welcome to our side of the loop.King Monkey wrote:Who would these powers be? Will you be consulting Mods such as myself or is there an arrangement we aren't all privy to?
i think colin is a good choice though.
Why I should be given Admin status
-
slapdash21
- Futureless
- Posts: 4681
- Joined: 29 Sep 2004 14:50
- Location: Beantown, kidd
The ~powers~ be Mike. The arrangement thus far is that I've asked to be made an admin. I'm in the process of writing some stuff up in the mod forum, check it out.King Monkey wrote:Who would these powers be? Will you be consulting Mods such as myself or is there an arrangement we aren't all privy to?
Colin Kennedy
[email protected]
[email protected]
-
King Monkey
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2745
- Joined: 18 May 2003 04:39
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Ive written a massive amount of stuff in the Mods Forum about what needs to be changed about the rules/admin system, but noone has really replied yet.
Ian Pritchard - http://www.ausfootbag.org
'People, just play Footbag and stop being dickheads!' - Michał Biarda
'People, just play Footbag and stop being dickheads!' - Michał Biarda
Something I've learnt from various committees etc. If you say you want to do something and nobody responds in a timely fashion then assume that's consent. If it's apathy then they won't care if you go ahead and if it's a lack of time to comment then they shouldn't be in a position where their involvement is actually making things worse.
If the suggestions rely on other people to actually do things then send them regular emails asking how their progress is going.
If the suggestions rely on other people to actually do things then send them regular emails asking how their progress is going.
King Monkey wrote:Ive written a massive amount of stuff in the Mods Forum about what needs to be changed about the rules/admin system, but noone has really replied yet.
... which is a direct reflection of the EXACT reason that I started this thread in the first place.
well, nothing gets done, but at least you've got cool heads, right? that's the most important thing!!!
BRICK!
rfa::never give up::
nyfa
rfa::never give up::
nyfa
When you say "nothing gets done" what are you refering to specifically - the fact that Kyle is not banned? Or are there other things that should be done and don't get done? What are they? did you PM a mod about them or did you just start this thread?
I will readily cop that we are not keeping 100% up with our duties and that things get missed - but is it really that hard to PM one of us to let us know something needs moving, or somthing inapproapriate has been posted. But I also get the impression that this sort of inactivity is not what you refer to - your issue seems more that you think we should be extending beyond our duties as they are now (as articualted in the rules). Ie you want to ban Kyle and if you were an admin that would be the crux of your decisive action? So essetnially you're saying that the current rules do not go far enough and/or the mods shouldn't have rules they should just go about making the forums good by their (read your) standard of goodness. Am I wrong? If I am what is the big problem that needs fixing and is being neglected here and that you'll swoop in and fix?
I will readily cop that we are not keeping 100% up with our duties and that things get missed - but is it really that hard to PM one of us to let us know something needs moving, or somthing inapproapriate has been posted. But I also get the impression that this sort of inactivity is not what you refer to - your issue seems more that you think we should be extending beyond our duties as they are now (as articualted in the rules). Ie you want to ban Kyle and if you were an admin that would be the crux of your decisive action? So essetnially you're saying that the current rules do not go far enough and/or the mods shouldn't have rules they should just go about making the forums good by their (read your) standard of goodness. Am I wrong? If I am what is the big problem that needs fixing and is being neglected here and that you'll swoop in and fix?
Who wears short shorts?
Dylan Govender.
Dylan Govender.
I should clarify what I'm asking here because i think I got bit side tracked and misrepresented your attitude towards the rules as stated earlier in the thread *sorry about that* - you claeraly and boldly say you think the rules are good and the spirit of the rules are good. You have also been vocal in suggesting that Kyle should be banned. I have asked users and mods to point out where Kyle has clearly broken the rules in a manner that warrants a ban and have only ever got generalisations and not specific examples. Do you still think Kyle should be banned? If so can you show me why in detail, using specific examples, as a mod would be expected to do?
Who wears short shorts?
Dylan Govender.
Dylan Govender.
I think the real issue is that Matt's suggestion doesn't address the perceived problem at all. If the problem really is inaction and especially not having an admin, how do you expect anybody else to be made one? It's great to take initiative and try to create the change you want to see, but really you need to look for solutions to the things you think of as solutions.
