Let's Have a Civil Discussion about Mod Discretion

Solid Snake · 05-28-2012, 03:34 PM

...Wait! Don't close this topic!!! Keep your hands off the Ban button!!! Hear me out!!!!

...We can have civil discussions on NPF, right?

I mean, I can't remotely imagine anything I'm about to type would be construed as threatening or insulting.

So let's establish a few crucial tidbits right off the bat, here.

1: I like all the mods here. All of them. Every single one.

I seriously think this is the only internet community I have ever been a part of, ever in the existence of the internet itself, where I can truthfully say that.

Fenris has been a good friend and I've thoroughly enjoyed our occasional conversations about trombones and ponies. Shiney and I have had our moments, I suppose, but by and large I've enjoyed receiving occasional bursts of rep from him for some of my Discussion content, and I've appreciated his support over the past few years. I may never truly know Synk's gender (just kidding I know he's a guy) but s/he's always been fun with a snarky comment and his/her's delightful ambiguities. Krylo and Fifthfiend (yeah, I know, Fifth's no longer a Mod, but still) probably have two of the top ten best senses of humor I've ever witnessed on the interwebs and that's elevating them to the same level of badassery I'd place the likes of the Nostlagia Critic.

Even the Mods I don't know as well -- McTahr and Satan's Onion come to mind -- seem like decent folk in the few spurts in which we do interact. And even POS -- POS being the Mod I've probably had the rockiest relationship with -- is someone I can now truthfully say that I respect, even though the feeling may not be mutual.

What I'm trying to say here is that this isn't personal. The criticisms I'm about to make are institutional; they're issues I have with the way the 'NPF system' works, for lack of better language, and not issues I have with the wonderful individuals who happen to administer and monitor said 'system.' I have no doubt that there are plenty of genuinely great people who've become politicians in the United States; I also have little doubt that the institutional mechanisms of politics in the U.S. is broken to such an extent that politicians merit criticism despite their benevolent personalities and their lovely families and their good intentions.

I guess I feel the need to make that preliminary statement because even well-phrased and reasonable attempts at constructive criticism of the Mods is often thwarted here in a way that tangibly hurts the community when significant decisions are made.

What I mean can simply be summed as: The more Mods attempt to prematurely stifle criticism, abuse their powers to 'craft' their narrative to an audience and refuse to justify their actions to the community at large, the more criticism of their behavior seems justified, whether the decisions were truly justified or not.

This is not an insult! It's not even a pejorative statement to the effect that "The Mods did X/Y/Z wrong." It's entirely possible the Mods continually make the correct and appropriate decisions; it's entirely possible that if I had access to the Mods-only forums and could witness their internal discussions that I'd ultimately agree that the decision-making process was sound and that appropriate checks and balances were employed to reach authentically accurate conclusions.

To include a specific reference to a recent event that obviously prompted this post; since I wasn't even present at the time it occurred I'm not even going to pretend that I know the 'right' answer as to whether Liz objectively 'deserved' to be permabanned. I'm guessing the Mods had quite a rigorous private discussion over the matter. And elements of that discussion should remain private; I'm not arguing in favor of complete transparency (which would be a mess.)

It is possible that the Mods continually make great judgment calls. It is also inevitable that the Mods will open themselves to far more criticism than their actions may have merited simply by refusing to discuss severe action taken with the community. It looks and smells shady when Mods veil themselves from criticism by shutting down threads. The question that often arises is: What are you so afraid of? If you made correct judgment calls, you shouldn't shy away from scrutiny but instead welcome said criticisms as opportunities to convince your friends that you did, indeed, act appropriately. Furthermore, assuming you even like or respect the individuals who are questioning your judgments, you should feel some sense of obligation to correct their erroneous assumptions. In the end, a willingness to engage is a sign that you're confident in the outcomes you've reached and that you believe your outcome withstands objective scrutiny.

A little transparency and openness in discussing controversial actions doesn't just go a long way towards establishing mutual respect, it also quells the 'worst-case scenario' assumptions that individuals inevitably assume when secrecy is employed. Conspiracy theories often linger because they are not explicitly and definitively rebuffed, and when decisions are made behind closed doors and discussion is curtailed, the inevitable reaction is often to assume malice where no malice existed. That's just fundamental human nature; when confronted with unknowns, we'll fill in the gaps with our paranoia and fears.

Furthermore, in a community such as this, in which so many of us are close personal friends, failing to disclose can lead to only one side of the story being heard -- the side of the story from the aggrieved user who's infuriated with you. And without a contrasting narrative from the Mods, the one narrative that can be heard often inevitably feels more genuine than the one that's essentially banned from the public airwaves. If User X writes long, persuasive paragraphs arguing semantics, and then Mod Z simply says "Nope. None of your business," who's easier to trust? Whose story will feel more credible?

