly against him.He was right. None of that is against the rules as far as I can tell. When Dan turned out to be right, Rrhain pointed it out. He was suspended.When I'm suspended for pointing out that Rrhain was right, someone else will step up to complain about it, I'm sure.

Because I'm reading his posts. Try again. If they continue doing the wrong thing, then they clearly didn't understand your point. That which promotes, not hinders, the stated goals of moderation.The problem here, Mod, is that you're continuing to defend wrong actions instead of taking correct ones.Try this. Don't reply to this message. Don't ask yourself what you could say differently. Ask yourself what you could do differently, in the future, and then do that. And then tell me what you're going to do, if you have to tell me anything at all. Pretending that the problem is all over here on our side is definitely not wise - because it's definitely not true. Rrhain did just that and Moose suspended him. That conversation is over, remember? And, yet, despite how many different way you explain it, we don't "understand." Doesn't that indicate that, in fact, it's you that are wrong? Mod, it's not hard. When people are angry and frustrated because you've been doing the wrong thing, what you do is stop doing the wrong thing. It's not a matter of understanding. It's not a matter of you haven't found the right way to say it.It's a matter of the moderators doing the wrong thing. Instead of thinking about saying something differently, think about doing something differently. Nobody's waiting here for you to come up with the perfect bullshit justification for bad actions. We're waiting for you to stop taking actions that are bad.It's really extraordinarily simple, Mod.

1) Suspend Nj when it became clear his comments were intended to bait Berb.
2) Suspend Berb if he still insisted on acting as he did.
3) Don't have suspended Dan.
4) Don't have suspended Rrhain.And for god's sake - just admit that Dan and Rrhain and I have a legitimate complaint here!

You have been shown. If you still don't see it, you're either being willfully ignorant, disingenuous, or you lack the perspicacity necessary for moderation.It's a matter of historic record at this point that NJ's comments merited his suspension, and Berb's legitimate frustration only boiled over into frenzy because of you insisted on being obtuse. If you're still hung up on that point, then you're just not cut out to moderate these kinds of issues.In addition to Moose, who I reiterate is the worst moderator we've ever had here, I recommend that you step down from moderator responsibilities, as you're clearly much more interested in winning debates and defending your "rightness" than in taking the actions necessary to operate the board. EvC can ill afford a moderator as selfish as yourself.

If there was a legitimate refutation to Rrhain's points, I didn't see it.Comparing gay sex to bestiality and rape is baiting. It's ridiculous and unnecessarily inflammatory. There's no supportable argument that it should be an acceptable feature of board discourse. The first time a person does it, I can see being lenient.This was not the first time. Nj knew it was wrong and he did it anyway, to bait Berb. Berb bit. He shouldn't have; but the moderators shouldn't have given him a chance. They didn't. So berb should have been suspended, but Nj should have been, as well.Also - I'm only posting messages on this topic because Mod just asked me to, as administrator. I can hardly be blamed (or suspended, I hope) for disregarding moderator requests at a moderator's request.I've had my own issues with Rrhain, who I know to be unmatched in his capacity for disingenuousness, but in this case, he's been proven abundantly correct.

I'm not a moderator, and I'm certainly not the one being too obtuse to see that a gratuitous and unnecessary comparison between adult homosexuals and rapists is, by definition, offensive the first time and a forum-violating provocation every subsequent time.When so many people are telling you're wrong, Mod, isn't it just slightly possible that you are? Berb saw it, Dan saw it, Rrhain saw it, I see it. Are you honestly saying that you don't? Or are you just being deliberately obtuse to avoid admitting error?Either way I don't see how you can be qualified to moderate this forum. Er, what? If Nj was ever suspended for his conduct, it somehow passed beneath the notice of every single person here. If you issued some kind of punishment it's not immediately clear what is was.Thus, it was insufficient. The only things I've seen you do in this thread are1) Defend NJ's comparison as appropriate, if false, and;
2) Reduce the length of the suspension he received on another matter.His Austin Powers thing, while off-topic, was intended to be humerous and I really didn't see the merit of a suspension. I assumed that Percy was just using that as a face-saving excuse to address his earlier conduct; the one that got us where we are now.Again, you apparently didn't see that. A further instance of obtuseness that, again, leads me to have no confidence in your ability to moderate this forum. You have to do your part about that, though. When moderators are afraid to act lest they lose face, frustration is going to be something you're liable to see a lot more of. I don't recall any particular action that Randman ever took as moderator, except to be banned in a few days. Faith's administration, while she was here, was superb - even-handed and fair. It was clear she took great pains to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.So, yes, when I say that you and Moose are two of the least suitable moderators here, that is indeed meant as a harsh criticism. You're joined by Jar, who at least has the redeeming quality of not being a moderator any more. Yes. Because you were wrong, abundantly so. That you continue to be completely disinterested in coming to terms with that is what makes you so unsuitable for moderator responsibilities. It's not a matter of helping us "understand" your actions - we do understand them. Better than you, because we understand that they were the wrong actions to take.

If they were noted, moderator behavior would change.That it has not is proof that the objections have not been noted; thus, they must apparently be repeated.That's the principle at work, here. Every moderator action in the same incorrect vein results in more complaining - because there's even more to legitimately complain about. If they want to stop the complaining they need to stop taking the actions that cause the complaining.Again, this is not a difficult concept.