Modified definitely needs an active admin, especially because eventually the code the forum is based on is going to become corrupted and it's going to need to be fixed - this is definitely going to happen, and when it does if there isn't an admin the forum will be unusable.
It seems like most of the forum is apathetic towards the whole thing, or unprepared to comment. Either way I think they've had their opportunity to have a say - this includes the silent mods in the mod forum. I'd suggest now either making a strong effort to contact Mike Hansen and to ensure that Colin gets made the admin or if somebody doesn't like this idea, to put forward a counter suggestion for debate.
Action doesn't happen by asking other people to be active, you need to demand action from them.
Modified definitely needs an active admin, especially because eventually the code the forum is based on is going to become corrupted and it's going to need to be fixed - this is definitely going to happen, and when it does if there isn't an admin the forum will be unusable.
It seems like most of the forum is apathetic towards the whole thing, or unprepared to comment. Either way I think they've had their opportunity to have a say - this includes the silent mods in the mod forum. I'd suggest now either making a strong effort to contact Mike Hansen and to ensure that Colin gets made the admin or if somebody doesn't like this idea, to put forward a counter suggestion for debate.
Action doesn't happen by asking other people to be active, you need to demand action from them.
-
Frank_Sinatra
- Avenging Disco Godfather
- Posts: 1660
- Joined: 09 Jan 2007 12:43
- Location: Chicago, IL
Dyalan, I recognize you have a valid point in not wanting modified to be run based on whatever a mod thinks will be "good" for the forum. But I think you also should recognize the limitations of strictly rule-based moderation. Someone can easily troll the forums for months without technically breaking any rules. Also, a lot of us just don't have the time to go back and search for the various instances where a user (Kyle, or other trolls in the past) have caused disruptions & then try to decide if they've broken the rules.
I'm sorry if this sounds defensive, but I want to explain my possition as clearly as possible. I also don't want anyone to feel like I'm simply sticking to my guns here and am not willing to allow change.
I have no problem with Colin being an admin and have said as much to the other mods. I think Jeremy is right, but I don't think it will change a lot regarding the current responses to trolling made by mods and users on these boards.
I do recognise that the rule based system is limited - but I beleive that even with these limitations it is still bettter than mod discression, where in the end users have little to no clear idea of what they can and can't post and what they can and can't expect of mods. To think than you can have both is delusion - if we have rules but will only stick them when it suits and exceed them when we feel like it we may as well not have them because they become meaningless pretty quickly and eventually somone will be banned unfairly again, and posts will be removed and edited un-necessarily because a mod deems them offensive based on no articulated or clear principle other than some personally held opinion. THis will also occur if we keep the rules as guidelines or principles than add a catch all "oh but by the way mods will exersize discression and exceed the rules to combat trolling, we're not going to actually define when they'll step in but it'll be obvious". I'm not just making this up, its not paranoid fantasy, it has happened in the past and will happen again if we let it.
Surely if a ban is necessary then it shouldn't be somthing you have trawl through the boards to find. Surely a ban is necessary only in clear instances that we can all point to and say - "look, this post is unacceptable and we are not going to tolerate it. Ther ruels are clear, you have been warned and now a ban is necessary"
If we have to trawl through posts and search for it then it doesn't pass the first test in my opinion - ban worthy breaches of forum standards should be clear and undisputable and if one had occured it wouldn't be that hard to find and quote the offending post.
Obviously repeated smaller breaches are a different issue, but even here I'm unconvinced a ban is warranted in Kyle's case and am yet to be proven wrong - if no one has the time to prove me wrong then I'm not going to change my mind - I think the way to improve things would be for mods to be more careful to record activities and warning given to users so that a record of breaches is kept and it would be easy and clear when a problem arises with repeated breaches. Then when the question is asked we can point to the instances and again there will be no dispute that the breaches have occured and the user has been given fair warning. The systems are in place for this happen.