I know the inevitable reaction will be that I'm just sticking up for a friend in Liz, and the truth is...well, that's true! But we've also seen this happen before, and we're going to keep seeing it happen again and again if things don't change. All the drama with Fifthfiend back in the day is another example -- the fact that Liz's banning frankly wasn't handled all that much better than Fifth's demotion is a sign that little has changed.

But, no, I'm not just seeking out 'drama.' If I were, I'd have started this post with colorful insults and things would have disintegrated from there. Instead, I want to say this...

This is why discretion doesn't work.
Empowering even the best of individuals to make decisions as to who 'belongs' and who 'does not' based solely on their own personal discretion invites what in legalese we call 'the Rule of Man' as opposed to the 'Rule of Law.'

The Rule of Man, ideally, is a fundamentally Confucian ideal; it's the notion that a perfect, well-educated, well-informed man with an unyielding moral compass and without biases or prejudices can make unassailable decisions in a manner that's more flexible and more even-handed than laws. Men (and women), after all, can analyze specific cases, take into account all the variables, and rationalize outcomes with a personal flair lacking in the impersonal, rigid, lifeless structure of statutes and precedents.

The Rule of Law, by contrast, begins by asserting that men are inherently fallible; that biases, prejudices, preferences, personal desires, and even institutional privileges all collectively prevent even the most lauded of individuals from consistently achieving equitable results. Because men are inherently fallible, the solution is a system that curtails the power exercised by those in positions of authority through laws; rules that are set in stone, that apply equally to everyone, and that decision-makers must reference in handing out their judgments.

The Rule of Law encompasses several advantages over the Rule of Man:

* By eliminating personal discretion, biases for or against specific individuals play less a role in reaching judgments, as the law demands an objective, across-the-board standard be applied to everyone, including the administrators themselves.

* Because laws are clearly known in advance, everyone benefits from notice of the violations. The principles are well-known. No one can claim ignorance.

* The consequences of breaking specific laws are also set in stone, adding predictability to sentencing and deterring potential offenders from crossing obvious lines of decorum and civility.

* Application of rules also prevents criticism of administrative action, because everyone collectively has greater faith in the cold, inflexible yet unyielding applicability of laws rather than individuals who may be clouded by their conscious or subconscious preferences or desires. The same punishments apply to every individual who violates a rule in the same manner, so the system itself is smoother, less controversial and more efficient.

Applying these specific principles to this forum:

* The existence of complete and unquestioned discretion has often, and will often continue to lead to accusations that decisions were not made objectively but were instead made by actors biased or prejudiced to reach specific outcomes by their personal feelings for or against the individual in question.

* A disproportionate emphasis will be placed on the perceived 'character' of the violator (which, of course, everyone will inevitably have their own subjective opinions on) rather than the actual nature of the present controversial violation.

* The existence of discretion effectively immunizes Moderators outright. Because Moderators are all particularly close to each other (given their shared identity, their special secret forum, their mere 'us vs. them' identification of themselves as Moderators and not 'users,' etc.) and because Moderators have the ability to privately explain the reasoning for poor judgment calls, it's very rare that even the most egregious objective violation of decorum will result in a severe punishment, unless (as in Fifth's case) the rest of the Mod team personally dislikes that Moderator for subjective reasons. A Moderator can essentially run roughshod and so long as he or she is well-liked the same behavior that would not be tolerated in anyone else will be tolerated.

* Because the application of the guidelines are not predictable or known in advance, none of us know whether a particular controversial statement or sentiment will lead us to be permabanned, temp-banned, warned, or even if Moderators will actually agree with us when we go on our angry rants. The best way I can put this is through personal example: I've said some terrible things in this forum and 'gotten away with them' because I was sufficiently well-liked to avoid outright bans. I've also seen people say things considerably more tame and still receive punishments I've never experienced because they weren't well liked.

* Given the above, there's no disincentive to deter me personally to not go over-the-top with certain rants because I've gotten away with them before.
And I'm pretty sure this has happened quite often, where violators have been surprised that specific angry rants might lead to bannings while others don't. Take Liz, for example. Liz has indulged in many angry rants and been applauded for behaving in such a manner when Moderators and other users agreed with the object of Liz's malice. Heck, Liz has sometimes gone after other users here (and so have I, for that matter) with a vengeful fury, but generally speaking if the Mods generally happen to agree with Liz's points, the content of the rant stands.
This simply encourages Liz to use the same exact language in another thread, but against different targets. Eventually, if the target of that ire is a Mod, the same language readily accepted in another context suddenly becomes ban-worthy.

