Moderation discussion

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:37 pm

its my suggestion that people start using caution when making assumptions especiallywhen holding others to standards. it was a lie. it was not the first time it happened. i dont know the motivations for them.

cabana springs has requested, on his own, that his account be terminated. the request has been forewarded.

SED · Post by **SED** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:11 pm

joel the ornery wrote:
spectabillis wrote:just a quick question, but does anyone think moderators should be some sort of automatic community leaders?

i dont.

that does not mean moderators cannot be an important community member just like anyone else, its a valuable trait for a moderator to be well connected within the community. i just dont like the idea of some sorta self-appointed leader that pushes and enforces thier own agenda.
wow

so, why was the "i've been asked to leave" locked up? org policy? and how does that action support the postiion you take above?

wow.

my take on it... the LLC wants happy smiley, less snarky people, unlike me... and it is their playground, if you like to play there, you have to play by the rules.

pretty interesting petri dish experiment the eplaya is...

Interesting theory, Joel. I can't see how it holds up, though, because I'm one of the snarliest, most viscious bastards on this board and I haven't any sense that whatever being kills or breathes life into it gives a shit. Can't see how anyone's tried to suppress you either.

Seems to me folks like CS and his ilk (DVD, f'r'instance), post their dribbles just to create a fuss focused on themselves, ultimately. It's a common trait of the narcissistic twit to make himself out as a victim.

It's as though this were more than just a fucking internet chat room.

Don Muerto · Post by **Don Muerto** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:29 pm

SED wrote:Seems to me folks...post their dribbles just to create a fuss focused on themselves, ultimately. It's a common trait of the narcissistic twit to make himself out as a victim.

Kinetic IV · Post by **Kinetic IV** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:30 pm

It's always been a bit more than just "another fucking internet chat room". The dynamics here are unlike anything I've seen elsewhere. Even on my own private board, Tribe, and even the personally loathed 3playa.

I'm also sitting here thinking "this too shall pass". People have been dusted up before with spats on here, we've survived Joseph Dunphy, Will Small Penis Roger, and the Stop BM idiots. This board gets stronger after controversy it seems. I'm just hopeful that the fears of many that were raised about having moderators with power complexes does not become reality. One more quote really seems appropriate here: Everything in moderation, including moderation!

And I'm still trying to think of a good answer to Anti M's question.

Don Muerto · Post by **Don Muerto** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:34 pm

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:06 am

SED wrote:Seems to me folks like CS and his ilk (DVD, f'r'instance), post their dribbles just to create a fuss focused on themselves, ultimately. It's a common trait of the narcissistic twit to make himself out as a victim.

not convinced yet about the rest, but trying to make themselves out to be a victim is right. sometimes people reply as touchy when approached and that i understand, they temporarily get upset and a bit defensive. but its entirely different when repeated, or continues even after time to work things out.

in these cases its been amazing to hear the excuses. its juvenile, but in that creepy sense where the person knows they are an adult.

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:42 am

SED wrote: Interesting theory, Joel. I can't see how it holds up, though, because I'm one of the snarliest, most viscious bastards on this board and I haven't any sense that whatever being kills or breathes life into it gives a shit. Can't see how anyone's tried to suppress you either.

no, you don't see evidence of cendsorship because i didn't post the PM from the moderator expressing a concern about my snarkiness towards a specific eplayan.

and i'm not going to discuss any of the specifics.

i'll go about my business as advised, and watch how the "drama" plays out.

i'll probably be a little less snarky, just to calm the waters... and i am okay with that.

if i don't like it, i'll either leave or they will ban me from the board...or both.

as i think i said at burning man...

there is no Uniform Code of Military Justice involved, no general officer and no one is shooting at me.... life is good.

Ron · Post by **Ron** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:03 am

SED wrote:....
Interesting theory, Joel. I can't see how it holds up, though, because I'm one of the snarliest, most viscious bastards on this board and I haven't any sense that whatever being kills or breathes life into it gives a shit. .....

Substitute, "...moderator's subjective impression of the worth of the posts and poster..." for "snarkiness." in Joel's post and you have a predictive observation, seems to me.

And how does a moderator defend themselves from lies? Same way anyone else does, by pointing out the lie. Having a track record of honesty and even handedness doesn't hurt in that defense, of course.

Ron, who's gonna have to go look for that locked thread now...

Don Muerto · Post by **Don Muerto** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:47 am

Posted back to Moderation Discussion from HERE as this is the more appropriate venue for my response.

Ron wrote:...Seems to me that no matter how you look at it enough long time board members are smoking to suggest there may very well be a fire, somewhere in the brush. Specifically that the role of moderation may be demonstrating the law of unintended consequences around here. Let's see, Sensi, CB, and Joel have all been around a long time. They all are posting messages that suggest the same concern. That's some pretty convincing smoke, from my limited perspective.

