Let's Have a Civil Discussion about Mod Discretion

[Meister]

yo I had no input in anything and I don't even know what it's about but I'm thinking on a forum for nerds with active members in the if-at-all lower triple digits maybe moderating ideals don't need to be based on fundamental philosophical concepts of authority and the exercise of power

I mean you're all to some extent friends with each other and the unfortunate nature of the situation is that in a mod/standard member situation sometimes friends will have to tell friends to sit out for a while, and of course no one wants to see their friends argue, but that's gonna happen as long as there are moderators and as long as this forum is pretty small and intimate. No amount of guidelines and rules is going to ever change that.

[Fenris]

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.

This is not a thing that has ever happened as far as I can remember - I deleted the thread that Liz made after she bandodged (because she should not be making any threads after she is banned), and I deleted the post that I made AFTER I banned her because it was over the line, and I realized that.

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.

The post that I deleted was as follows:

Originally Posted by Fenris

I deleted your posts for being off topic, of course you do, , and I'm a hypocrite!

In my opinion, not that inflammatory, but certainly unnecessary, so I removed it from that thread, because it was a post that did not need to be made.

[MuMu]

Promote Liz to Mod.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

We should decide all disputes with drinking contests

[pochercoaster]

Originally Posted by Sifright

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

Right, I remembered the situation incorrectly and so mixed up the chronology of events somewhat.

However, Fenris did delete one of his posts because it was too "troll-y" (his owns words, from chat).

I just want to quote something from from chat here:
"Your job is to troll aggravated users while banning them?"

Cause this is how the situation appears. Like, can't you go on ahead and ban Liz without being a dick about it? Unfortunately I wasn't in chat when this went down so I don't have a completely impartial view of this situation but it's not like this thing is exactly unique behaviour for Fenris.

Edit: Why is it okay for a mod to call someone an idiotic clod repeatedly?

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by pocheros

I just want to quote something from from chat here:
"Your job is to troll aggravated users while banning them?"

Dialogues in chats and IM have cleared up some ambiguities for me and yeah, the one sticking point for me is that a Mod just shouldn't repeatedly type an insult like "idiotic clod" to an aggravated individual who's gettin' banned and expect that to pacify the situation.

I do think there has to be a slightly higher standard for Mods espesically if they're not at risk of being banned for behavior that otherwise wouldn't be tolerated.

The solution isn't like, permanently banning Fenris in some reciprocity deal or something, that'd be ludicrous. But at least Fenris has to be reprimanded for handling the situation poorly.
Because he did handle the situation poorly.
And that's not really a condemnation of Fenris. We're all human. We're all going to make those kinds of mistakes when we're angry. I have before and I will again myself. It's just that, if users are at serious risk of dire repercussions for going off their rockers, there just needs to be some accountability for Mods too, or there's a risk that Mods will abuse their immunity and insult users into digging their own graves.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by pocheros

Edit: Why is it okay for a mod to call someone an idiotic clod repeatedly?

Precedent, mostly.

I feel that it is important to note that I only called Liz an idiotic clod 1) after I had explicitly given her the instruction to cool off or step away from the computer (neither of which she did) and 2) after Liz had started insulting me directly.

So, yeah. Probably not the most professional thing for me to do in the world, but it was not unwarranted.

[Loyal]

Originally Posted by Seil

tl;snakepost

This doesn't even make sense. It's just redundant.

[Amake]

I'm all in favor of the rule of man in a small community like ours. Like there shouldn't even be any need to deal out personal punishments. Let's take this case, what exactly does banning Liz accomplish that's not handled by closing the thread? It's not like she's going to stop getting passionate about oppressed minorities to the point of unreasonableness.

Sometimes we all need to be told "yo, that's over the line, take a step back and reassess your approach to this conversation." I'd like to think most of the regulars here know and respect each other enough that actually saying that is enough, instead of hammering the message in with the arcane powers of mod authority. Though if I'm wrong, yeah, it would be nice with some transparency in the actual logical process that goes into punishing our rulebreakers. Maybe something that could lead to a free and frank exchange of ideas on not only how to make these rules better, but how to better follow them.

Of course I'm working under the assumption that the majority here wants the community to function and aren't interested in finding loopholes in the rules just to fuck it up for everyone. I could be wrong about that.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Amake

It's not like she's going to stop getting passionate about oppressed minorities to the point of unreasonableness.

Man, like, I guess I get what you're saying? ...Maybe?
But for the sake of every oppressed minority suffering under institutional privilege here in these forums I sincerely hope we are passionate about oppressed minorities to the point of unreasonableness.

Like, buried deep within Liz's rage was actually a decent point about the motivations of many of the Draw Mohammed Day participants that, in fact, gave Liz a pretty good reason to be angry.

Ultimately, Liz took out that anger on the wrong people, I guess? Or Liz may have insinuated some of you were racists or defending racism and that was the impression you got and shit went downhill from there?

But yeah, I'll stick with Liz's perspective on the substance -- and even the outrage stemming from that substance -- even if Liz could benefit from better controlling and channeling that outrage towards the individuals truly meriting scorn.
But let's not say that being over-defensive of minorities is a bad thing and have that be the lesson learned.