Let's put this another way. Say RobinStarwing makes an awful post in which he claims racism 'isn't a big deal' and that Liz relies on the race card too much and it's a bad argumentative strategy to do so. Say Liz responds by tearing RobinStarwing a new one, complete with Liz's traditional onslaught of borderline-acceptable insults at the very notion that someone would dare claim that "Racism wasn't a thing." We all have, as a community, applauded Liz for taking similar action before, so long as the victim of the fury is either A: Not a board member here (Dick Cheney, Bill O'Reilly, Mitt Romney, etc.), or B: Someone here we simply don't give the benefit of the doubt to. If Robin goes on chat and is like "Racism ain't no thing, stop pretending it matters" and Liz bashes Robin with a mallet of anger, we applaud. Hell, I've gotten away with saying some silly dismissive things (partly in jest, but also partly sincerely) to Robin in chat that wouldn't fly in most other contexts. But if someone else makes a similar controversial statement and is called out on it with malicious terms, the punishment may be severe.

There's no deterrence value here; without ironclad rules explicitly forbidding certain behavior, and given that exceptions are made often under the purview of discretion, I'll try to 'get away with' what I can, particularly if I assume (perhaps erroneously) that the Mods may agree with the substance of my argument and therefore overlook any ad hominem I slip into when bashing my opponent. There have often been moments when I've reflected before making a controversial post with language and the question I'll be subconsciously asking myself isn't so much "Is this language or behavior against the rules?" but rather, "Have I worded this in such a way to avoid scathing rebuke from Fenris or POS or Shiney because they might agree with the fact that this other guy's acting like a douche?"

Maybe that's a poor way of phrasing it, but the impact is the same: under the Rule of Man, I'm less concerned with preventing objective violations and more concerned with simply staying on the good side of specific fallible individuals who may well enjoy just as many flames, insults, etc. as I would so long as we agree that the victim of said remarks 'deserved' it. In practice, of course, this is inherently unpredictable and it leads to chaotic results. But when we all applaud Liz for calling that horrible politician or that unlikable newcomer a sexist asshole in the most stark terms possible, and then Liz perceives a Moderator's behavior as sexist or defending sexists, the precedent's been established, only the same precedent will lead to a very different outcome.

IDEALLY:
There'd be like, a definitive set of rules regarding decorum that applied to everyone, including the Moderators themselves, with corresponding punishments spelled out in advance, and discretion would be reduced, if not outright eliminated.
Also, there'd be some forum conduit for an ongoing conversation between users and Moderators regarding controversial decisions, and the impact of said decisions would not be swept under a rug.
...But, yeah, that probably won't happen. And the Rule of Law has its own pitfalls, that I've kind of glossed over, but that merit mentioning as reasons that this probably won't happen.
It's hard to hold a 'just for fun' internet forum to the same exacting, exhausting objective standards we might hold ourselves to in real life situations. And sometimes, when it's easy for a Moderator to sniff out a troll, it's just more convenient to allow discretion to eliminate the problem immediately, rather than letting it fester because the same rules must apply to that newcomer troll that would also apply to a beloved regular.

But...

BUT AT THE VERY LEAST, AND IF NOTHING ELSE: Consider having Krylo, in his capacity as the conduit between the Mods and the community, maintain a perma-stickied post in which he updates the community with brief summaries of disciplinary actions taken by the Mods and very brief descriptions as to why the actions were taken. If Krylo doesn't have access to the private forums, consider having other Mod(s) handle it who do. Then, be open to the possibility that you might answer some questions.

If necessary, restrict participation in the thread to those behaving civilly or constructively, and incorporate a time delay so that people aren't too angry or too emotional to assess things impartially when the discussion begins.

These descriptions of actions taken needn't be more than a couple sentences long. But even the slightest accountability and the slightest insight into the decision-making apparatus employed would do a lot to eliminate a feeling of wanton discretion running amok and would do a lot to prevent ill will between the Moderators and the community and large.

TLDR: I like NPF because it's filled with people I love (in the least erotic way possible, I assure you) and because I care deeply about a lot of y'alls. That makes it particularly difficult when these kinds of conflicts emerge between people I like and respect. I genuinely believe that we're all good enough folks to solve these disagreements and discuss these decisions like rational, civil adults.