While I agree with your assessment of the situation at hand. I also think it is prudent to point out that many here, including some of the abbreviations in your post, display a shocking lack of self-control when it comes to moderating themselves.

There is a fairly pronounced change in moderator behavior around here as of late, -you noted as much in your post. Perhaps that too is a type of smoke whose presence would indicate a fire worth uncovering.

It seems far less likely to me that the French Pox has finally caught up with SB, than it is he is reaching the end of his patience with certain behaviors. To view this ahistorically, i.e. "moderators gone wild", seems rather shortsighted and counterproductive to resolution.

From my perspective, a lot of eplayans treat the mods around here either as a wet-nurse or abusive cop depending on which side of the moderation action they are on.

When confronted with a meanyhead, many shoot straight to the terrycloth mother rather than find a way to resolve the conflict with the other party. Conversely, when the other party runs to bbs.mommy for protection, then you start hearing all the "overmoderation" grumbling.

What is ignored is that the more you request moderation, the more you subject yourself to it. Truly "the law of unintended consequences" at work.

Police yourself and nobody will have to do it for you. Post in the *spirit* of the rules, and nobody will have to minutely dissect their letter.

Just because someone is a prick, does not mean you *have* to get into a shitfling with them.

(rantiness not directed at you, Ron)

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:55 am

Don Muerto wrote:
Police yourself and nobody will have to do it for you.
Post in the *spirit* of the rules, and nobody will have to minutely dissect their letter.

pretty much my position... i hope the individual that complained about me exercises said restraint as well.

i do appreciate SB's position. i believe i responded in a manner that was productive and not destructive.

Don Muerto wrote:Just because someone is a prick, does not mean you *have* to get into a shitfling with them.

(rantiness not directed at you, Ron)

senor muerto? i dare say i am one of those your rantiness is directed at... thanks for the kind thoughts.

SED · Post by **SED** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:56 am

Well, we can always experiment. I suggest those concerned individuals create an army of socks and have it perform all manner of abusive acts upon one another, just to test the boundaries and plumb the depths of moderator intervention. This way, nobody gets hurt.

Alternately, someone can volunteer to be abused by me, and we'll find out when we've crossed the line. I've been wanting to change my ID anyway, and this might be a good opportunity.

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:01 am

Well put Don.

SED · Post by **SED** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:04 am

Or add some mayo. A perfectly acceptable alternative. Might I suggest dijonaisse?

Don Muerto · Post by **Don Muerto** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:10 am

joel the ornery wrote:senor muerto? i dare say i am one of those your rantiness is directed at... thanks for the kind thoughts.

You would be incorrect in that assumption, Joel.

I think your politics are retarded, and sometimes find you maddeningly obtuse, but overall I think you are much more mature than the average person and much more so than the people who the rantiness includes.

If I thought you were a twit, I wouldn't bother to argue with you.

SED · Post by **SED** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:14 am

On second thought, hold the mayo. Straight dijon, or nothing, excpt maybe some horse radish.

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:25 am

Don Muerto wrote:
joel the ornery wrote:senor muerto? i dare say i am one of those your rantiness is directed at... thanks for the kind thoughts.
You would be incorrect in that assumption, Joel.

I think your politics are retarded, and sometimes find you maddeningly obtuse, but overall I think you are much more mature than the average person and much more so than the people who the rantiness includes.

If I thought you were a twit, I wouldn't bother to argue with you.

wow, senor muerto... the moderators might be knocking on your door.

thanks for the compliments.

i hope all is well with you and yours.

joel

SED · Post by **SED** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:31 am

Joel, if I call you a twit will you still argue with me?

It's challenging because I completely agree with your politics and I think you understand me entirely. Therefore, I might resort to personal insults to find room for disagreement.

SED · Post by **SED** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:32 am

Ask me how this is relevant.

Kinetic IV · Post by **Kinetic IV** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:40 am

Not to be snarky or stir the pot but let's get this thread back to talking about moderators on the eplaya.
Thanks

SED · Post by **SED** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:52 am

Patience, Grasshopper.

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:10 am

SED wrote:Joel, if I call you a twit will you still argue with me?

It's challenging because I completely agree with your politics and I think you understand me entirely. Therefore, I might resort to personal insults to find room for disagreement.

personal insults, no problem.

ya bastard.

Jew Boy · Post by **Jew Boy** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 12:31 pm

[quote="SED"]Ask me how this is relevant.[/quote]

SED, how is this relevant?