If I remember correctly Jeremy raised an issue in the past regarding poor modding of the discussion section - there was a clear problem and subsequently he didn't find it difficult to give a number of examples. I'm not convinced that its too hard to find the problem and people don't have the time, I'm inclined to think the problem is not so big as people are making out so its hard to find it. I'm not saying everything is fine and significant improvements to the forum can't be made, I'm just saying we need to make them on clearly identifiable problems defined by clear examples rather than general sentiments that the sky is falling and we need to do more.
I have no problem with Colin being an admin and have said as much to the other mods. I think Jeremy is right, but I don't think it will change a lot regarding the current responses to trolling made by mods and users on these boards.
I do recognise that the rule based system is limited - but I beleive that even with these limitations it is still bettter than mod discression, where in the end users have little to no clear idea of what they can and can't post and what they can and can't expect of mods. To think than you can have both is delusion - if we have rules but will only stick them when it suits and exceed them when we feel like it we may as well not have them because they become meaningless pretty quickly and eventually somone will be banned unfairly again, and posts will be removed and edited un-necessarily because a mod deems them offensive based on no articulated or clear principle other than some personally held opinion. THis will also occur if we keep the rules as guidelines or principles than add a catch all "oh but by the way mods will exersize discression and exceed the rules to combat trolling, we're not going to actually define when they'll step in but it'll be obvious". I'm not just making this up, its not paranoid fantasy, it has happened in the past and will happen again if we let it.
Surely if a ban is necessary then it shouldn't be somthing you have trawl through the boards to find. Surely a ban is necessary only in clear instances that we can all point to and say - "look, this post is unacceptable and we are not going to tolerate it. Ther ruels are clear, you have been warned and now a ban is necessary"
If we have to trawl through posts and search for it then it doesn't pass the first test in my opinion - ban worthy breaches of forum standards should be clear and undisputable and if one had occured it wouldn't be that hard to find and quote the offending post.
Obviously repeated smaller breaches are a different issue, but even here I'm unconvinced a ban is warranted in Kyle's case and am yet to be proven wrong - if no one has the time to prove me wrong then I'm not going to change my mind - I think the way to improve things would be for mods to be more careful to record activities and warning given to users so that a record of breaches is kept and it would be easy and clear when a problem arises with repeated breaches. Then when the question is asked we can point to the instances and again there will be no dispute that the breaches have occured and the user has been given fair warning. The systems are in place for this happen.
If I remember correctly Jeremy raised an issue in the past regarding poor modding of the discussion section - there was a clear problem and subsequently he didn't find it difficult to give a number of examples. I'm not convinced that its too hard to find the problem and people don't have the time, I'm inclined to think the problem is not so big as people are making out so its hard to find it. I'm not saying everything is fine and significant improvements to the forum can't be made, I'm just saying we need to make them on clearly identifiable problems defined by clear examples rather than general sentiments that the sky is falling and we need to do more.
Who wears short shorts?
Dylan Govender.
Dylan Govender.
-
Frank_Sinatra
- Avenging Disco Godfather
- Posts: 1660
- Joined: 09 Jan 2007 12:43
- Location: Chicago, IL
Well clearly we disagree. And I think you're being a bit on the unreasonable side. "The sky is falling" is an exaggeration of what those of us who want the mods to be more active in dealing with trolls are saying. And I hate to go around in circles on this, but no, I seriously do not have the time to go back and try to compile a case against Kyle. You'll have to take my word for it. I think that's more the mods job, anyway.
The idea that mod discretion can't coexist with a system of rules is unconvincing. Every system of governance or laws I can think of also specifically creates room for flexibility and discretion.
A mod should absolutely be able to back up their decision to ban someone. But they shouldn't they have to say "oh article 5, subsection 18, violated in post # 26 in the topic such and such on April 9th..." I mean, forgive me if I'm exaggerating, but it does seem like this is how mods approach dealing with problematic users. I think more realistically a mod should be able to say "on these occasions, a & b, the user effectively trolled. After a warning, the user effectively trolled in topics c & d that same evening. We have banned the user for one month."
Can anyone provide an argument for why Kyle isn't a troll? Can anyone provide an argument for why trolls shouldn't be banned?