Like seriously, if there's ever a point where Shiney is like "I really don't trust these users enough to want to listen to anything they might say about this disciplinary action I'm taking?" That's probably a sign that Shiney might just as well blow up the forums with C4 or some shit because we have all failed, all of us, Moderators and Users alike, as a community at large.

If the Moderators actually feel it's preferable to simply disconnect from the Users and run the forums under a veil of secrecy and with little transparency, they've failed to provide us with equitable means of redress and failed to curtail their powers of discretion in any meaningful way that could prevent abuses -- the kinds of abuses that even genuinely decent people will take advantage of on occasion simply because we're all human.
BUT, if we Users can't instill the Moderators which sufficient trust that we're decent enough people to listen to the objective merits of a case and articulate dissent or agreement respectfully, then we've failed as well.

Okay I want to play vidjagames now that was exhausting

(...I look forward to this post existing for all of three nanoseconds before it's closed or deleted in a way that would, perhaps ironically, prove the very content elucidated in the preceding Wall of Text.)

Seil · 05-28-2012, 03:39 PM

tl;snakepost

Solid Snake · 05-28-2012, 03:49 PM

Many years from now, long after I've left NPF behind, I hope my one permanent contribution to these forums is the continued usage of "Snakepost" to imply "a post too long for any reasonable human being to read."

Nikose Tyris · 05-28-2012, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

BUT AT THE VERY LEAST, AND IF NOTHING ELSE: Consider having Krylo, in his capacity as the conduit between the Mods and the community, maintain a perma-stickied post in which he updates the community with brief summaries of disciplinary actions taken by the Mods and very brief descriptions as to why the actions were taken. If Krylo doesn't have access to the private forums, consider having other Mod(s) handle it who do. Then, be open to the possibility that you might answer some questions.

...With the way things have been going lately, every other post in that thread would be NonCon.

Sifright · 05-28-2012, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

[SIZE="3"] SNIP*
(...I look forward to this post existing for all of three nanoseconds before it's closed or deleted in a way that would, perhaps ironically, prove the very content elucidated in the preceding Wall of Text.)

I read through your entire post. just going to say finishing on that note is incredibly petty given the rest of the content. "Edit: What I mean is it seems like trying to goad them into proving you 'right" The mods on NPF have always struck me as pretty damn reasonable as long you actually give them a chance and calm the hell down.

The actions taken were not done so in a vacuum. obviously I can't speak for fenris but the fact this was made a permaban has nothing to do with the severity of this particular incidence and everything to do with the fact that these kind of incidents continue to occur.

Solid Snake · 05-28-2012, 03:57 PM

It's not petty, it's just a historical acknowledgment of the precedent of what inevitably happens to these threads every time they're made.

EDIT: I think it was a remarkably calm post, really. If you read my post (and, don't worry, I'm not blaming you for most likely skimming parts of it), I'm not even trying to suggest the Mods were objectively wrong in any decision they've made, because I wasn't around when shit went down and the extent of what I do know is a biased narrative disseminated via IM from a single angry participant.

pochercoaster · 05-28-2012, 04:00 PM

Mods shouldn't feel the need to delete their own posts responding to someone right before they get banned, nor delete the thread which prompted them to ban someone. There are exceptions to this, of course (for example someone making stalker-ish posts) but in general there's no need for this. Ultimately it is the mod team's decision to ban someone and no amount of whining from the boards will magically reverse that. So they shouldn't feel threatened by their own posts or someone else's thread questioning their moderating ability. They should be able to ban someone without feeling like the aforementioned posts incriminate them. If they DON'T incriminate them then there's even less of a reason to delete them.

Like Snake, I'm not saying Liz's ban was undeserved. I just think it was handled very poorly. A mod deleting their own posts looks bad. I'm sure Fen's posts in response to Liz yesterday were fine, but since he deleted them NPF has no way of knowing that. I have not known any other mods to do that (I have a poor memory so feel free to correct me) and I don't think it reflects well on the moderation team.

Sifright · 05-28-2012, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocheros

Mods shouldn't feel the need to delete their own posts responding to someone right before they get banned, nor delete the thread which prompted them to ban someone. There are exceptions to this, of course (for example someone making stalker-ish posts) but in general there's no need for this. Ultimately it is the mod team's decision to ban someone and no amount of whining from the boards will magically reverse that. So they shouldn't feel threatened by their own posts or someone else's thread questioning their moderating ability. They should be able to ban someone without feeling like the aforementioned posts incriminate them. If they DON'T incriminate them then there's even less of a reason to delete them.