SED · Post by **SED** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 12:33 pm

I'd be delighted to explain, you slimy jewish bastard.

How are the mods to discern between authentic provocation and abuse and that which is engaged in consensually by both parties?

Heil Hitler, and fuck your mother.

Jew Boy · Post by **Jew Boy** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 12:34 pm

A conundrum indeed.

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:20 pm

SED wrote:I'd be delighted to explain, you slimy jewish bastard.

How are the mods to discern between authentic provocation and abuse and that which is engaged in consensually by both parties?

in the case that started the whole discussion recently, the accuser hasn't actually posted, to the best i can tell, since he went to the moderators with his accusations.

from where i am sitting, the claims made against me have little or no merit.

from where i am sitting, the accuser's avatar, posts and responses are FAR MORE disturbing than any of the snarky crap i have written.

i dunno, maybe i need to get laid more. yeah, that's the ticket... more sex.

Don Muerto · Post by **Don Muerto** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:45 pm

SED wrote:How are the mods to discern between authentic provocation and abuse and that which is engaged in consensually by both parties?

My question is: Why should the mods be involved in such things at all?

Don't we have user-centric ignore tools? I'll readily admit that I am ignorant of their use, as I prefer to ignore idiots the old fashioned way. Are these tools not a more effective way to prevent yourself from being subject to abuse than appealing for action by a moderator?

SED · Post by **SED** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:55 pm

[quote="Don Muerto"] My question is: Why should the mods be involved in such things at all?
quote]

Hey Jesus, send this motherfucker to Hell!

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:40 pm

been interesting to read the discussion play out without posting, so far don's the only person with much value to add besides a single reply from ron and an initial post from sed. the rest? definately shows who has what motivations or abilities.

Don Muerto wrote:My question is: Why should the mods be involved in such things at all? Don't we have user-centric ignore tools? I'll readily admit that I am ignorant of their use, as I prefer to ignore idiots the old fashioned way. Are these tools not a more effective way to prevent yourself from being subject to abuse than appealing for action by a moderator?

there has been failures of the user base for stepping up to take responsibility for themselves. once the tools were provided, there is an interesting note of irony: the people who where most vocal about getting them installed have still been the most prone to conflicts since.

for the most part moderator interactions have been successful without having to take much action. what you see on the board is an iceberg effect of the numbers, and thats more for appearances than whatever others attribute as "OMFG BIG BROTHER IS OUT TO GET US!"

SED · Post by **SED** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:53 pm

Just so it's out there, I have no problem with the way the threads have been moderated by Spec, AntiM or anyone, really. I'll stick with my proposition that those who find time or cause to complain are just drumming up drama. Admittedly, the board has been kinda dull lately and this latest teapot tempest has given me some inspiration to be even more obnoxious than usual. But nobody's come close to really offending me in a while, and hence my boredom. I take the greatest pleasure in slapping the snot out those who do, and it would bother me if any moderastor felt it his/her responsibility to look after my interests.

But that's not what's been going on, as far as I can tell.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:18 pm

in the case that started the whole discussion recently, the accuser hasn't actually posted, to the best i can tell, since he went to the moderators with his accusations.from where i am sitting, the claims made against me have little or no merit.from where i am sitting, the accuser's avatar, posts and responses are FAR MORE disturbing than any of the snarky crap i have written.i dunno, maybe i need to get laid more. yeah, that's the ticket... more sex.

thiis was the caution i mentioned about making assumptions when holding others to certain standards, i dont appreciate trying to deflect blame on the other person. what you dont see are our interactions with them, but since you know, you can see that after moderator interactions the other person has toned down thier postings and stepped away long enough to let things subside - with the exception of ONE POST. your reaction? not nearly as well, you are the one continuing it even here.

if you dont see anything that can cause problems with your posting history with others, then now a bit more emphasis in on you to try and understand why, rather than expect others be accomodating to it, and those others include moderators.

SED wrote:...Admittedly, the board has been kinda dull lately and this latest teapot tempest has given me some inspiration to be even more obnoxious than usual. ... I take the greatest pleasure in slapping the snot out those who do, and it would bother me if any moderastor felt it his/her responsibility to look after my interests.

i get that, and its nice to have some place where people can have fun doing it. obviously not everyone else has to be the same way so it helps to keep that in mind when doing that with others and defiantely not in each and every topic. for the most part i can usually tell when people are trying to joke with one-another because as moderators i think its important to be connected enough to discern those interpersonal nuances. unfortunately a 100% success rate is impossible.

Moderation discussion

Re: juxtopostion of words and deeds

Re: juxtopostion of words and deeds

Re: juxtopostion of words and deeds

Re: juxtopostion of words and deeds

Re: juxtopostion of words and deeds