If people want to talk about defining a troll, if that's the only way to move forward on this, fine. But I'm saying that by its nature trolling can not be exactly defined, so we'll all have to accept some looseness with the definition, which means the mods will have to use their discretion sometimes.
The idea that mod discretion can't coexist with a system of rules is unconvincing. Every system of governance or laws I can think of also specifically creates room for flexibility and discretion.
A mod should absolutely be able to back up their decision to ban someone. But they shouldn't they have to say "oh article 5, subsection 18, violated in post # 26 in the topic such and such on April 9th..." I mean, forgive me if I'm exaggerating, but it does seem like this is how mods approach dealing with problematic users. I think more realistically a mod should be able to say "on these occasions, a & b, the user effectively trolled. After a warning, the user effectively trolled in topics c & d that same evening. We have banned the user for one month."
Can anyone provide an argument for why Kyle isn't a troll? Can anyone provide an argument for why trolls shouldn't be banned?
If people want to talk about defining a troll, if that's the only way to move forward on this, fine. But I'm saying that by its nature trolling can not be exactly defined, so we'll all have to accept some looseness with the definition, which means the mods will have to use their discretion sometimes.
I think kyle's main violation falls under the "repeated offense" category. If you pull out individual posts that he makes, and observe them one at a time, it doesn't really make as strong a case as the case that would be made if you were to look at the flavor of his behavior (sorry, that's the songwriter in me coming out). Look at the consistent response to his behavior. Look at his consistent response to the responses to his behavior. DOWNWARD SPIRAL, EVERY TIME!!!dyalander wrote:I should clarify what I'm asking here because i think I got bit side tracked and misrepresented your attitude towards the rules as stated earlier in the thread *sorry about that* - you claeraly and boldly say you think the rules are good and the spirit of the rules are good. You have also been vocal in suggesting that Kyle should be banned. I have asked users and mods to point out where Kyle has clearly broken the rules in a manner that warrants a ban and have only ever got generalisations and not specific examples. Do you still think Kyle should be banned? If so can you show me why in detail, using specific examples, as a mod would be expected to do?
He makes inflammatory comments that are not huge violations in themselves, but they consistently attract more negative attention from other forum users, and have recently caused big unpleasant conversation degradations in some thread about BrianBear's video, and in the Vasek and Honza demo thread. Also, check out his posts in the Ban Kyle Permanently thread - totally unproductive, entirely inflammatory and / or mocking in nature. These are just three threads from the past few years. This LEGOMAN bullshit has come up time and again, and if you really need examples, then YOU ARE DISINVOLVED AND OUT OF TOUCH. Maybe I cannot come up with ban-worthy occurrences off the top of my head, but would anyone like to contest that there has indeed been more than three situations in the past few years in which Kyle has been inflammatory and unproductive with his posting?
Your asking of me to provide proof indicates to me that you feel that there is a significant chance that there is lack of proof. Is this correct? Do you feel that there is a significant chance that my assessment of Kyle is based on complete insanity? Can you give another example of me expending this much time and energy to attack and banish another user for no good reason?
Also, he's vocalized to me an understanding of his behavior that matches my own, as well as a desire to continue said behavior and even a sense of righteousness about his behavior; he feels that he's doing everyone a favor by showing them just how immature and silly they are, themselves.
I side with nathan - who can come up for a case that Kyle is not a troll?
dyalan, I don't think allowing mod discretion will create confusion about what can be expected from the mods - users could expect that sensible people have been appointed to make sensible decisions. There must be some trust. I trust the situational judgment of those who are on the mod team right now.
I do not trust their lack of involvement on the forum as of now.
I would much rather have an involved, interested set of administrative assistants who respond to forum outcry and are trusted to make good decisions as they see fit based on the forum needs, than have a disinvolved, disinterested set of administrative assistants who ignore forum outcry (as we have seen in these threads, and apparently, in the mod forum as well, according to Ian) and are trusted to enforce a bureaucratic rule set, IF and WHEN they actually check the site and get around to it.
How it is that Kyle's consistent anti-contribution to modified discussion and content could be seen as anything other than repeated spamming offenses, at least worthy of a temporary ban?