Like Snake, I'm not saying Liz's ban was undeserved. I just think it was handled very poorly. A mod deleting their own posts looks bad. I'm sure Fen's posts in response to Liz yesterday were fine, but since he deleted them NPF has no way of knowing that. I have not known any other mods to do that (I have a poor memory so feel free to correct me) and I don't think it reflects well on the moderation team.

Whoa whoa hold up poch, Fenris didn't delete any of his own posts.

This was like a dual thing because it happened on Chat and during that thread going on at the same time.

He did delete one of Liz posts

Karrrrrrrrrrrresche · 05-28-2012, 04:03 PM

That post was the thread Liz had made after ban dodging, right?

Betty Elms · 05-28-2012, 04:05 PM

I think they need to apply more consistent discretion re: suits and motor scooters. A mod with poor taste in such aesthetics is no mod at all.

Additionally, uninhibited consumption of amphetamines and tendencies toward frankly excessive dancing can easily lend itself to the degradation of britain's moral character. While a few stimmies are undoubtedly necessary for getting properly focused and ready to show off your moves at the marquee, some discretion is necessary.

05-28-2012, 03:34 PM	#1
Solid Snake Erotic Esquire Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 5,563	Let's Have a Civil Discussion about Mod Discretion ...Wait! Don't close this topic!!! Keep your hands off the Ban button!!! *Hear me out!!!!* ...We can have civil discussions on NPF, right? I mean, I can't remotely imagine anything I'm about to type would be construed as threatening or insulting. So let's establish a few crucial tidbits right off the bat, here. *1: I like all* the mods here.** All of them. Every single one. I seriously think this is the only internet community I have ever been a part of, ever in the existence of the internet itself, where I can truthfully say that. Fenris has been a good friend and I've thoroughly enjoyed our occasional conversations about trombones and ponies. Shiney and I have had our moments, I suppose, but by and large I've enjoyed receiving occasional bursts of rep from him for some of my Discussion content, and I've appreciated his support over the past few years. I may never truly know Synk's gender (just kidding I know he's a guy) but s/he's always been fun with a snarky comment and his/her's delightful ambiguities. Krylo and Fifthfiend (yeah, I know, Fifth's no longer a Mod, but still) probably have two of the top ten best senses of humor I've ever witnessed on the interwebs and that's elevating them to the same level of badassery I'd place the likes of the Nostlagia Critic. Even the Mods I don't know as well -- McTahr and Satan's Onion come to mind -- seem like decent folk in the few spurts in which we do interact. And even POS -- POS being the Mod I've probably had the rockiest relationship with -- is someone I can now truthfully say that I respect, even though the feeling may not be mutual. What I'm trying to say here is that this isn't personal. The criticisms I'm about to make are *institutional;* they're issues I have with the way the 'NPF system' works, for lack of better language, and not issues I have with the wonderful individuals who happen to administer and monitor said 'system.' I have no doubt that there are plenty of genuinely great people who've become politicians in the United States; I also have little doubt that the institutional mechanisms of politics in the U.S. is broken to such an extent that politicians merit criticism despite their benevolent personalities and their lovely families and their good intentions. I guess I feel the need to make that preliminary statement because even well-phrased and reasonable attempts at constructive criticism of the Mods is often thwarted here in a way that tangibly hurts the community when significant decisions are made. What I mean can simply be summed as: The more Mods attempt to prematurely stifle criticism, abuse their powers to 'craft' their narrative to an audience and refuse to justify their actions to the community at large, the more criticism of their behavior seems justified, whether the decisions were truly justified or not. This is not an insult! It's not even a pejorative statement to the effect that "The Mods did X/Y/Z wrong." It's entirely possible the Mods continually make the correct and appropriate decisions; it's entirely possible that if I had access to the Mods-only forums and could witness their internal discussions that I'd ultimately agree that the decision-making process was sound and that appropriate checks and balances were employed to reach authentically accurate conclusions. To include a specific reference to a recent event that obviously prompted this post; since I wasn't even present at the time it occurred I'm not even going to pretend that I know the 'right' answer as to whether Liz objectively 'deserved' to be permabanned. I'm guessing the Mods had quite a rigorous private discussion over the matter. And elements of that discussion should remain private; I'm not arguing in favor of complete transparency (which would be a mess.) It is possible that the Mods continually make great judgment calls. It is also inevitable that the Mods will open themselves to far more criticism than their actions may have merited simply by refusing to discuss severe action taken with the community. It looks and smells shady when Mods veil themselves from criticism by shutting down threads. The question that often arises is: What are you so afraid of? If you made correct judgment calls, you shouldn't shy away from scrutiny but instead welcome said criticisms as opportunities to convince your friends that you did, indeed, act appropriately. Furthermore, assuming you even like or respect the individuals who are questioning your judgments, you should feel some sense of obligation to correct their erroneous assumptions. In the end, a willingness to engage is a sign that you're confident in the outcomes you've reached and that you believe your outcome withstands objective scrutiny. A little transparency and openness in discussing controversial actions doesn't just go a long way towards establishing mutual respect, it also quells the 'worst-case scenario' assumptions that individuals inevitably assume when secrecy is employed. Conspiracy theories often linger because they are not explicitly and definitively rebuffed, and when decisions are made behind closed doors and discussion is curtailed, the inevitable reaction is often to assume malice where no malice existed. That's just fundamental human nature; when confronted with