Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 155 of 304 (411829)
07-22-2007 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by AdminModulous
07-22-2007 6:08 PM


Re: Thank you
Apologies for the communication problem. That is my fault. I reduced nem's suspension to 1 day for Austin Powers and gave him a further day for the inflammatory offtopic remark regarding rape.
Percy, clearly, gave him 7 days for the rape remarks. (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he doesn't, actually, think saying "Fuck You" to someone and quoting a line from a movie are offenses of the same degree.) You reduced that to one?
That is why I had to act and not remain silent.
You didn't act, though. You just talked.
That you explained why you chose not to act doesn't ameliorate your inaction.
I knew that by stating that I would not suspend nemesis I would be criticized but did not allow the fear of losing credibility in other's eyes prevent me from doing my job.
Oh, my how very courageous of you to take precisely no action at all and then try to convince us how lucky we all are that you did so.
Thank you for your time in expressing interest in keeping EvC running smoothly.
Every day that you and Moose continue to exercise moderator power is a day that no one can be confident in the moderator proceedings here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by AdminModulous, posted 07-22-2007 6:08 PM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by jar, posted 07-22-2007 6:41 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 162 by AdminModulous, posted 07-22-2007 9:00 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 161 of 304 (411849)
07-22-2007 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Admin
07-22-2007 8:24 PM


Re: To to Move On
I encourage members to ensure that these messages conform to the Forum Guidelines.
I encourage moderators to ensure that their actions enforce the Forum guidelines, not their own ideas about what people should and shouldn't say.
Percy I find it disin.... you know ... that you continue to construe this "issue" as a problem confined entirely to the non-moderating membership.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Admin, posted 07-22-2007 8:24 PM Admin has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 163 of 304 (411870)
07-22-2007 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by AdminModulous
07-22-2007 9:00 PM


Re: Thank you
Do you think this in any way moves the discussion forwards, or were you just intending to get some kind of rise out of me?
Is that just a rhetorical question in order to impugn my motives, or did you really want to know? I thought we were supposed to drop the whole thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by AdminModulous, posted 07-22-2007 9:00 PM AdminModulous has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 175 of 304 (411959)
07-23-2007 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Brian
07-23-2007 9:50 AM


Re: One important factor
For whatever reason, and I have my own opinions about this, Percy seems to allow one set of rules for Christians and one set of rules for rest of us.
I actually don't have a big problem with that. They need the help, honestly. The forum exists, in part, to talk about their views. If this were a forum for talking about racism, we'd similarly have to make allowances for racists to say racist stuff, if only to have something to talk about.
What I have a problem with - what, indeed, everyone should have a problem with - is a set of unwritten rules that privilege moderators. Rules like:
1) Moderators can not be criticized.
2) You must do whatever moderators tell you, even if they're wrong.
3) You can be suspended for not doing what a moderator wants even if they haven't told you what they want.
4) You can't make too many good arguments in a thread against someone who's also a moderator, or else they can suspend you.
5) Moderators don't have to read threads or follow discussions before they come to snap judgements over who is in the wrong and who is not.
6) Moderators can ignore civil requests and admonish the frustrated for not being civil.
That stuff is bullshit. It's endemic to power. Moderators should be making every effort to avoid those "hidden" guidelines - not, as they appear to be, cleaving to them religiously.
I'd like to reiterate something Rrhain asked. What is the procedure for problem moderators?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Brian, posted 07-23-2007 9:50 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Admin, posted 07-23-2007 12:53 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 178 of 304 (412029)
07-23-2007 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Admin
07-23-2007 12:53 PM


Re: One important factor
The moderator team does not see anything constructive emerging from this discussion.
I wonder if you've considered whether or not the participant team agrees. Isn't that the problem in a nutshell?
I don't feel the need to open a new thread, and I probably shouldn't have said what I did. But if the moderators still don't understand at this point, they surely never will. I wonder what it is about being a moderator - or, perhaps, the people you choose for that duty - that makes them so blind to what is so obvious to so mny of us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Admin, posted 07-23-2007 12:53 PM Admin has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 196 of 304 (412363)
07-24-2007 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Hyroglyphx
07-24-2007 2:13 PM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
Its unassailable at this point that I was, and always have been, making an argument against moral relativism.
We've been asked to discontinue debating this point. Suffice to say, while that may have been the argument you intended to make, you did so in an offensive manner, and you really should have known better (since you've done it before to the exact same reaction.) At the very least, using trigger language like you did makes people respond to your language instead of your argument, so you should reconsider making such comparisons simply from a practical standpoint of not giving your opponents an excuse to avoid your points.
If I say something like "a nigger leaves a train station going south at 50 mph, and a spic leaves another station 50 miles south, going north at 30 mph, how fast are they going when they drive-by each other?" it doesn't really matter that I'm trying to make a point about algebra, not about race. I've been deliberately offensive and opponents, obviously, are going to ignore my much less interesting point and react to my bigotry. Why should I expect them to do any different?
I invite you to use other comparisons in the future, if only out of self-interest.
Please don't take out your frustrations for me out on him.
I haven't been. My criticisms of his moderation have been squarely about his actions (and inaction), not yours.
I actually thought, this, of all things, was going to be what you most agreed with them on.
You quoted a movie. It was appropos of the "confusion" about exactly what sex Berb is. Heck, we get that wrong here all the time. Not everybody chooses a name like "Fred the Dude" which makes their gender abundantly clear.
I didn't really see the issue specific to quoting movies. It was a little frivolous in a thread about moderation, sure, but it was pretty clear to me that what was going on was that you were going to be suspended for the "comparison" issue, but Percy didn't want to appear to contradict the other moderators, and you gave him the tenuous excuse he was looking for.
Maybe that's just the presumption of shady dealings on my part, but c'mon. You guys are falling all over yourselves to present a unified front, here. Look how you're defending Mod, for instance.
Berberry seems to be flustered by just about anything. He seems to be a very touchy fellow.
Or, alternatively, there exists language that is highly provocative to some people but not to you because it stigmatizes a group you don't belong to. You're probably more puzzled than offended if someone were to call you a "nigger" right to your face. If you were a black person, you might feel a lot differently.
When you're thinking about how your language affects other people - which you should be, if you're writing things to other people - you should be thinking about how it would affect a person not at all like you - not how it affects a white, middle-aged cop living in California. I don't expect that's easy to do, so when you invariably offend someone unintentionally, the proper response is to apologize and rethink your language in the future - not put the whole issue on the person who was offended. That's a juvenile way of avoiding responsibility.
if what trivial thing I've said offends him, he's going to blow a gasket when somebody actually uses some derogatory comments about homosexuals against him.
You were the somebody using derogatory language. That's what we've been trying to get across. That it didn't seem derogatory to you is irrelevant - you're not gay. How the hell would you know what is derogatory to homosexuals?
This discussion is concluded. Please Do Not Respond!
Any response to this post or continuation of this subject will lose access to this forum for roughly 24 Hours.

--AdminPD
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-24-2007 2:13 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 275 of 304 (415854)
08-12-2007 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Michael
08-12-2007 2:47 PM


Re: Adminnemooseus
Kudos to Moose for treating himself as he has treated non-admin members to the board.
Oh, for god's sake.
What he did was Moderation Theatre. The kind of meaningless action that attempts to give the false impression of impartiality. But anybody can be hard on themselves.
It would be better if moderators put their emphasis on acting less schitzo (treating their moderator and regular usernames as two different people, suspending their own regular accounts, etc) and acting more fair and avoiding conflicts of interest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Michael, posted 08-12-2007 2:47 PM Michael has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Michael, posted 08-12-2007 4:39 PM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024