Jeremy,
solution: Appoint some people who care about Modified and don't consider it an unappealing responsibility to be here (as evidenced by lack of participation), and trust them to make good decisions. You've assessed that we don't have an admin, so this is impossible. I disagree with your assessment. Mike can do it. hell, so can Steve Goldberg... I should just take this up with him and have him appoint me (or Colin) as king of modified.
What; did you forget that, in a moment of weakness, I convinced Mike to give him access to the back door key / big red Modified killswitch a few months ago?
(last three sentences are tongue-in-cheek - it is not my intent to circumvent everyone else's decision in such a way)
BRICK!
rfa::never give up::
nyfa
rfa::never give up::
nyfa
Just make Matt the admin so something positive can happen on this forum for once.
Why should the rules be obeyed to the letter? This is not the Rebuplic of Modified, just an Internet forum. No law here. If someone should be banned then they should be banned. No need for a court order to execute a command on your computer.
Why should the rules be obeyed to the letter? This is not the Rebuplic of Modified, just an Internet forum. No law here. If someone should be banned then they should be banned. No need for a court order to execute a command on your computer.
Are you serious? That's hilarious.Jeremy wrote:You know what Nathan. All you do is talk. You don't offer any solutions to the problem. The problem is you talking too much. If you didn't then the rest of us would be able to solve it. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM. Fact.
I'm not admin because if I was admin I would ban Jeremy O'Wheel for being Jeremy O'Wheel. Seriously.
Why Matt Cross shouldn't be given admin status:
1.
2.
3. Anyone starting a thread about how they should be a mod, In my opinion does not deserve to be a mob. Especially when they are nearly demanding it.
I like Matt (unless he is staring at my while stroking his hair). I think he is a good guy and a very knowledgeable player. But someone who is so opinionated at generally a people pleaser would not make decisions that would better the forum, they would better his personal agenda.
Don't take this personally Matt. I still like you and hope this doesn't damage our friendship. But you were asking for it.
1.
If racism is not tolerated on the forum then neither should sexism. I talked to all the shredita's I know about this comment, and all were offended by it.Matt Cross wrote:
Even if I don't want to bed down with a girl at first meeting, once I see her playing footbag, it will, more often than not, make a part of me want to fuck her (take that as you will).
2.
Things like these should be taken care of via PM. I don't know if Matt sent a PM or not as I didn't get involved. But someone who wants to be a mod should not partake in slander and defamation.Matt Cross wrote:DO NOT PURCHASE BAGS FROM CALE MCCOY.
I paid him for a bag in JANUARY and he has not found a way to send it to me, even until now.
He is UNRELIABLE. He has not responded to several requests to get in gear and send me the bag, and he has gone back on at least three promises to send me the bag!
3. Anyone starting a thread about how they should be a mod, In my opinion does not deserve to be a mob. Especially when they are nearly demanding it.
I like Matt (unless he is staring at my while stroking his hair). I think he is a good guy and a very knowledgeable player. But someone who is so opinionated at generally a people pleaser would not make decisions that would better the forum, they would better his personal agenda.
Don't take this personally Matt. I still like you and hope this doesn't damage our friendship. But you were asking for it.
My 1972 penny with a Lincoln misprint on his forehead (2 cents)Matt Cross wrote:Please weigh in with your opinions. Vicious Matt-hate is strongly encouraged.
zach jahner
Meh.
If people are not doing honest business, then they deserve to have their business practices exposed. I see no harm in that comment.
Similarly, attraction is not sexist, no matter how some people may feel about Matt's statement on his change in perspective as he observes people. It may have offended some people, but not everything on the internet is agreeable and respectable. Worded differently most people would agree with the concept of his statement.
Having an admin that is on the site, participates in the forums, and can be responsive doesn't seem like a horrible idea.
If people are not doing honest business, then they deserve to have their business practices exposed. I see no harm in that comment.
Similarly, attraction is not sexist, no matter how some people may feel about Matt's statement on his change in perspective as he observes people. It may have offended some people, but not everything on the internet is agreeable and respectable. Worded differently most people would agree with the concept of his statement.
Having an admin that is on the site, participates in the forums, and can be responsive doesn't seem like a horrible idea.