unknowns, we'll fill in the gaps with our paranoia and fears. Furthermore, in a community such as this, in which so many of us are close personal friends, failing to disclose can lead to only one side of the story being heard -- the side of the story from the aggrieved user who's infuriated with you. And without a contrasting narrative from the Mods, the one narrative that *can* be heard often inevitably feels more genuine than the one that's essentially banned from the public airwaves. If User X writes long, persuasive paragraphs arguing semantics, and then Mod Z simply says "Nope. None of your business," who's easier to trust? Whose story will feel more credible? I know the inevitable reaction will be that I'm just sticking up for a friend in Liz, and the truth is...well, that's true! But we've also seen this happen before, and we're going to keep seeing it happen again and again if things don't change. All the drama with Fifthfiend back in the day is another example -- the fact that Liz's banning frankly wasn't handled all that much better than Fifth's demotion is a sign that little has changed. But, no, I'm not just seeking out 'drama.' If I were, I'd have started this post with colorful insults and things would have disintegrated from there. Instead, I want to say this... This is why discretion doesn't work. Empowering even the best of individuals to make decisions as to who 'belongs' and who 'does not' based solely on their own personal discretion invites what in legalese we call 'the Rule of Man' as opposed to the 'Rule of Law.' The Rule of Man, ideally, is a fundamentally Confucian ideal; it's the notion that a perfect, well-educated, well-informed man with an unyielding moral compass and without biases or prejudices can make unassailable decisions in a manner that's more flexible and more even-handed than laws. Men (and women), after all, can analyze specific cases, take into account all the variables, and rationalize outcomes with a personal flair lacking in the impersonal, rigid, lifeless structure of statutes and precedents. The Rule of Law, by contrast, begins by asserting that men are inherently fallible; that biases, prejudices, preferences, personal desires, and even institutional privileges all collectively prevent even the most lauded of individuals from consistently achieving equitable results. Because men are inherently fallible, the solution is a system that curtails the power exercised by those in positions of authority through *laws;* rules that are set in stone, that apply equally to everyone, and that decision-makers must reference in handing out their judgments. *The Rule of Law encompasses several advantages over the Rule of Man:* * By eliminating personal discretion, biases for or against specific individuals play less a role in reaching judgments, as the law demands an objective, across-the-board standard be applied to everyone, including the administrators themselves. * Because laws are clearly known in advance, everyone benefits from *notice* of the violations. The principles are well-known. No one can claim ignorance. * The consequences of *breaking* specific laws are also set in stone, adding predictability to sentencing and deterring potential offenders from crossing obvious lines of decorum and civility. * Application of rules also prevents criticism of administrative action, because everyone collectively has greater faith in the cold, inflexible yet unyielding applicability of laws rather than individuals who may be clouded by their conscious or subconscious preferences or desires. The same punishments apply to every individual who violates a rule in the same manner, so the system itself is smoother, less controversial and more efficient. *Applying these specific principles to this forum:* * The existence of complete and unquestioned discretion has often, and will often continue to lead to accusations that decisions were not made objectively but were instead made by actors biased or prejudiced to reach specific outcomes by their personal feelings for or against the individual in question. * A disproportionate emphasis will be placed on the perceived 'character' of the violator (which, of course, everyone will inevitably have their own subjective opinions on) rather than the actual nature of the *present* controversial violation. * The existence of discretion effectively immunizes Moderators outright. Because Moderators are all particularly close to each other (given their shared identity, their special secret forum, their mere 'us vs. them' identification of themselves as Moderators and not 'users,' etc.) and because Moderators have the ability to privately explain the reasoning for poor judgment calls, it's very rare that even the most egregious objective violation of decorum will result in a severe punishment, unless (as in Fifth's case) the rest of the Mod team personally dislikes that Moderator for subjective reasons. A Moderator can essentially run roughshod and so long as he or she is well-liked the same behavior that would not be tolerated in anyone else will be tolerated. * Because the application of the guidelines are *not predictable or known in advance,* none of us know whether a particular controversial statement or sentiment will lead us to be permabanned, temp-banned, warned, or even if Moderators will actually agree with us when we go on our angry rants. The best way I can put this is through personal example: I've said some terrible things in this forum and 'gotten away with them' because I was sufficiently well-liked to avoid outright bans. I've also seen people say things considerably more tame and still receive punishments I've never experienced because they *weren't* well liked. * Given the above, there's no disincentive to deter me personally to *not* go over-the-top with certain rants because I've gotten away with them before. And I'm pretty sure this has happened quite often, where violators have been surprised that specific angry rants might lead to bannings while others don't. Take Liz, for example. Liz has indulged in many angry rants and been applauded for behaving in such a manner when Moderators and other users agreed with the object of Liz's malice. Heck, Liz has sometimes gone after other users here (and so have I, for that matter) with a vengeful fury, but generally speaking if the Mods generally happen to agree with Liz's points, the content of the rant stands. This simply encourages Liz to use the same exact language in another thread, but against different targets. Eventually, if the target of that ire is a Mod, the same language readily accepted in another context suddenly becomes ban-worthy. Let's put this another way. Say RobinStarwing makes an awful post in which he claims racism 'isn't a big deal' and that Liz relies on the race card too much and it's a bad argumentative strategy to do so. Say Liz responds by tearing RobinStarwing a new one, complete with Liz's traditional onslaught of borderline-acceptable insults at the very notion that someone would dare claim that "Racism wasn't a thing." We all have, as a community, applauded Liz for taking similar action before, so long as the victim of the fury is either A: Not a board member here (Dick Cheney, Bill O'Reilly, Mitt Romney, etc.), or B: Someone here we simply don't give the benefit of the doubt to. If Robin goes on chat and is like "Racism ain't no thing, stop pretending it matters" and Liz bashes Robin with a mallet of anger, we applaud. Hell, I've gotten away with saying some silly dismissive things (partly in jest, but also partly sincerely) to Robin in chat that wouldn't fly in most other contexts. But if someone else makes a similar controversial statement and is called out on it with malicious terms, the punishment may be severe. There's no deterrence value here; without ironclad rules explicitly forbidding certain behavior, and given that exceptions are made often under the purview of discretion, I'll try to 'get away with' what I can, particularly if I assume (perhaps erroneously) that the Mods may agree with the substance of my argument and therefore overlook any ad hominem I slip into when bashing my opponent. There have often been moments when I've reflected before making a controversial post with language and the question I'll be subconsciously asking myself isn't so much "Is this language or behavior against the rules?" but rather, "Have I worded this in such a way to avoid scathing rebuke from Fenris or POS or Shiney because they might agree with the fact that this other guy's acting like a douche?" Maybe that's a poor way of phrasing it, but the impact is the same: under the Rule of Man, I'm less concerned with preventing objective violations and more concerned with simply staying on the good side of specific fallible individuals who may well enjoy just as many flames, insults, etc. as I would so long as we agree that the victim of said remarks 'deserved' it. In practice, of course, this is inherently unpredictable and it leads to chaotic results. But when we all applaud Liz for calling that horrible politician or that unlikable newcomer a sexist asshole in the most stark terms possible, and then Liz perceives a Moderator's behavior as sexist or defending sexists, the precedent's been established, only the same precedent will lead to a very different outcome. IDEALLY: There'd be like, a definitive set of rules regarding decorum that applied to everyone, including the Moderators themselves, with corresponding punishments spelled out in advance, and discretion would be reduced, if not outright eliminated. Also, there'd be some forum conduit for an ongoing conversation between users and Moderators regarding controversial decisions, and the impact of said decisions would not be swept under a rug. ...But, yeah, that probably won't happen. And the Rule of Law has its own pitfalls, that I've kind of glossed over, but that merit mentioning as reasons that this probably won't happen. It's hard to hold a 'just for fun' internet forum to the same exacting, exhausting objective standards we might hold ourselves to in real life situations. And sometimes, when it's easy for a Moderator to sniff out a troll, it's just more convenient to allow discretion to eliminate the problem immediately, rather than letting it fester because the same rules must apply to that newcomer troll that would also apply to a beloved regular. But... BUT AT THE VERY LEAST, AND IF NOTHING ELSE: Consider having Krylo, in his capacity as the conduit between the Mods and the community, maintain a perma-stickied post in which he updates the community with *brief summaries* of disciplinary actions taken by the Mods and very brief descriptions as to why the actions were taken. If Krylo doesn't have access to the private forums, consider having other Mod(s) handle it who do. Then, be open to the possibility that you might answer some questions. If necessary, restrict participation in the thread to those behaving civilly or constructively, and incorporate a time delay so that people aren't too angry or too emotional to assess things impartially when the discussion begins. These descriptions of actions taken needn't be more than a couple sentences long. But even the slightest accountability and the slightest insight into the decision-making apparatus employed would do a lot to eliminate a feeling of wanton discretion running amok and would do a lot to prevent ill will between the Moderators and the community and large. TLDR: I like NPF because it's filled with people I love (in the least erotic way possible, I assure you) and because I care deeply about a lot of y'alls. That makes it particularly difficult when these kinds of conflicts emerge between people I like and respect. I genuinely believe that we're all good enough folks to solve these disagreements and discuss these decisions like rational, civil adults. Like seriously, if there's ever a point where Shiney is like "I really don't trust these users enough to want to listen to anything they might say about this disciplinary action I'm taking?" That's probably a sign that Shiney might just as well blow up the forums with C4 or some shit because we have all failed, all of us, Moderators and Users alike, as a community at large. If the Moderators actually feel it's preferable to simply disconnect from the Users and run the forums under a veil of secrecy and with little transparency, they've failed to provide us with equitable means of redress and failed to curtail their powers of discretion in any meaningful way that could prevent abuses -- the kinds of abuses that *even genuinely decent people* will take advantage of on occasion simply because we're all human. BUT, if we Users can't instill the Moderators which sufficient trust that we're decent enough people to listen to the objective merits of a case and articulate dissent or agreement respectfully, then we've failed as well. Okay I want to play vidjagames now that was exhausting (...I look forward to this post existing for all of three nanoseconds before it's closed or deleted in a way that would, perhaps ironically, prove the very content elucidated in the preceding Wall of Text.) __________________ *WARNING:* Snek's all up in this thread. Be prepared to read massive walls of text.

05-28-2012, 03:49 PM	#3
Solid Snake Erotic Esquire Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 5,563	Many years from now, long after I've left NPF behind, I hope my one permanent contribution to these forums is the continued usage of "Snakepost" to imply "a post too long for any reasonable human being to read." __________________ *WARNING:* Snek's all up in this thread. Be prepared to read massive walls of text.

05-28-2012, 03:57 PM	#6
Solid Snake Erotic Esquire Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 5,563	It's not petty, it's just a historical acknowledgment of the precedent of what inevitably happens to these threads every time they're made. EDIT: I think it was a remarkably calm post, really. If you read my post (and, don't worry, I'm not blaming you for most likely skimming parts of it), I'm not even trying to suggest the Mods were objectively wrong in any decision they've made, because I wasn't around when shit went down and the extent of what I do know is a biased narrative disseminated via IM from a single angry participant. __________________ *WARNING:* Snek's all up in this thread. Be prepared to read massive walls of text. Last edited by Solid Snake; 05-28-2012 at 04:01 PM.

05-28-2012, 03:39 PM	#2
Seil Super stressed! Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: British Columbia Posts: 8,081	tl;snakepost

05-28-2012, 04:00 PM	#7
pochercoaster rollerpocher tycoon Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 1,808	Mods shouldn't feel the need to delete their own posts responding to someone right before they get banned, nor delete the thread which prompted them to ban someone. There are exceptions to this, of course (for example someone making stalker-ish posts) but in general there's no need for this. Ultimately it is the mod team's decision to ban someone and no amount of whining from the boards will magically reverse that. So they shouldn't feel threatened by their own posts or someone else's thread questioning their moderating ability. They should be able to ban someone without feeling like the aforementioned posts incriminate them. If they DON'T incriminate them then there's even less of a reason to delete them. Like Snake, I'm not saying Liz's ban was undeserved. I just think it was handled very poorly. A mod deleting their own posts looks bad. I'm sure Fen's posts in response to Liz yesterday were fine, but since he deleted them NPF has no way of knowing that. I have not known any other mods to do that (I have a poor memory so feel free to correct me) and I don't think it reflects well on the moderation team.

05-28-2012, 04:05 PM	#10
Betty Elms a little adventure goes a lawn way Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 207	I think they need to apply more consistent discretion re: suits and motor scooters. A mod with poor taste in such aesthetics is no mod at all. Additionally, uninhibited consumption of amphetamines and tendencies toward frankly excessive dancing can easily lend itself to the degradation of britain's moral character. While a few stimmies are undoubtedly necessary for getting properly focused and ready to show off your moves at the marquee, some discretion is necessary.